Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

headse generally, you see yourself as a Randian hero.Fantastic for you, not so fantastic for people around you. Unfortunately, your idea that Freedom of Choice is the answer to our problems has problems of its own. Well, that is unless this freedom is curtailed (yes, I said it, restricted!) in SOME way:1) If I have freedom of choice, what happens if that choice affects others. Eg:second hand smoke, drink driving, murder..2) If the country gives freedom of choice to its citizens(?) this must be backed up by a global movement that matches it, as authoritarian capitalism is proving to be more economically productive(powerful in the capitalist world) than neoliberal capitalism of the west and I(et al) fear this authoritarian capitalism could take over.3) Freedom of choice is something that we do have to some extent. The world we live in today is one of a supermarket of choice. We have restrictions, but compared to 10 years ago? 100 years ago? Yet the (you argue not free enough) freedoms we do have are arguably "precarious freedoms". (Beck 1996) We have a TON of choice, but we also get lumped with a ton of responsibility. This freedom is a life-world "fragmented into options, everything must be decided... certainties have fragmented into questions which are now spinning around in people’s heads," "Individual subjects are themselves called upon to exercise authority in the face of disorder and contingency which is thereby generated." "A state of permanent endangerment."I suggest Beck, not as entirely MY personal opinion, but one to take into account. You continually reduce my argument to one that is against freedom of choice! Freedom of choice is good, but it has to have bounds. I feel you have this same thought, because IF you think 'freedom of choice' should be Fundamentally-freedom of ALL choice, I ask this question:Where(in what realm of choices) does/should freedom of choice end?LOL. I don't believe speculative science can kill anyone (I could be wrong?) but that idea does nothing to disprove climate change.It is not "speculative science" you may die from, it would be the earth's ecosystem being destroyed.Ozone depletion was, and the holes still exist, in areas "where civilization hardly existed in the first place" because of MANY reasons. Diffusion of gasses in the atmosphere, the earths spinning on its axis, the light and climate conditions in Antarctica.. That was such a unintelligent throw away statement.Yes, CO2 levels that come from natural means by far outweigh human CO2 levels. I'm not sure where you got your information from, but I'm guessing you did not read all of the information, or it was a biased/incomplete analysis. Natural resources that emit these CO2 levels also soak up more CO2 than they emit. Humans don't soak up more than they emit. And the (you say 3%) emissions that we do produce are outweighing the soaking up capacity of our natural resources have over and above their own emissions that they soak up, so CO2 levels are rising and accumulating.It is not overplayed. While I admit the "Global warming" idea has become a bit of a political agenda and misused, this does not mean that it does not exist.Please, for your own sake, realize you are living in a simulated world. (Baudrillard, giving credit where credit is due)Lol you used wikipedia. Despite this, I appreciate your research.http://tinyurl.com/3uj4v8v