The Green Party. Discuss.

[Animavore]

I like The Green Party wrote their manifesto in the form of a poem.

[JimC]

When I hear the words "manifesto as a poem" I reach for my Luger...

[Svartalf]

What kind of NAge far left fantasies, it's the greens that engage in NewAge fantasies, the far left hasfantasies that date back to Marx and Trotsky...

[PsychoSerenity]

Myself, I would want a green party with a main focus on environmental issues, and less on new age far-left fantasies...

You might not like it but global environmental issues can only be solved with left wing policies. When you genuinely acknowledge that the earth is limited, an economy based on acquisition doesn't make any sense. We can keep fighting over the world until there's nothing left to live on or we can learn to share.

[JimC]

Myself, I would want a green party with a main focus on environmental issues, and less on new age far-left fantasies...

You might not like it but global environmental issues can only be solved with left wing policies. When you genuinely acknowledge that the earth is limited, an economy based on acquisition doesn't make any sense. We can keep fighting over the world until there's nothing left to live on or we can learn to share.

Pure socialism itself has a regrettable tendency to rapidly descend into totalitarian rule. While I agree that the rapacious tendencies of capitalism is a problem for both the environment and the mass of working people, it is one that should be dealt with by having free enterprise under intelligently designed government regulation, and an emphasis on the welfare of both citizens and environment. This is done poorly in many parts of the world, but is pragmatically achievable.

[Alan B]

"Intelligently designed government regulation"? Is that even possible?

When you have most (it would appear) MPs out to line their own pockets and sod the rest. They have to vote on the "Intelligently designed government regulation", after all. If any regulation affects their pockets, then it's goodbye to any 'intelligent regulations'.

All I can think of with the present psychopathically greedy in power is 'Vive la révolution' - but that may be a bit much for some people.

[Hermit]

"Intelligently designed government regulation"? Is that even possible?

When you have most (it would appear) MPs out to line their own pockets and sod the rest. They have to vote on the "Intelligently designed government regulation", after all. If any regulation affects their pockets, then it's goodbye to any 'intelligent regulations'.

All I can think of with the present psychopathically greedy in power is 'Vive la révolution' - but that may be a bit much for some people.

Problem with the revolution is that you get more of the same in short order, only with fewer means to control their excesses. "People Power" sounds good in theory, but in the real world we get one Robespierre after another Lenin after another Mao after another...

It's inevitable as long as revolutions involve war, usually civil war. You can't have decisions flowing from the bottom up in wars. By the time every platoon has passed its decision to participate (or not to participate) in an attack/withdrawal/standing one's ground on to the company commander -> regimental commander -> divisional commander -> corps commander, the army will have been overrun. Decisions will have to come from the top, and once the decision-makers have power, they will not let go of it. It's history 101.

[JimC]

"Intelligently designed government regulation"? Is that even possible?

When you have most (it would appear) MPs out to line their own pockets and sod the rest. They have to vote on the "Intelligently designed government regulation", after all. If any regulation affects their pockets, then it's goodbye to any 'intelligent regulations'.

All I can think of with the present psychopathically greedy in power is 'Vive la révolution' - but that may be a bit much for some people.

I do understand that much of the crop of present politicians are self-serving arseholes, and that my centrist hopes of "Intelligently designed government regulation" might be a little utopian...

However, as Hermit alluded to, revolutionary change almost always involves pain, violence and the rise to power of people who make today's politicians look good in comparison...

[rainbow]

"Intelligently designed government regulation"? Is that even possible?

When you have most (it would appear) MPs out to line their own pockets and sod the rest. They have to vote on the "Intelligently designed government regulation", after all. If any regulation affects their pockets, then it's goodbye to any 'intelligent regulations'.

All I can think of with the present psychopathically greedy in power is 'Vive la révolution' - but that may be a bit much for some people.

Problem with the revolution is that you get more of the same in short order, only with fewer means to control their excesses. "People Power" sounds good in theory, but in the real world we get one Robespierre after another Lenin after another Mao after another...

It's inevitable as long as revolutions involve war, usually civil war. You can't have decisions flowing from the bottom up in wars. By the time every platoon has passed its decision to participate (or not to participate) in an attack/withdrawal/standing one's ground on to the company commander -> regimental commander -> divisional commander -> corps commander, the army will have been overrun. Decisions will have to come from the top, and once the decision-makers have power, they will not let go of it. It's history 101.

[Brian Peacock]

Myself, I would want a green party with a main focus on environmental issues, and less on new age far-left fantasies...

You might not like it but global environmental issues can only be solved with left wing policies. When you genuinely acknowledge that the earth is limited, an economy based on acquisition doesn't make any sense. We can keep fighting over the world until there's nothing left to live on or we can learn to share.

Pure socialism itself has a regrettable tendency to rapidly descend into totalitarian rule. While I agree that the rapacious tendencies of capitalism is a problem for both the environment and the mass of working people, it is one that should be dealt with by having free enterprise under intelligently designed government regulation, and an emphasis on the welfare of both citizens and environment. This is done poorly in many parts of the world, but is pragmatically achievable.

The 'left wing' principle here is the idea that we all have a common interest in, and a shared responsibility for, environmental issues and the well being of the planet. The opposing 'right wing' principle is that we only have a personal interest in, and responsibility for, our own well being. That the 'left wing' principle can serve the 'right wing' principle here is rarely, if ever, acknowledged.

[Alan B]

Problem with the revolution is that you get more of the same in short order, only with fewer means to control their excesses. "People Power" sounds good in theory, but in the real world we get one Robespierre after another Lenin after another Mao after another...

It's inevitable as long as revolutions involve war, usually civil war. You can't have decisions flowing from the bottom up in wars. By the time every platoon has passed its decision to participate (or not to participate) in an attack/withdrawal/standing one's ground on to the company commander -> regimental commander -> divisional commander -> corps commander, the army will have been overrun. Decisions will have to come from the top, and once the decision-makers have power, they will not let go of it. It's history 101.

Oh, I agree. My 'Revolution' suggestion is just a measure of my frustration on why these ignorant self-serving politicians can't see what is, to me, bleeding obvious.