<p>Since we’re talking about politics and stuff, I have a question for the smart people out there.</p>
<p>What solutions are possible for the Europe energy crisis?</p>
<p>And</p>
<p>What, in your opinion, is the most crucial next step, regarding the energy crisis?</p>
<p>@Cloudchamber No, your tone was perfectly fine. I’ve seen many great arguments end up in cursing, especially online. I just wanted both sides to be careful. </p>
<p>@Woandering Understandable. I’ll try to be more careful. </p>
<p>As for the energy crisis… given my anarchist (and perhaps nihilistic) leanings, I must say I feel crises like this one (and the overarching Crimea, Russia vs. Ukraine crisis) are inevitable operating under rigid government and capitalism. That is, the solution to this particular catastrophe is doomed to be ephemeral- followed by similar conflicts in the future- unless we enact substantial structural changes. So, ideally, I would say we should dismantle government gradually, heal capitalistic and tyrannical socialization patterns, irrevocably end wage slavery, and thrive in an anarcho-syndaclist society, uninhibited by the myriad problems rooted in government. But that’s probably not the answer anyone’s looking for. </p>
<p>So, for a more palatable solution, I would say: the EU should take strides to develop responsible, renewable energy sources to irrevocably end dependence on imports and fossil fuels. Begin utilizing more solar energy, wind energy, creating wind turbines, etc, as soon as possible. That will be a relatively long term solution and will also serve as a considerable environmental boon. </p>
<p>In the mean time, of course, EU should work with Russia to find a diplomatic end to the Ukraine crisis. Easier said than done, of course. Which is why I’m such a vehement anarchist. </p>
<p>@Cloudchamber I was looking more for a solution less dramatic, violent, and revolutionary, where European countries would also agree. I’m just trying to find information for my Model UN application. </p>
<p>@Woandering Ha, I know 
I was semi-joking. There are really two issues at play here: EU’s reliance on imports and fossil fuels, and the Ukraine crisis (which has magnified the former and elevated it to crisis level, although not itself the underlying issue). So I would say something about developing renewable energy as a long-term solution, to prevent this from happening again, and really making it a priority- cultivating wind and solar power, etc, look into the science of it if you want- then diplomacy with Russia as an intermediary step to begin ameliorating the Ukraine crisis. </p>
<p>@Cloudchamber I have a question: In this gradual dismantling of government, what would you get rid of first? Things like the social safety net, Federal Reserve, the military, etc.?</p>
<p>Assuming we’re talking USA government here. Well, I would argue that before gradually dismantling the government, we would first have to undergo enough socialistic reform to heal the inequalities of capitalism that would otherwise enable the proliferation of violence and chaos. As I said, tweaking socialization patterns. Then the first major shift would be fiscal: eradicating currency and everything associated, switching the economic focus from production to consumption. </p>
<p>The ultimate goal is self-sufficiency, people living in collaboration. Of course, some people insist that “inherent human greed” will get in the way, but I question that notion. Greed is an intrinsic part of the society, not the individual: the fact that we see greed as innate is a reflection of current flawed capitalistic structures rather than human nature itself. I would argue the same about “evil”- as you can see from prior comment about the death penalty- that it cannot exist without some societal lens and framework. Look up “The banality of evil.” It expands on that point from a somewhat different frame of reference. </p>
<p>Again, if you’re interested, I highly suggest you check out Kropotkin’s oeuvres, which explain the ideology rather eloquently and compellingly. </p>
<p>@Woandering Good luck with Model UN, by the way </p>
<p>@Cloudchamber Have you seen Foundation for Economics Education (FEE)? They do some pretty great (free) summer seminars, and you have ideas they reflect. I attended one; awful for me, because I’m against your and their ideas, but the debates I had were fun.</p>
<p>To your argument, I would first say that I found the debates rather pointless, simply because, at least during my lifetime, nothing like this will happen in first-world countries. Already, many are accusing Obama of socialism (although I don’t think so) and communism, fearing Obama as a threat to the country. </p>
<p>Secondly, an economy without government won’t completely work. Let me say, first, that I’ve read the short story “I, Pencil” (Libertarian ideas) and I do think that could work great for some industries and markets. There are some though, that require regulation by government, and these include water supply, some transportation, and generally anything that requires large infrastructure across the country. This requires some sort of governing body. Private competition would wreak the land if everything were left up to them, and plain human collaboration between everyone in the United States would be too complicated.</p>
<p>Now, you mentioned some ideology tweaking against capitalism before anything radical happens. I agree if you are subtle enough, your entire idea could work. But, I believe there is a very small chance, just because by taking your greed combined with a leader and a group, some sort of governmental structure similar to the first governments would arise. </p>
<p>I would love to hear what more you have to say, and I’m definitely going to find time for book you suggested.</p>
<p>EDIT: I was wrong about you and FEE being the same. FEE supports capitalism without government, while you seem to support something different, but still without government.</p>
<p>@Woandering, Thank you for the suggestion. If I can find time I would certainly love to fit it into my summer schedule. </p>
<p>You are quite right that this is not something feasible in any of our lifetimes (the evolution of government was gradual, so it makes sense that the dismantling of it would be gradual- a sort of “equal and opposite reaction.”) This is very much a long term strategy, a fragile one and an ostensibly idealistic one (as you specified), but- I would argue- an ultimately viable one. And one that would certainly allow us to approximate the ever-elusive “Utopia.” </p>
<p>As for regulation: are you familiar with anarcho-syndalicism?* I see no reason why these industries could not be managed by the workers, by the people themselves in collaboration, rather than some lofty authority figure. Again, I know this is hard to visualize given our contemporary hierarchies, and seems as if it would be hopelessly messy and implausible. But consider an age-old phenomenological fact: everything we perceive as reality is colored by our consciousness, our lens to viewing this reality. The analogue is quite clear- everything we perceive as intractable political, social and economical reality is colored by capitalism and government, our current political, social and economic lenses. With an altered socialization, an active advocation for equality and humanism, I see no reason why having workers rule over themselves would be inherently less efficacious than having a singular, distant individual in complete control… in fact, if things were the other way around, imagine how ludicrous and tyrannical our current situation would seem! And this is to say nothing of the biological, evolutionary and primitive urge for connection that is ingrained in us, that we have yet to fully embrace and utilize under capitalism. Collaboration is a natural human way of being. And anarcho-communism is (however ironically) the purest, truest form of democracy. </p>
<p>I think the essential disagreement we have is not, actually, a political or economic one, but a philosophical one- epitomized by a single sentence: “plain human collaboration between everyone in the United States would be too complicated.” I believe it would be quite doable, given the malleability of human nature and aforementioned other reasons. You do not, and I am sure you could cite many other persuasive arguments. This seemingly minute point is actually quite fundamental, and ultimately prevents us from seeing eye-to-eye. </p>
<p>I’m in a bit of rush so I can briefly get to the last point- yes, altering capitalism “subtly” before enacting more radical change is integral to my political beliefs. This would be quite tricky- the most tentative piece of the overarching plan, I would say, given the temporary need of an authority figure. But of course this would not resemble the absolute power offered to authority figures of communism or fascism, as it would be gradual socialistic reform starting from capitalism. Unfortunately, I have to meet a prof in a few minutes and I don’t really have more time to elaborate. I certainly have much more to say (specifically on this point) and would also love to continue this discussion. I do fear we’re clogging up the thread- perhaps you could message me later and we could keep the dialogue going? </p>
<p>*There are many brilliant minds who have elaborated on the effectiveness of anarcho-syndalicism, who you may want to check out: Proudhon, Pelloutier, Pouget. Including this as a sort of foot-note because I don’t want to overburden you with reading materiel. </p>
<p>@Cloudchamber Sure, I’ll message you. I’d love to keep talking. This is all learning for me :)</p>
<p>@Cloudchamber @Woandering you two should include me on those messages, debating philosophy is always exciting. Though I warn you Cloudchamber you’ll be outnumbered 
</p>
<p>@WilliamSmithers @Cloudchamber We could start another thread. I don’t think we can 3-way message. Not sure about starting a thread not related to colleges either lol.</p>
<p>I’ll create a thread in the College Confidential Cafe section,</p>
<p>On an unrelated note, does anyone here do forensics? And do you guys participate in the NFL or a different league? </p>
<p>@WilliamSmithers Make sure to tag us in a comment.</p>
<p>@Slytherclaw12 I don’t, but I really want to do it.</p>
<p>Not to backtrack too much buy @ErenYeager , im not against welfare. I think its necessary, but I’m against the few people who misuse as an excuse to to work</p>
<p>@Cloudchamber I dont think killing is right, but I feel some people who commit terrible crimes would not benefit from spending their life in prison meaning they would feel no remorse and would do the same thing if given a chance to do over. I dont think its right for hardworking taxpayers to spend their money, which they have to do, its a part of the taxes, to support those people in prison for as many years as they are alive. I domt think its fair or right to do that, and yes, the death penalty is in taxes too, but not having to support criminals, to be specific, those who are mass murderers and rapists and terrorize the streets we walk in every day should not have the right to be supported in prison</p>
<p>@m4xw3ll Rapists are horrible people, but they aren’t all completely bad people. The death penalty is much too final. You’re ending someone’s life. There can be judgement errors, and the death penalty could kill innocent men. Plus, like @Cloudchamber said, statistics show that areas with death penalty actually have more crimes.</p>
<p>Also, as much as I am a fan of the government having a bit of power in the economy, letting the government have power over life and death of a criminal is too much, no matter the crime. Don’t think of our tax money as supporting a criminal, rather we’re keeping ourselves safe. Safe both from the criminals, but also from a government with the ability to bring people in and kill them. </p>
<p>I just realized how much of a conspiracy theorist I sounded like, but it is true that if you give too much power to a government, especially powers over life and death, they can take advantage of it secretly. (I also just want to note that I support the government and its powers to a point. I’m not for no government).</p>
<p>@Woandering @Cloudchamber the death penalty isn’t there to deter crime lol, it’s to save tax dollars. And anyways, you don’t get any punishment for being a bad person, but for doing a bad thing. Not hating tho</p>