Comment by slopinthebag
21 hours ago
Because the green movement is largely made up of socialists. As such, the Venn diagram of the desired end result for socialists and the green movement is nearly a perfect circle. You will find very few right-leaning or libertarian greens. Almost all of them also believe in Marxism or some derivative of it, or at least some form of left-leaning technocracy. Hopefully you don’t need me to explain the relationship between Marxism and private property. And don’t assume I’m right-leaning per-say, I’m probably socially more left than you are, it’s just that I believe in the sanctimony of the individual (which is where my socially left leaning views stem from). I’m not even necessarily opposed to socialism in theory, just in practice.
To answer your second question, I don’t think it’s accurate to assume auto manufacturers have a financial interest in opposing the end of fossil fuels.
>Because the green movement is largely made up of socialists
Okay, and where are they getting their political clout and funding? I believe in following the money. Where does the money come from?
>I don’t think it’s accurate to assume auto manufacturers have a financial interest in opposing the end of fossil fuels.
Auto manufacturers certainly have a financial interest in private automobile ownership, don't you think?
Sorry, why are their sources of funding relevant? If they’re in power or have influence, it could largely be a grassroots movement and it doesn’t matter?
Financial interest in private automobile ownership sure, but not opposing the end of fossil fuels. I didn’t claim they’re completely aligned, the real world is complex.
>Sorry, why are their sources of funding relevant?
Because money is power, are you new?
You claimed that some unspecified "They" are attempting to force a socialist utopia/dystopia upon us, and that "They" are seeking to end private ownership because socialism. You seem to be unable to articulate who "They" are, from where "They" derive their power, or who is funding "Them".
>If they’re in power or have influence, it could largely be a grassroots movement and it doesn’t matter?
Grassroots movements quite simply do not have power or influence unless either:
1. they're well-funded, in which case see my previous point. Where does that money come from? or
2. they're supported by a significant majority of the public, in which case it makes no sense to refer to "They" in such a way as to insinuate there is a small minority of powerful figures forcing these issues upon an unwitting or unwilling public. If the movement enjoys broad popular support (unlikely!), then there is no conspiracy and you simply have a minority opinion. In that case, deal with it.
2 replies →