Environmentalism: A philosophy of death

Now imagine that a prominent environmentalist writes an article or gives a speech in which he expresses the wish for a virus to come along and wipe out a billion people. What will be the reaction of the environmental movement? Will that individual be denounced for misrepresenting the movement? Will the rest of the movement's leaders rush to assure the world that that individual was so far from representing environmentalism that he actually represented the diametric opposite of its principles?

Not at all. There will be no negative reaction of any kind from within the movement, not even a raising of eyebrows. I can say this with the utmost confidence, because such statements have already been made, and made repeatedly. And there has been no outrage, no negative response of any kind from within the environmental movement.

This text is taken from an excellent article by George Reisman - read it here.

Whoever believes that it is possible to be a "free-market environmentalist" is guilty of a contradiction in terms. The free market rests on a foundation of human life and well-being as the standard of value. Environmentalism rests on a foundation of the non-human as the standard of value. The two cannot be reconciled. It's either-or.

Amen!

Do you REALLY want to help the poor?

[I]f one thinks that people are unlikely voluntarily to donate to charity to help the poor, why is it assumed that they will support compulsory taxation for the same purpose? (#)

Indeed!

ENVIRONMENTALISM IS RECYCLED COMMUNISM AND NAZISM

Here's the essential common core of hatred and destruction in the doctrines of Communism, Nazism, and Environmentalism. Only the concretes differ, not the fundamental principle of hatred for human life and happiness.

Communism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes monopolies, depressions, and exploitation of workers by capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the benefit of the working class and the Socialist State. Capitalists and landowners must be exterminated for the benefit of the proletariat.

Nazism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes racial impurity, national decline, and exploitation of German workers by Jewish capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the good of the Aryan master race and the National Socialist State. Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs must be exterminated for the benefit of the German Nation.

Environmentalism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes global warming, acid rain, and ozone depletion. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the good of other species--our "fellow biota"--and for the good of the planet, under the auspices of international treaties and a nascent Global Socialist State: the UN. Most of the human race must be exterminated for the benefit of exploited species and the planet. (This is what the environmentalist "extremists" already openly say. The "moderates" merely want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent and thereby reduce the American standard of living to that of a third world country, with a third world country's infant mortality and life expectancy.)

SAY NO TO RECYCLED COMMUNISM AND NAZISM. SAY NO TO ENVIRONMENTALISM

Source

What is 'class conflict'?

The Comte-Dunoyer thesis, influenced by J. B. Say, was that "ruling class" may be defined simply as that class which manages to rule the State, while the ruled are those dominated by the former through the State. Thus, class conflict does not inhere in the free-market economy or society, but is strictly in relation of State. Class harmony exists only on the free market; class conflict is generated by statism and by the relation of classes to the State.

Source. Couldn't have said it better myself!

Nationalized oil, worldwide, on the rise

"As we go forward, the benefits of higher oil prices will go more toward the national oil companies and away from the major oil companies." (source)

It seems that governments worldwide are squeezing "free" companies like Exxon and Chevron out of their fields, and bringing in their own national giants. This is bad news. In countries like Venezuela and Saudi-Arabia, all major oil fields are in the hands of government-owned companies. Their performance reflects this: Old equipment, reduced innovation and falling productivity are their symptoms.

If Exxon, Chevron, France's Total and others of this type are forced out of the game, the game will become less competitive, and its results will suffer the consequence.

Tired of driving? No worries. Soon enough you won't be able to, despite billions of barrels of oil beneath your feet, unattainable due to lack of competence by the oil industry.

A Minister-Free Health Care System

Also, "public" does not inevitably mean "state". Swiss health care is extremely decentralized. Switzerland does not have any Ministry of Health. Every canton and every self-governing administration unit is in charge of its own regulation, hospital accreditation, and funding. Thus, there are 26 slightly different systems in a country with a population of 7 million. A statist bureaucrat will immediately think of the chaos that must reign there. But an economist sees a different phenomenon: competition.

I like Swiss attitude towards the State, health-care and market solutions contra centralized state problems.

Burn that oil and worry not!

"The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming." Source.

Socialism disguised as "man made global warming" is quickly loosing all scientific credibility, thanks to scientists like John R. Christy and others.

Of course, when Earth's climate once again changes its temperature-trend from warming to cooling, the Socialists will simply switch their agenda from trying to "cool" the Earth to trying to "warm" it. When that happens it will be fun to read reports like these, and one more time point out that Socialism has no scientific basis.

Does man regulate the Earth's climate?

I just found a very interesting site (by accident), and present two quotes from it about the climate and its warming (which some still stubbornly declare is man-made):

In 2004 a group of UNIS geology students found an ancient polar bear jawbone at Svalbard. Now it turns out that this find could confirm that polar bear as a species has already survived one interglacial period, bringing hope that the first and foremost Arctic symbol can – in fact – also survive the current warming climate.

Second quote:

The greatest problem for the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that they fail to agree on what will happen to the world itself, he told the audience at UNIS. – The planet is itself taking part in the global warming, as the tundra regions emit more CO2 because of increasing temperatures. This is a non-stoppable process from one stable state of the Earth to another stable state; from a cooler climate to a warmer climate, like the ones in the past, Lovelock said.

Both quotes from the website of the University Centre in Svalbard.

What can we learn from this? First of all, polar bears can adapt to changes in the climate's temperature. Second, perhaps there is such a thing as a self-regulating mechanism in Earth's atmosphere, which adjusts when for example volcanoes erupt, leaves rotten and men drive cars fueled by oil.

Doomsday prophesies and socialism are therefore not requested at this time!

Why are we forced to read poems, but not study economics?

In school (as children), most of us are forced to read poems, learn how to play some musical instrument, know the names of the main rivers and towns in our country, learn the basics in a foreign language or two and read famous novels and books.

Very few of us are forced to study the basic principles of economics while the State is in control of our education and forces us to attend school. We must choose to study economics at later stages if we are interested.

This strikes me as weird. As members of society, we are constantly being bombarded with terms like "inflation", "interest rates", "consumption", "taxes", "employment" etc. All of these terms are a part of economics in one way or another. All of them influence our choices and understanding them is necessary to make rational decisions.

For example, I would not recommend anyone using his or her vote with complete absence of basic understanding in economics.

My theory is that the State, on purpose, does not force economics down our naive throats (like it does with poems and geography) because too much and widespread understanding in economics would greatly tie the hands of the State in its relentless inflationary, irresponsible tax-financed governance of our lives.

Are Libertarians "Anarchists"?

So answers Murray N. Rothbard:

Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."

I must say that I am not happy with this answer. It's a boring wishy-washy ansewer and doesn't say any more than no answer at all! In my mind, I am a libertarian, and would say yes to the question. However, I would add that those on the left wing that call themselves anarchists are in fact not. They are confused socialists - promoters of violence and all-around State tyranny! Therefore, I agree with Rothbard when he said:

If it is proper and legitimate to coerce an unwilling Henry Thoreau into paying taxes for his own "protection" to a coercive state monopoly, I see no reason why it should not be equally proper to force him to pay the State for any other services, whether they be groceries, charity, newspapers, or steel. We are left to conclude that the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom.

As I oppose the notion of "limited government" just like any other forms of government, I am an anarchist. That's that!

The economics of Christmas is...

Christmas is a joyous and festive time, and the economics of Christmas shouldn't spoil the fun. At the same time, however, we shouldn't harbor any illusions about Christmastime consumption providing a "boost" to the economy or anything like that. Consumption reduces the stock of goods available for use in future production. While there is certainly nothing wrong with this, it is important to remember that stories of Holiday spending-induced economic growth may be misleading. (#)

Myths seem to be the rule rather than the exception when is comes to "common knowledge". Why is that?

Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great

John Stossel is an excellent myth-buster.

Can you blame EVERYTHING on global warming?

The answer seems to be: YES! (Thanks.)

Environmentalism is surely the Socialism of the 21st century, so be aware of it!

Who could have guessed?

"Embarassingly, it also appears that the somewhat unsual recent melting of Greenland ice may have been due to naughty old Mother Nature, not evil capitalist man." (#)

To blame everything on the evil free capitalism is perhaps a nice religion, but not always the correct approach!

The State adds nothing

I am always amazed that people consider the State to be the "provider" of something, for example: Health care, roads, courts, police protection, education.

Some even say that if the State wasn't there to "provide", then that which the State "provides" would not be provided at all!

This is wrong. The State is not a mystical being that has magical powers and without it, its generous gifts would be completely absent. Roads, doctors and teachers are not dependent upon the extitence of government bureaucrats. There is still food in Russia despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and its enormous food-program.

What the States does is that it collects money from people in need of roads, doctors and teachers, and uses it on its monopoly-system of "provision" of roads, hospitals and schools. Instead of individuals runnings services and building roads, the State does. No magic, no mystery. Just monopoly protected by law.

Who throws most money away?

Tag debatten om ulandsbistand. Anti-amerikanske aktivister og intellektuelle ynder at påpege, at verdens rigeste land "kun" giver 0,22 procent af bruttonationalindkomsten i ulandsbistand sammenlignet med tæt på 1 procent for de skandinaviske lande og omkring en halv procent i Frankrig og Storbritannien. Men disse tal dækker udelukkende over ulandsbistand fra det offentlige. Amerikanske borgere giver markant større frivillige bidrag til ulandene end borgere i andre lande gør. Ifølge tænketanken Hudson Institute bruger USA faktisk 0,98 procent af bruttonationalindkomsten på ulandshjælp, hvis man regner de private bidrag med. Forskellen er, at i USA tager borgerne selv initiativ til at gøre noget, mens europæerne sætter deres lid til staten. (#)

The answer is not Scandinavians or Europeans, but Americans. That is nice to know next time a self-absorbed Danish person tries to promote himself on false pretenses.

USA vs. Nordic countries - who wins?

Do you know someone who is constantly saying that the Nordic countries are "better" than USA? Do you lack good arguments against that position? Then I have your solution! This report is it. Read it!

"...Scandinavians are the poorest people in Western Europe once income is adjusted for taxes and the cost of living."
"If nations are being judged on the prosperity of their poorest citizens, then Nordic nations certainly are equal to the United States."
"...strong economic growth is better than income redistribution if the goal is to help the least fortunate in society."

Sicko? Not in the US!

Far from being perfect (rather, far from being free), the health care system in USA has many advantages - especially when compared to the national health care systems found in most counties in the West. Let the numbers speak a little:

In fact, Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the last 30 years. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine either are U.S. citizens or work here. (#)

But what about the poor who can't afford health insurance? A classic question and answered in the same way for every poor in every market: Let the rich pay full price for the best treatment, thereby pumping money into innovation and technology, that eventually will filter down the price-ladder and become "standard practice" for the poor. This applies for glasses, food, clothes, microwave ovens and cars. It simply - applies! Not fast enough, you say? Much faster than any tax-funded centralized 5-year plan the State has to offer, and you know it!

Water for life? Why not!

I just finished reading a very interesting report about privatized water. A short quote from the (conclusion of the) Conclusion-section:

Market based solutions to poverty and development should not be ignored: water privatisation has helped millions of people in the developing world. We should not let ideology get in the way of it.

This should come as no surprise for the libertarian mind (ideology indeed!). Market prices will always find their way into either supply or demand. In the case of water, it usually effects the supply-side, leading to great un-met demand. And since its water we're talking about, this means diseases, death and miserable conditions of life. So how about directing the killing-force of Government away from water and give millions of people a hope for a better, cleaner and longer life? At market price, of course!

What is government?

"Government is basically parents for adults."
- Seinfeld, episode 4, series 5

Couldn't have said it better myself!