Raise the Hammer

So you think the value of the whole Amazon basin is only equal to the amount "eco-tourists" are willing to spend on it? I'm assuming most RTH readers see the immediate stupidity of that statement. But just in case, I'll explain a few things: the Amazon has been around for 55 million years. Humanity (depending on how you define it) has been around for about 500 000 years. Its questionable whether humanity, let alone capitalism (about 500 years old), would have developed in its present form without the Amazon. It plays a huge role in regulating the climate and atmospheric composition of the planet. People in all corners of the world benefit economically from "ecosystem services" of the Amazon. And as far as ecotourism goes, it's not that interesting. The topography is flat and you can see much more biodiversity much easier in Costa Rica (and go surfing afterwards.)

I don't know how your ethical system values whole species. But what about the native people who live there? If they can't come up with the capital to outbid logging companies, I suppose they just get bulldozed. That must be the glorious freedom and liberty that the market provides.

Do you even read the posts you're supposedly critiquing, or do you just skim them?

I've been a far more consistent critic of centralization and political parties than you. I'm writing from the perspective of social anarchism, not marxist-leninism. They are very different perspectives. Educate yourself and stop using a straw man fallacy.

Social anarchism practically invented the concept of decentralization as a social ideal. Kropotkin's "Fields, Factories, and Workshops", written in 1901, was all about decentralization. Have you even read Adam Smith? His ideal is division of labour, not decentralization. If anything, it's a justification for centralization. Aren't many of the brand-name corporations that you like to name very centralized organizations, not to mention top-down and authoritarian in their power structure?

Social anarchism is the ONLY political movement that calls for the complete freedom of ALL PEOPLE to participate directly in ALL the decisions that affect them, as workers and consumers. And one's freedom to participate would not be proportional to the amount of money or capital one possesses, or alienated by the anonymity of the market, or manipulated by huge ad budgets, unlike the system you're so loyal to.

I'll give you one thing: you're great at pulling out economic stats and comparing them. But it's obvious you haven't read very widely outside of economics (and maybe not that widely within economics.) But even that wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for your annoying behaviour. I made it clear I didn't want to debate you. I wanted to have a productive dialogue with Ryan about the philosophy of value, something I might learn something from. But instead you hog all the space, and force them to respond to your repetitive, insipid comments.

Leave people be.