If they could monopolize the Atmosphere?

I was looking for quotes from a book the other night and came across this from The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell. It was written nearly 100 years ago, but resonates with what we see in the world today.


"Poverty is not caused by men and women getting married; it's not caused by machinery; it's not caused by "over-production"; it's not caused by drink or laziness; and it's not caused by "over-population". It's caused by Private Monopoly. That is the present system. They have monopolized everything that it is possible to monopolize; they have got the whole earth, the minerals in the earth and the streams that water the earth. The only reason they have not monopolized the daylight and the air is that it is not possible to do it. If it were possible to construct huge gasometers and to draw together and compress within them the whole of the atmosphere, it would have been done long ago, and we should have been compelled to work for them in order to get money to buy air to breathe. And if that seemingly impossible thing were accomplished tomorrow, you would see thousands of people dying for want of air - or of the money to buy it - even as now thousands are dying for want of the other necessities of life. You would see people going about gasping for breath, and telling each other that the likes of them could not expect to have air to breathe unless the had the money to pay for it. Most of you here, for instance, would think and say so. Even as you think at present that it's right for so few people to own the Earth, the Minerals and the Water, which are all just as necessary as is the air. In exactly the same spirit as you now say: "It's Their Land," "It's Their Water," "It's Their Coal," "It's Their Iron," so you would say "It's Their Air," "These are their gasometers, and what right have the likes of us to expect them to allow us to breathe for nothing?" And even while he is doing this the air monopolist will be preaching sermons on the Brotherhood of Man; he will be dispensing advice on "Christian Duty" in the Sunday magazines; he will give utterance to numerous more or less moral maxims for the guidance of the young. And meantime, all around, people will be dying for want of some of the air that he will have bottled up in his gasometers. And when you are all dragging out a miserable existence, gasping for breath or dying for want of air, if one of your number suggests smashing a hole in the side of one of th gasometers, you will all fall upon him in the name of law and order, and after doing your best to tear him limb from limb, you'll drag him, covered with blood, in triumph to the nearest Police Station and deliver him up to "justice" in the hope of being given a few half-pounds of air for your trouble."
— Robert Tressell (Ragged Trousered Philanthropists)

www.goodreads.com...



[edit on 11-8-2010 by woodwardjnr]

That's what the carbon tax is all about.

Tax the air, next and final is taxing sunlight and a license to wear sunglasses.

Explanation: OmegaLogos IS EXTREMELY indebted to you! Thank You for showing me some downsides to what I have been personally promoting recently on ATS chat [3rd of 4 green buttons at top right, 2 buttons to the left of the login/logout dark button. carefull ... may have some requirements to join/veiw etc. OK! ] . BIGGEST STAR AND FLAG that I can emotionally muster and currently give!! Wootness and all that Jazz!



I have been saying that we should all be compressing air individually... for like a million reasons, too many to detail immediately and in explicit detail [current personal dilemmas ], and to be shown in one simple post the horrors that spung to my mind of my concept gone wildy runaway was truly the best freaking SLAP IN THE FACE wake up call I have had for like since my backside got dusted off when I was born!

Persoanl Disclosure:Thanks for forcing me to consider the implications a little better and a bit more deeply and maybe chew the fat on that a little longer!

The scheme the OP describes would not be possible without a corrupt government - one willing to use force to ensure the monopoly.

You cannot blame the corporation for existing in a country with a government so corrupt that it would allow such a thing.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

You cannot blame the corporation for existing in a country with a government so corrupt that it would allow such a thing.

Although I'm not arguing, I can only partially agree with you .

Yes it is true that companies/people will push the boundries up the extreme edge of what they are allowed to do. It is also true that individual/collective greed is an overpowering force when a company is willing to 'contribute' millions or billions of dollars towards the goal of having laws/conditions changed in thier favour.

However we used to have something called morals/ethics in our world.

In that regard I can easily blame people or companies for thier actions.

Like an arms dealer who uses the excuse 'If I don't do it someone else will' companies (comprised of people who hide behind a logo) get a pass on thier behavior because it's legal.

I cannot remember the specifics, but it was either in the 80's or 90's that a company went to court to defend thier right to dump benzene into a river. Thier entire defence was based on the fact that they had written permission from the US government in the 50's to legally dispose of waste in that way.

Decades worth of studies on the effects didn't matter, they had been given permission and that was all there was to it (they were forced to change though).

Sadly, I do realize that we do not live in a world that encourages any type of morality. However to say that something is excusable because it is legal is the last grasp of those who already know they are wrong.

Surfing the threads here will highlight all kinds of actions that are legal.

Very few are right.



[edit on 11-8-2010 by [davinci]]

Originally posted by [davinci]
However we used to have something called morals/ethics in our world.

When the hell was that?

Of course, the scenario presented in the OP probably won't happen. People can use air without any (concious) amount of work. This is not the case for water, iron, land, etc.

People own things due to a scarcity of resources, and charge fees due to the difficulties in making this resource actually useful.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


LOL, before.

I'm in my late 30's, but even in my lifetime I have seen the types of changes that both my parents and grandparents speak/spoke of.

Greed and corruption have always been a problem, but the scope today is off the scale. Add to that the mindset that the only thing that matters is ME and MY needs. In many cases it's not enough anymore that I get mine, in many cases it's not even important that I get any...as long as YOU don't get any it's ok.

When I was younger and a lifeguard we had a meeting one day to discuss a lawsuit in the US: An elderly woman was drowning and a lifeguard swam out and saved her. The next thing you know the LG is being sued for trying to cop-a-feel on the old lady.

I was with my Mom and an Aunt years ago and we drove past a bad accident. I asked why they didn't stop to help the paramedics (both being nurses) and I was shocked to find out that they couldn't because they would be liable for anything that happened to the people.

Just last year here in my province a 12yr old girl saved the two children she was babysitting from a fire that one of the kids had started in his room after being put to bed. The insurance company filed a lawsuit against the girl for the damages to the property (the case was dropped when it hit the media ...even the parents/home-owners didn't know about it).

Also last year there were the stories about Chinese manufactures making baby food out of drywall compound, kids toys stuffed with chemical soaked rags or containing toxic lead levels.

In just the last couple of months there was the story about the Shrek glasses being pulled from McDonalds due to toxic heavy metals...

These are examples just off the top of my head; Are any of these actions moral or ethical?

Do any of these stories show concern for others, pride in ones work or even just basic empathy for the condition of your fellow human being? Would any of the decision makers in these cases just shrug and accept it if they were treated/victimized in that way?

No.



[edit on 11-8-2010 by [davinci]]

Originally posted by [davinci]
These are examples just off the top of my head; Are any of these actions moral or ethical?

Do any of these stories show concern for others, pride in ones work or even just basic empathy for the condition of your fellow human being? Would any of the decision makers in these cases just shrug and accept it if they were treated/victimized in that way?

No.

No, I just found it strange for you to imply that the world (and the people in it) used to be any better.

"The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound.
Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a
book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast
approaching."

- Assyrian Tablet, c.2800 BC

[edit on 11-8-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You cannot blame the corporation for existing in a country with a government so corrupt that it would allow such a thing.

Thats rediculous justvbecause you can do something does nit mean you should. for example say a fight breaks out in a school play ground and a biger kid (corporation) beats up a smaller one (citizen). while you can critisize a teacher (goverment) for nit steping in you cannot blame them, you can only blame the kid that chose to start the fight.

Originally posted by AnonymousJ

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You cannot blame the corporation for existing in a country with a government so corrupt that it would allow such a thing.

Thats rediculous justvbecause you can do something does nit mean you should. for example say a fight breaks out in a school play ground and a biger kid (corporation) beats up a smaller one (citizen). while you can critisize a teacher (goverment) for nit steping in you cannot blame them, you can only blame the kid that chose to start the fight.

Sure you can. A government exists to create and enforce laws which protect and serve the populace. That's what we pay them to do. If they allow entities which exist solely to make money to exploit people, it is their fault and they should be held accountable.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by AnonymousJ

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You cannot blame the corporation for existing in a country with a government so corrupt that it would allow such a thing.

Thats rediculous justvbecause you can do something does nit mean you should. for example say a fight breaks out in a school play ground and a biger kid (corporation) beats up a smaller one (citizen). while you can critisize a teacher (goverment) for nit steping in you cannot blame them, you can only blame the kid that chose to start the fight.

Sure you can. A government exists to create and enforce laws which protect and serve the populace. That's what we pay them to do. If they allow entities which exist solely to make money to exploit people, it is their fault and they should be held accountable.

HOLY. FRIGGIN. SH*T. Youre reasoning even compels my mind to bend in ways that are unnatural.

The GOVERNMENT ITSELF exists soley to make (take) money, to exploit people, and is completely unnacountable! What are you gonna do, vote out the GOVENRMENT?!

If you believe that humans are prone to corruption, the WORST thing you could do would be to give a select group of humans the monopoly of violence(aka government) over everyone else! The government is made up of HUMANS after all, that we agree are corruptable!

Your statement that people are tasked with controlling people because people are corrupt is SELF DEFEATING. The controllers are people thus corrupt. You cant defeat monsterism by creating a bigger monster.

PS: property rights only arrise from *production*. What a man *produces* is his own. The crops he grows in the feild would not have existed prior to his farming, thus the crops are his. A man may also produce lines on a map that outline his productive area and are agreed to by other producers.

But man did not produce the atmosphere and thus has no property claims on it. Just as a stream will flow through someones property but the owner has no claim on the water once is leaves his dam or waterwheel. Since man offers no productive input into the air we all breath he has no claim to it. Monopolizing the air would be like monopolizing the sun.

The only people capable of laying claim to such redicuous rights would be the ones with the guns, ie the State. Hell, theyre halfway there with the Carbon Taxes.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
HOLY. FRIGGIN. SH*T. Youre reasoning even compels my mind to bend in ways that are unnatural.

Calm down.

The GOVERNMENT ITSELF exists soley to make (take) money, to exploit people, and is completely unnacountable!

What makes you say that?

What are you gonna do, vote out the GOVENRMENT?!

Yes, that's what elections are for.

If you believe that humans are prone to corruption, the WORST thing you could do would be to give a select group of humans the monopoly of violence(aka government) over everyone else! The government is made up of HUMANS after all, that we agree are corruptable!

What would you do instead?


[edit on 15-8-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


What would I do? About the crazy insane scare scenaio where evil corperations take over the air? Ummm I wouldnt give it a second moments thought cuz its really not worth the time!

If you mean as an alternative to a monopoly of force, well I would simply not use force and try to explain to others why attacking others, under any circumstances, is not only morally wrong, but counterproductive. And what else can I do? Im bound to non aggression and therefor the tools in my box do not include clubs or chains.

So naturally if a core group of forward thinking humans, say 5%, realized that attacking others is evil and therefor government is evil, (which is obvious to anyone after a moments thought) well, that core group would form the intellectual spearhead of an unstoppable worldwide movement to reject violece in all its forms. Under these conditions the followers would follow, and the state, with its evil capacity to actually attempt at monopolizing the atmosphere, would simply fall away as a dead husk as a butterfly breaks free of its caccon. Government itself would be identified as a moral evil, just as slavery was a couple hundred years ago. And under those circumstances, followers such as yourself would flock to the new paradigm like moths to a lantern.

And then we could actually make some progress!

Until then...well, enjoy your role as defender of all things staus qoe.

derail, yes.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


Yeah, good luck with trying to shame the rest of the world into non-violence.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

Interesting, but you should know that poverty is the historical human condition whenever and wherever humans have been present in high enough density to preclude hunting and gathering.

In such population densities, the Western economic system developed in the 1700s and 1800s is the only one in all of human history that has actually succeeded in pulling the masses out of poverty and pouring a horn of plenty upon them.

No, it's not perfect. But no other setup has even come close. Certainly not centrally-managed economies, which are the ultimate monopoly.

You're not gonna get a heaven on earth, ever. Best you can do is manage tradeoffs, but you'll never make everybody happy or prosperous. Nature abhors equality. The humaneness of a system ought not be measured by the gap between richest and poorest, but by the conditions of the poorest.



[edit on 30-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
In such population densities, the Western economic system developed in the 1700s and 1800s is the only one in all of human history that has actually succeeded in pulling the masses out of poverty and pouring a horn of plenty upon them.

Well, not entirely. Whilst the introduction of capitalism (from a UK viewpoint, anyway. I don't pretend to know much about history outside of my own country) helped to bring many out of poverty and created the middle class, it also meant that many were abandoned. The final (and still ongoing) step was started by the Liberal party in the early 1900's and continued with the introduction of a comprehensive welfare state by Attlee's Labour government. Before that, Britain was still a terrible place for anybody unlucky enough to be born into the working class and crime was rampant.