The Rise and Fall of the Plastic Bag
- Thread starter Joonsy
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Can a misguided meddler, that has enough power to impose their views on society, actually exist in a society that is made up primarily of people who give a &%*@?
Forget it, continue to ignore those who have experience of it & rant away Red, rant away.
I suspect you will find it is ignoring the published scientific evidence that shows a closed mind there Rod 
There is no denying that Wales has cleaner looking hedgerows than a lot of England that I have seen....
Over here (West Wales - where old hippies go to die) many folk do not use the "more destructive" alternatives but use rucksacks and other bags that literally last for decades - and if you want a polybag is a small donation to charity such a hardship?
The main plastic polluter around here is silage wrap....
Over here (West Wales - where old hippies go to die) many folk do not use the "more destructive" alternatives but use rucksacks and other bags that literally last for decades - and if you want a polybag is a small donation to charity such a hardship?
The main plastic polluter around here is silage wrap....
Mmmm silage wrap. That's one tortilla based lunchtime treat I'll pass on thanks.
Wales did seem tidier whilst we were there.
Lidl still pile up empty boxes for their punters to use.
I walked into town this morning and had a look at the local river (where we now have Otters) and there were two traffic cones in it. Go back to before the charges for bags and I guarantee there would have been bags in it too.
It will be nice to view this thread twelve months after the English get charged and see any impact the charge has made.
Other than the fact that its not a donation and its not guaranteed to go to charity you mean?
Why not start with silage wrap?
Nope me neither. That kind of leaves us stuck with the meddlers that fill the vacuums created when we don't have one.
Worry not John - it'll come. It would at least be consistent - I suspect the packaging inside the carrier weighs ten times as much as the bag itself. It'll be a very short step to make that charge 50p per bag full to cover the contents as well.
Maybe you should leave them a note with this address on John...
http://www.farmplasticsrecycled.co.uk/
http://www.farmplasticsrecycled.co.uk/
Last edited:
I despair at the totalitarian approach that some people jump to. Every problem seems to trigger many to say "there should be a law!" I prefer to preserve the principles of freedom by looking for a solution that provides more freedom, not less. I believe in Free Trade, Common Law and small Government keeping its nose out of people's business. The Government's remit is primarily to provide an adequate National Defense, coin our own money and provide a just, wise and uncorrupt Common Law Judiciary. Fail, fail and fail again. It isn't there to dictate how we choose to carry our shopping.
Teach correct principles and let people govern themselves. I don't throw litter because I was taught it was wrong and that I should respect the environment and other people. CONpulsory Schooling (not education!) unsurprising completely fails to instill this morality and respect.
Common Law is 'Don't cause harm, loss or damage and stick to your contracts (be true to your word). If someone litters then drop on them like a ton of bricks for causing 'harm'. Corporations are arguably culpable in what happens to their packaging as they are choosing to use it. They are causing 'harm, loss and damage'. Hit them in the pocket and they will soon change their ways. Insist their packaging is labelled and charge them for the tidying of every bit of 'disposable' litter which has an alternative. If you charged them for the costs of tidying their packaging then they would soon find alternatives. Companies operate with far too much limited liability because of their influence and lobbying.
This whole public focus on plastic bags is a con job distraction from much more serious environmental issues that the public should be focusing on. It just annoys me when the Hegelian Dialectic and Machiavellianism is used against us and people fall for it without perceiving the control, collectivist mentality and agenda. Yes I am a student of history.
I'm now off to recycle my soap box!
Last edited:
I despair at the totalitarian approach that some people jump to. Every problem seems to trigger many to say "there should be a law!" I prefer to preserve the principles of freedom by looking for a solution that provides more freedom, not less. I believe in Free Trade, Common Law and small Government keeping its nose out of people's business. The Government's remit is primarily to provide an adequate National Defense, coin our own money and provide a just, wise and uncorrupt Common Law Judiciary. Fail, fail and fail again. It isn't there to dictate how we choose to carry our shopping.
Teach correct principles and let people govern themselves. I don't throw litter because I was taught it was wrong and that I should respect the environment and other people. CONpulsory Schooling (not education!) unsurprising completely fails to instill this morality and respect.
Common Law is 'Don't cause harm, loss or damage and stick to your contracts (be true to your word). If someone litters then drop on them like a ton of bricks for causing 'harm'. Corporations are arguably culpable in what happens to their packaging as they are choosing to use it. They are causing 'harm, loss and damage'. Hit them in the pocket and they will soon change their ways. Insist their packaging is labelled and charge them for the tidying of every bit of 'disposable' litter which has an alternative. If you charged them for the costs of tidying their packaging then they would soon find alternatives. Companies operate with far too much limited liability because of their influence and lobbying.
This whole public focus on plastic bags is a con job distraction from much more serious environmental issues that the public should be focusing on. It just annoys me when the Hegelian Dialectic and Machiavellianism is used against us and people fall for it without perceiving the control, collectivist mentality and agenda. Yes I am a student of history.
I'm now off to recycle my soap box!
I believe in these things too. My post was a noting that's how it looks to me like it works. Not a endorsement by me it should work that way.
After I posted that I couldn't think of any societies populated by people who gave a damn I thought "hey wait a minute, aren't "primitive" societies like that?"
The reputation peddled these days is that they were very conscious of the environment and each other and looked after both. I have no direct experience of any such society so I don't know for sure.
I did start wondering where the changes came between where primitive societies reputedly were and where we are now. These things came up.
1. Primitive society waste is nature made and that means nature can take care of it. Later society's waste is man made and that means man can take care of it (or not).
2. The insertion of money between man and his food supply and means most people who don't have an abundance of it are too busy acquiring to be placing much attention on disposal, let alone disposing in a environmentally harmonious way. You can train the entire population to pick their litter up and recycle it and that looks nice but is it actually that much healthier? Recycling seems to be a justification of producing the same output with the delusion that now we are recycling something it's OK. It isn't OK it's just not as bad a not recycling.
3. The insertion of money into the system of human trade, is a curve ball when being clear about where stuff comes from. Everything we buy is either a service that started in someone's imagination or "product" that started out as an animal, vegetable or mineral. If the mental focus is limited to acquisition at the expense of a wider understanding then the person in question will become very short sighted and damage the supply chain because they don't understand where stuff comes from and therefore won't take care of the supplier (the environment).
4. When short sightedness is in place it is actually easier to build up more desire for more stuff exacerbating the problem.
NOTE: If anyone takes this as an anti-money diatribe then they have added that themselves and should take responsibility for that, rather than having a pop at me about it. Identifying problems in a system is part of it's evolution.
Last edited:
Similar threads
