>And if that fails resorts to an invasion
It always astonishes me when statists are so clear about their violent propensities.
It always astonishes me when statists are so clear about their violent propensities.
Your answer to this is to use the force of the state to destroy those industries, and if they resist you will literally kill the people opposing you. Do those lives have less value than others? Or is this a twisted greater good type of thing, where you think climate change is happening so quickly that we should jump to dropping bombs to stop it? (hint: it's not)
Of course if it comes to that we will have a clean war where only the worst assets are targeted without taking a human life. It is quite similar in design to clean coal.
Using derogatory terms that supposedly describe the vast majority of human makes good-faith discussion much more difficult. I know it can feel good to write, but it's not productive.