Environmentalism is based on Marxism which is the new Communism!

First of all, the environmental cost can be accountable without the tax system and the government censorship. As long as citizens have a voice to reflect their opinion, they are able to claim for the compensation when their living environment is threatened to be polluted. Therefore, the cost of capitalists is too high to build these highly pollutant electric plants. The problem of pollution by these electric power plants often occurs in non-capitalist countries such as immature LDCs and state socialist countries where free trade is discouraged. We must remember that, in many countries which follow capitalism, there are many citizens protesting against the renewable power plants because they are pollutant. They do not protest because of their short term profit; they protest for their living environment. Capitalism regards highly of not only about the interests of capitalists but also the citizens' liberty and right such as property right, freedom of choice, and free trade. When you recommend introducing more renewable power plants under the name of environmental protection, this certainly kills the great admirable characteristics and quality of capitalism!

---

We must be warned of the fact that Environmentalism is based on Marxism, and therefore Environmentalism is the new form of Communism. The remarkable characteristics is that Environmentalism applies the Surplus-Value theory to environment instead of proletariat. Both environmentalism and communism regard that the engine of capitalism is exploiting the high supply of these exploitable substances. However, these ideologies based on Marxism involves a critical misunderstanding of market mechanism (Capitalism).

Capitalism (that is what they call as the antithesis of their own theory) regards highly of "Property Right" based on the "Equity". When proletariat are exploited enough, their purchasing power goes down, and then the entire market stagnate so that bourgeoisie make a loss as well. Furthermore, proletariat also reject working under an exploiting wage (Decline in the supply, the real wage goes up).

When environments are exploited enough, it eventually causes either the extinction of them (Decline in the supply, the real cost goes up) or protests from the property owners as long as they are capitalist minded. Capitalism actually improved both commoners' freedom of choice and the environmental protection under the property right and the equity law.

Pre-capitalist world was much more exploiting environments because they could forcibly extract the natural resource without any equitable contract. When we learn history, we know that the amount of forests disappeared was really big in Feudalism which cannot compared with capitalism.

In addition, the irony of socialist states (What communists achieved to establish (Communist states have never accomplished yet and will never)) is that, even though they promised to protect proletariat's living standard under the collective planning, they exploited these proletariat more than capitalism does.

I predict that, because Environmentalism is plotting to install the collective economy to control usage of environment, abolition of individual freedom choice and property right under the equity will definitely cause the unintentional environmental destruction like those seen in the former ex-Communists' socialist states.

The political actions based on any hypocritical motivation controlling economy is dangerous. The best way to protect the environment is to let individual property owners (All of us are entitled to have a property any way under Classical-Liberalsm=Capitalism) have a freedom of choice and property rights, and trade each other under the agreeable and equitable value. The free market mechanism based on the law of gravity naturally adjust the distribution and the resource reserve to the optimum level.


-----
* Note about Renewable energy power plants:

The renewables are not only cost inefficient but also very pollutant. The process to build both wind firm and solar panel excretes a very high pollutant. The worst energy source is the window firm. The silent noise wave from it reaches very far away to cause the mental disease of people living within its noise pollution radius. Solar panel requires very high maintenance cost to keep the panel not damaged. Both of these renewables cannot supply the electric supply at a stable pace. Both Wind Firm and Solar Panel also exploit huge land mass, and destroy not only the scenery but also plants and animal living there. As a total, in terms of both the pollution and the efficient and stable electric supply, thermal electric power plants are still rather relatively environmentally friendly.

* Solar Power:
The problem of solar power is that it dramatically goes down when it passes through the atmospheric layer surrounding the earth. So, when it reaches to the earth the power concentration is very low and never enough to improve the efficiency of absorbing the electric power. Therefore, the huge land mass is still required so that the maintenance cost per mirror and the inspection cost per hour are always very expensive. Also, due to this fact, solar power assisted vehicles will not be evolved more than a small scale usage. If we really want to use the solar power as an alternative electric power supplier, we should consider inventing the microwave power plant, which directly transfer the solar power electricity received by the solar panels launched into the orbit from the outer space to inside the atmosphere. This technology is still not yet put into practice, but taken into the consideration. This method at least does not waste the precious resources, land mass, and maintenance cost and time as much as the solar panels on the ground in the atmosphere. Although receiving from the outer space to transfer to the ground as the microwave still involves a risk of missing the target which the microwave reaches at, its efficiency of supply electric power is tremendously higher than receiving the solar power in inside the atmosphere.

* Wind farm:
The noise I mentioned was not the hear-able noise: I mentioned about the silent/ignored noise pollution. You know that the noise has vibration? This silent vibration causes the health disfunction such as mental disease. Speaking of the pollution produced for their construction, well they might be able to minimise the pollutant materials used for building these wind farms, but we never know how many R&D is required for how long. While they are tackling with minimising all these external costs and keep replacing the already tested models with the newest models, a ton of resources, the replacement costs, and the time consumed on the project can be wasted. Before inventing the newest semi-perfect environmentally friendly wind farms, they may run out all the natural resources, causes so many times of replacements and new constructions which create the air and land pollution, and increase the victim of the silent/ignored noise pollution. The wind firm is the least efficient way of electric supply. Just building 1 square kilometre thermal power plant in a remote area is far more efficient and environmentally friendly than building several square kilometres of a bunch of eyesore wind farms.

All in all, at least, I am against the renewable as the "primary" electric supplier. Well, I don't mind as the auxiliary.

Critique of Rawlsian (Kantian) Rational Secularism

The problem of Rawlsian rational secularism is that it has been existing only for a few centuries meanwhile the other big religions I mentioned have been existing for millenniums. So, even though Rawls puts emphasis on the neutrality and the rational logic of his rational secularism, it cannot defeat the wisdom and the emotional and spiritual inspiration of these big traditional religions. Furthermore, his neutrality is questionable because how can we determine what is neutral? Then, we can see that Rawls has failed into the trap of the moral universalists' hypocrisy. Even though Rawls promotes the pluralism, his pluralism only exists under the dominance of his rational secularism, the Godless monotheism. I would rather support his disagreeing Modus-Vivendi state where none determines which religion (including the modern secularism) is the mainstream.

Unlike Rawls, I support the state of Modus Vivendi in which various believes are still confronting each other but having stopped fighting together. In Modus-Vivendi, there are two or a few more big religions are competing each other for the religious dominance. This method creates an oligopoly of religious believes rather than the monopoly by one. Thus, these groups eventually improve their belief system in order to attract more followers to join. This Modus-Vivendi situation also prevents cults which are the small religious groups. As the competition among big religious groups is already intense enough to prevent the new entrant of these cults into the market of religion, then cults will be eventually expelled out.

British Industrialisation and the development of the rest of Europe were successful due to this Modus-Vivendi state which Rawls criticised. The competition among various few big religious groups encouraged the intellectual, mental, and spiritual growth in these areas in Europe from 16th century to 19th century. I highly condemn the rise in the intense modern Western secularism in 20th century which monopolised the belief system in our world. The modern secularism should prevail if it is demanded, but it should not monopolise individuals' belief.

I believe the moral is relative across different time. place, and occasion. So, if the culture code of a civilisation requires secularism to be a secularism, then the public sphere shall be secular. The separation of Church and state is not mandate: this is the choice for a particular civilisation. So, some civilisations at a certain time period adapt (Roman or Anglo) Catholicism, Orthodox, Judaism, or Calvin or Luther Protestant as a mainstream public belief. These religions provide individual citizens with a moderate and civil religious codes.

My admiring Max Stirner, the father of individual anarchism, highly criticised (Modern Western) Secularism as a form of Monotheism. So, he warned on the danger of the modern secularism dictating individuals' belief.



Emancipation from the veil of ignorance is impossible because we human-beings are constantly suffering from ignorance. In addition, we have never known what is an ultimate right choice in our life. So then, the freedom of choice prevails. Freedom of choice gives us the chance to try finding the right way of life depending on the situation given in different time, place, and occasion. Rawlsian way of life is too restrictive to trust individuals' decision.

Rawls also ignores how individuals are motivated to live. We do not live to pursue the ultimate universal truth; We live for our reason to become happy. Regardless of the expected outcomes, we live with our own reason. Rawls is sceptical about reasons because reasons can be biased by our own subjective prejudice. But, we do neither have enough time to research about the ultimate truth nor want anyone to teach what is the absolute necessity we should pursue in our life. The world is constantly changing so that the effort of our ability is too slow to catch up with chasing the absolute truth. Hence, the ignorance always constantly haunting us.

"The owner and management" and "the workers (Human-Capital)" create wealth within a firm: Government is irrelevant!

"The owner and management" + "The workers" + "The exogenous factors" create wealth within a firm.

--

The exogenous factors can be divided into the two categories, the demand effects and the supply effects.

The demand side: The business cycle (Recovery/Boom & Recession/Depression), the fashion, and the geographic advantage of trade.

The supply side: The weather, the efficiency of supply chains, and discovery of the resource.

--

The owner and management is reliable on the final decision making, human resource, the responsibility, and the value of the share (It is determined by not only the company's performance but also the personality of the leaders in it)

The Workers are considered not only as the labour force but also as the human capital. The human capital development is an important factor of production severely affecting the firm's performance. It is not only for the supply side but also the demand side (Consumers' and investors preference due to the quality of the workers' personality, commitment, and good contingency effects to their community) and Thus, the investment to the workers is highly required to increase the revenue.

--

On the other hand, the government action and regulation do not have a big effect on the productivity and the value of the firms' wealth. Taxes can repress the consumers' and producers' activity whereas subsidies can aid their activity. But, these actions hardly divert the trend or the supply line.

Tax: Someone will find a substitute if the demand is elastic to the price change, or still keep consuming if the demand is inelastic to the price change. In a healthy capitalist economy, the suppliers will eventually find out the way to reduce the cost to compensate for the tax imposed as their extra cost on their production.

Subsidy: This does not take an account of the long term sustainability. It may give a temporary rise in both the consumer surplus and the supply efficiency. The supply side become excessively dependent on the public supports (Even the PFI is criticised as the cause of the huge damage on the public finance). The demand side will face the inflation which consequently increase their real cost of their goods&services!

In addition, subsidising to one specific good/service will depreciate the demand of the substitutes, and then depreciate the competition as well.

The inflation occurs because the supply efficiency (E.g. Supply-chain management, Resource management, and the technological improvement) itself is not improved. If the demand is continuously growing, the cost before subsidised will be going up rapidly so that the cost for this subsidies (I.e. taxing from others and/or the debts) incurred will increase exponentially. Furthermore, it causes the excess of usage of goods&services, which induces the inflation. If there is a frustrated demand, then the lack of supply is usually caused by the lack of competition of the suppliers in the market. Until either the supply efficiency or goods&services is improved or another competitor comes into the market to increase the supply, the price should not artificially controlled. Otherwise, the unnatural market condition results in the imbalance of the demand and the supply, which is the cause of the inflation.

Regulation: Unless a business is harmful to one individual and/or a group of individuals and/or something becomes excess, regulation hardly affect either demand or supply of businesses. Of course, regulation is important to enable individuals to gain the knowledge about the potential risk incurred on a particular good/service. Therefore, regulations have a significant effect on their decision making process. Nonetheless, it is very difficult to control the quantity of goods&services demanded and supplied as long as these consumers are willing to purchase and the producers are willing to produce. They always tend to try to find the substitutes and/or find another way to produce and consume which these regulations do not regulate. Financial market is the most intensively regulated one among all the market existing. However, its activities have never stopped expanding further even to cause the excess and the macroeconmic instabilities. All in all, regulations are needed in order to enable individuals to be aware of the potentially involved risk in the businesses, but it hardly stops individuals involving into these businesses as long as they are still willing to participate even after being aware of.

The EU, Still Far-away from the peace

I agree that the ideal of the European Union (EU) fits in with what the Nobel Peace Prize regards highly of. But, unless the EU unifies their fiscal policy by relinquishing the national governmental authorities among these EU countries, it is still too early to give the EU the Nobel Peace Prize.


The aftermath of WW1 caused European citizens to think of the European unification. The alliance countries force all the Central-Power countries to take their immense responsibility their ability cannot afford to bear the responsibility at the end of WW1. This resulted in the rise of ultra-nationalism in the former Central-Power countries in order to forcibly default their immense national debts. Even though some might argue that the main cause of the European integration was the loss of all empires, this fiscal havoc as an aftermath of WW1 was an extremely significant cause of the motivation in the European integration.

Polish still detest their past of being occupied by both Germany and Russia. But, because Germany is neither imperialistic nor oppressive nowadays, Polish started to think they are more co-habitable due to the successful political integration.

Nonetheless, I am still worried about the fiscal fragment and the nationalistic rigid labour market of these EU countries. Unless they start tacking with establishing the collective responsibility among these EU countries, the similar fiscal havoc at the end of WW1 might take place soon... Furthermore, the EU really needs to stimulate deregulation of their national labour market. The labour market has to be flexible as much as at the level of the USA and Asia in order to harmonise their business cycles together.

1+1=1, 1+1=3, and 1+1=2

This problem has been discussed by various ethical philosophers in the Western world from the ancient period to the nowadays. Hobbes explained that the world of words is operated by the totally different function from the world of mathematics and the world of natural science.

In order to make a consistent order, Hobbes claimed, in Leviathan, that we need the legitimate law and order authorised by a legitimate political structure.

Kant said it is our transcendental duty to follow the ethical axiom, as same as following the mathematical axiom, as much as possible (These two groups have to keep repenting themselves).

Aristotle and Ayn Rand were against these two points. The "reality" already explicitly shows 1+1=2, and these two groups in this pic are simply deluded by their unreal illusion. Then, Aristotle and Ayn Rand defied both any autocratic command unlike Hobbes and any abstract principle we cannot see unlike Kant, and so they supported "Laissez-faire (Let us do)", and the right one (The closest to the reality) wins in the nature of reality.

Comparison between English Feudalism and French Feudalism

When I started learning the medieval Western history, I was really surprised that French nobles were disloyal to their king unlike English nobles. English feudalism kept the loyalty of nobles to their monarchy, except the four times (John the land loser (Caused Magna-Carta to be established, and it has become the taboo to name John for English monarchy since his reign), Henry IV (Caused Wars of the Roses), Charles I (Caused the Cromwell revolution) and James II (VII of Scotland, Caused the Glorious Revolution)). By contrast, French monarchy always faced riots, betrayal, and assassination attempts in French feudalism. This characteristics caused Lois XIV to declare his absolute monarchism which extremely centralised French feudalism all the sudden.

The lack of French nobles' loyalty to their monarchy was due to the difference in the feudal property right of their land and the strong explicitly contract between nobles and king by law. In England, all nobles and their lands were entitled to be their king's subjects even though these nobles had a sovereign right to utilise their land and their commoners inhabiting there. This contract agreement has been strictly enforced by the law, which is the basis of British Common Law, since Henry II. Therefore, both the land and the commoners were governed by the dual ownership by both the King and the feudal lords. By contrast, French feudal lords had an ultimate feudal property right which the King was difficult to intervene into. Perhaps, it was because France is a continental country sharing a border with various countries unlike England and the rest of Britain. So, there were various nobles from too many different backgrounds to unify into one.

French claimed that English provoked the 100 years war by English interest. But when we consider the two aspect, it gives us an enough room to argue that English monarchy was hijacked by a French noble faction.

1) The contemporary English monarchy had a strong connection with French nobles (Since Plantagenet dynasty (Henry II, the first Plantagenet obtained Normandy and Anjou by getting married with Eleanor))

2) French monarchy was not strong enough to bind all nobles to obey their monarchy so that the regional conflict between the pro-monarchy side and the anti-monarchy side noble factions frequently took place then.

So, there must be a plot by the Anjou families and their fellow faction member nobles to attempt to conquer the opponents' land inside France by using their relative English monarchy and its factions.

P.S. By the way, I was really annoyed by how Brave Heart (Both the movie and the novel) depicted Philip IV、the French monarchy in Capet dynasty, as a good guy. I really hate Philip IV because he not only forcibly relinquished the Orders of Temple but also liquidated and tortured the Templar members even though the Templar did a tremendously big favour for French monarchy's fiscal administration! Even though he was a good king for majority French because he was strong enough to convince majority of French nobles to loyal to him.