Socialism And Environmentalism
Kevin D.
Ilana Mercer has penned an interesting article about how she believes environmentalism is socialism reborn. The Reds have become green. She quotes George Reisman to draw the comparison for her:
The Reds argued that "the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as 'exploitation,' 'monopoly' and depressions. The Greens claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity"; the Greens for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage."
I can't really see where she, or he, is wrong. If environmentalists get their way industry will be subject to so much government oversight they may as well be a part of the government.
Of course the government wouldn't be accountable to the people in this scheme. No, it would be accountable to the environmentalists who obviously know a lot more than he people.
But this isn't new ground really here at Dean's World. Many people have complained about the lack of accountability within the scientific community by the government when buckets of taxpayer money is being thrown at them.
Scientists are human and are just as subject to the passions of that state as the rest of us. While they may believe their research proves them to be right, well, Nazi scientists thought they had a few things right too. Now, don't go thinking I'm calling scientists that blind themselves to the powerful sway of human passions Nazis. But to ignore such troubling proof that people can and do color their "work" with their own prejudices is wrought with peril. No one is about their nature. And objective proof is only that when someone objective is creating and looking at it.
I don't envy scientists the position they're in but it's also a position of their own making. Do they a) keep with the consensus and continue to have a job and gain prestige or b) break with the consensus and lose their job and credibility?
But I'm moving a bit off topic. Although, the problem is very complicated.
Now that environmentalists have their faith (global warming), and their priesthood (scientists) they must, in turn, see that their will is enforced. Honestly, this is a natural development. All yelling to the contrary a person desires to see their theological positions made law of the land. Indeed I believe this to be perfectly natural. Our laws are a product of our faith. Even if you don't have faith. Man seeks to craft laws that derive from his heartfelt beliefs. We see this in the Christianized West, Islamic Middle East and in the atheistic Soviet Union. Religion is at the heart of every nation and political movement.
So, again, it's only natural that the environmentalist seeks to see their religion made into law.
However, the problem with their faith is their lack of historical perspective. While they wrap themselves in the scientific consensus they have a short memory and hope that the ones they try to convert have one as well. Or, at least, are willing to accept their version of history without question.
To quote Ilana Mercer again:
I mean, you know, if the sky is falling, then it's falling....
On weekends, readership is 25% of what it is on weekdays.
In late evenings, it's half of what it is mid-day.
On holiday weekends, it's half of all of that.
In short: post something at 7pm on Sunday, New Year's Eve? Expect like 20 people to read it and 2 to respond to it.
The timed posting feature is there to help fix this.
Just mentioning it because I'm in a silly mood. But it's true y'know. ;-)
I’m convinced that global warming is happening. I am also convinced that it has been going on for about 13,000 years.
I’m open to the theory that man is contributing to rate of increase in temperature, but I am far from convinced by the evidence at hand. And I damn sure don’t want any sort of government “intervention” at this point. I lost all faith in Al Gore’s intellect when he picked up the cause. And I was once a fan…
I agree that the “human caused global warming” zealots display an amazing amount of faith in their beliefs. But I wouldn’t relate them to socialists. Their main drive isn’t economic or “rights” based, as far as I can tell.
They seem more like religious zealots to me. They are trying to act within the current system of government to achieve goals particular to their faith.
It’s very much like religious folks who theorize that life begins at conception, and then use the US Constitution’s “right to life” phrase to justify their crusade against government funded birth control and early term abortion.
The key factor here is something economists call an Externality. It is in the interests of any business to turn as many costs into externalities as possible. It is in the interests of citizens to at the very least plan for dealing with negative externalities. The environmental movement wishes to have businesses and consumers internalize costs which are currently externalities. How on earth is this socialistic?
Indeed, one step further: one of the key points of the Kyoto protocols was the creation of a pollution market. Companies would pay for the right to pollute; and could sell pollution credits if they were not producing their allowance of pollution. How then, would this be an example of socialism, rather than capitalism?
While the old left virtually worshipped science, today we see "progressives" who are entranced with astrology, magical crystals, feng shui, etc.
Here's a quote from Aldous Huxley that I think is enlightening:
"In the field of politics the equivalent of a theorem is a perfectly disciplined army; of a sonnet or picture, a police state under a dictatorship. The Marxist calls himself scientific and to this claim the Fascist adds another: he is the poet--the scientific poet--of a new mythology. Both are justified in their pretensions; for each applies to human situations the procedures which have proved effective in the laboratory and the ivory tower. They simplify, they abstract, they eliminate all that, for their purposes, is irrelevant and ignore whatever they choose to regard an inessential; they impose a style, they compel the facts to verify a favorite hypothesis, they consign to the waste paper basket all that, to their mind, falls short of perfection...the dream of Order begets tyranny, the dream of Beauty, monsters and violence."
I think this is one of the wisest things I've heard said on this issue. Of course, in order to have individual control, you need to have individual knowledge for the choices to be made.
"Aren't you glad you live in a nation well founded upon philosophies found within the pages of Scripture?"
Where exactly in Scripture are you finding:
-freedom of religious practice
-bicameral legislature
-the idea of balancing political interests
-classical liberalism
-equal representation
and so on
"We'd be well served to remember that when we get offended by the sight of the Ten Commandments or a manger scene or prayer in a public school. We aren't now and never were a theocracy but somehow we thrived over 200 years. That isn't something to be tampered with lightly."
We aren't a theocracy because the religious right has failed for 200 years to get their amendment passed, getting only booby prizes like defacing Jefferson's motto and jumbling up the pledge.
I'm not offended by the Ten Commandments. I'm offended by people who are so ignorant of the principles of our government that they don't understand why the government is not the proper place to deal with religious questions.
where on earth did you get the idea that environmentalism is only about global warming? i think there is a strong case to be made about ill effects of toxic dumping, et cetera. the plain fact is that corporations can never be expected to take anyone but themselves into account, and that is why environmental problems are ill-suited to pure-capitalist correction. The reality is that you are arguing from a position that is no less extreme than that advocated by the most dogmatic green-as-red environmentalist. the real solution to pollution problems (and by extension climate issues if they end up being borne up by responsible science) will lie in hybrid solutions that couple multiple-user problem-solving and adaptability with single-controller authority.
Another grey reminder that what used to be has gone away.
It's really hard to say
How long we have to live with our Insanity.
We have to pay for all we use.
We never think before we light the fuse.
(Chorus)
Look up, look up, look up,
The sky is falling..falling!
Look up, look up, look up, you have to do.
Before you try to go outside, to take in the view,
Look up because the sky could fall on you!
Another restless night,
The wind is howling through the empty streets outside.
We have to hide.
We dare not go outside,
We must not walk into the darkness of the night.
We have to pay for all we use.
We never think before we light the fuse.
(Chorus)
Look up, look up, look up,
The sky is falling..falling!
Look up, look up, look up, you have to do.
Before you try to go outside, to take in the view,
Look up because the sky could fall on you!
We have to pay for all we use.
We never think before we light the fuse.
(Chorus)
Look up, look up, look up,
The sky is falling!
Look up, look up, look up, you have to do.
Before you try to go outside, to take in the view,
Look up because the sky could fall on you!
(Fading out)
Before you try to go outside, to take in the view
Look up because the sky could fall....
I direct you to the numerous writings of our Founding Fathers (yes, even Jefferson) for their spiritual inspiration of our constitutional democracy. They speak better on it than I.
I think it's plain to see that I was building on Ilana Mercer's point. And I think she singled it out because global warming because it's a favorite of environmentalists.
Really? You think? Because, as far as I can tell, I never stated what I believe the solution for this problem to be. So, I'm not quite sure what "extreme" position you think I'm advocating, especially within the context of my article as environmentalism as the new socialism. Please provide me with a quote.
Now, please don't misunderstand me and think I'm against environmentalism period. I am not. However, I'm against the kind of environmentalism that uses the green cause as cover for a larger agenda of not so much saving the environment but taking control away from the people.
Envirofascists are anti-capitalist, anti-globolisation and anti-American...all things they share with socialists.
What I cop out.
Problem is, I've already read them. And you're simply wrong: the best you can come up with are vague references to the hope that providence smiles on their endeavor.
While many of the founding fathers were Christians, that's neither here nor there as to what principles they recognized as being good ideas for an entirely new and radical endeavor. You can't find any of those ideas in the Bible, and neither did the founders. They found them through argument with each other. Not particularly Christian argument, regardless of whether they were Christian as people in private life: rational, legal, logical argument.
It defies credibility how anyone could assert that the basic principles and ideas of this nation are somehow fundamentally and uniquely Christian when they didn't even crop up for 1700 years after the time of Christ, after hundreds of different Christianized nations were formed and fell.
What was unique and distinctive and new about the US from all the past nations was not how Christian it was, but how Christian it wasn't: how far it's major thinkers were from Christian orthodoxy: they were so out from left field that most people of your persuasion in their day called them heretics and even atheists (thought they were not).
And I copped out? Pfft.
Look, just reading the rest of your post already tells me you're not willing to be convinced. And if you really did read all the writing by the Founder's and how their faith shaped our founding documents and still come away with the idea that it didn't, well, there's nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise.
You can't convince someone the sky is blue if they simply don't want to believe it.
But, you know what, I'm gonna help you out a bit! That's just the kind of guy I am.
Here you can find an article to begin your journey. It's quite good in my opinion but you might think me biased anyway.
In fact, i think the article is so good I may write a post about it.
While reading the above article once again I found something interesting that you might want to think about:
The Supreme Court of Florida seemed to think our democracy was founded upon Scripture and the words of Jesus and that our form of government couldn't exist if it wasn't.
But, what do they know? You read all there is to know about the Founder's real feelings about religion and our government.
As the article does much to show, our modern idea of secularism didn't exist when our government was founded. As such one can only project this modern concept back upon the Founder's themselves if they remain utterly ignorant to history and ignore common sense.
All you seem to be capable of is a raft of short quotes. History isn't done by quote mines: it's done by actually looking at the entire picture.
The fact is, the founders had a wide range of different faith beliefs, from traditional to outright heretical. But what they came together to do was not make yet another Christian government: what they came together to do was to try out a new sort of government in which religious matters would be the domain of the people, not the federal government. Did people's religious beliefs play into who they were and what they thought? Of course. But that's not what you claimed: you claimed that somehow the values of this country are directly Biblical, as if the founders just were the first to think of putting the Bible into practice, and poof, America! In reality, what was significant about the founders has how little religion played into it compared to all other nations, not how much.
How can the Ten Commandments be the founding principles of the country when half of them are directly unconstitutional for goodness sakes??
"But, what do they know? "
I don't know: I wasn't aware that being a judge in the 50s somehow made you into an expert on the history of government, religion, and the founding fathers. But apparently, since historians agree with me, and not with you, you have to look elsewhere.
Heck, even conservative EVANGELICAL historians agree with me. Virtually every person of your political and religious persuasion that lived at the times of the founders agreed with me: they called them ATHEISTS for goodness sakes for what they had done (wrongly).
You start to think 'What about the ancient Greeks?' when you realize that the judge used 'democracy as we know it', which lets him redefine 'as we know it' for any example you come up with.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.