Man. Wow, this broaches so many subjects. First of all, he never specifically says he’s addressing America, but he makes some implications. The main thesis of it is that the American economic and political systems propagate environmental destruction, taking advantage of laborers, and the military-industrial complex. A friend of mine said these all are valid points. The way America has been and is going is not self-sustaining or fruitful. The news and entertainment media speak a narrative that limelights trivial or distracting things and ignore substantive things. The Democratic versus Republican dichotomy is a false representation between black and white, when the reality is that politics isn’t even just a spectrum of left and right, but also has upwards and downwards depth. The battle between Republicans and Democrats isn’t between anarchy and tyranny, but between tyranny and tyranny. Both want ultimate control in their own way, and complete suppression of the other ways.
Honestly, the video wants us to all have an agricultural economy, without economic giants, and without technology or chemicals, and without large armies. And I would love to live in the 1700s or 1800s! But even then there were environmental rapes, unwarranted war, labor abuses, and people living in squalor. The only solutions are to have a well-educated people with empathy. (By no means do I advocate free education, and on the contrary I think that if privatized and it weren’t funded by taxes, childhood and higher education would be much cheaper!) I’ve said this to quite a few friends, but the Constitution was designed for a small republic about the size of the original thirteen colonies, and the US is so diverse that it has roughly eleven distinct cultures. The United States needs to be divided, and the people should be able to create their own charters like the Constitution but with their alterations.
The guy makes a lot of great points, but what are his solutions? If it’s socialism then he is wrong because that robs a person of their drive to work. Complete anarchy—which in its truest form is optimistic that everyone can get along without rules and is founded on mutual respect—is really the next thing to consider, as it leads you to ask why we need government. (Anarchy is also a recipe for villages to act clannish and start an arms race, which comes down to who has the biggest stick. Some would argue that’s fine.) IMO, protecting life, liberty, and property are all that it should do. BUT, in a capitalist society, the environment really is at the whims of the entrepreneur, and takes a raping. National parks are a great start in preserving the most unique places in a region, but can a private-business owner do it just as well? It’s an experiment that unfortunately has great risk since our greatest national treasures are at stake. I would like to see it tested. I’m beginning to think that a necessary role of government is to protect the environment, BUT WITH SOUND NON-BIASED SCIENCE.
In a nutshell, this guy wants socialism and environmentalism, but I want to know HOW he wants to achieve it.
Th' Bookaneer 