luftwaffle0

Well, Saddam did have and use chemical warheads in acts of genocide. He also kicked out UN weapons inspectors. He also repeatedly fired on US warplanes patrolling the no-fly zone which was established after his failed attempt to invade and occupy Kuwait. He continued to claim he had chemical warheads because he was afraid of Iran.

I don't think the fact that it was a fireable offense is the primary reason why they should have acted...

I also had PRK. The flares around lights at night was noticeable but even worse was my sensitivity to bright lights, including daylight. I basically always have to wear sunglasses outside. Also had (and still have a little bit) pretty bad dry-eye in the morning. If I would wake up and open my eyes too fast there would be pretty bad pain and I'd have to keep my eyes closed for a while.

Still worth it though. One of the best decisions I ever made.

There is nothing about unions that enhances a company's ability to be competitive. You can support unions all you want, but that is simply not true. Unions may offer some advantage to workers but it comes at a cost to the company and consumers, there is no denying that.

The Japanese gained an advantage because of their early investment in robotics, which allowed them to compete against unionized American firms. The German advantage was due to targeting a different, richer demographic which could afford to pay higher prices from unionized German firms. They were in essence not competing with Japan or the US.

You state that the problem was due to bureaucracies but the factual errors littering your comment make me question that assertion. Where did you hear that? Maybe it's true, but I have never heard it.

Yes: ecology really is incompatible with capitalism.

It's really not. History is largely irrelevant particularly pre-industrialization, because people simply did not have the power to do things that would be destructive to the environment, even if they had the will to. And in fact, if history shows one thing, it's that without the enforcement of private property rights, people will use up the land in incredibly wasteful ways and not give a fuck about the environment. E.g., slash-and-burn techniques that wiped out huge swathes of forest in Europe.

Capitalism has almost always been associated with a state, and capitalism in the US certainly is associated with a state. There is no reason why the state can't enforce whatever rules it wants with regards to the environment and indeed, it enforces many such rules.

Further, seeing as how "capitalism" as you refer to it means the activity of free people in an environment of private property enforcement, there are really innumerable examples of profit extraction giving way to ecological concerns. Any person who has bought a piece of land for the preservation of nature has done this. Any person who has limited the scope of their activities on a piece of land to preserve nature has done this. Any person who has taken due care to protect the land while they work despite the costs has done this. There are countless environmentalist organizations that exist within this capitalist system.

You and the author of this AMA need to develop an adult view of the world. The activities of free people cannot be defined in such simple terms as you think they can.