http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=514939
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Green the new socialsim
At one point, U.Eric mentioned that communism has no appeal, and capitalism is here to stay. I am not so optimistic for a variety of reasons, and believe this article rightly captures the agenda behind the environmental movement - central control. i noticed separately in the Canadian Financial post an oped encouraging western democracies to force a one child policy around the world, which seems to be gaining noise to 'save the planet'.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=514939
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=514939
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I’m having real trouble understanding Krauthammer. Does he really believe all the stuff he’s saying, or he simply melodramatic. Are you Karl, melodramatic.
ReplyDeleteIf you are saying that few environmentalists, if any, believe that the free market operating alone will keep humans from destroying the environment they need for survival, you are completely right. And that is our agenda – saving the environment so our children can live. And we believe government needs to have a role in that. Outside of that, we see no way of ensuring that “the polluter pays” or of preventing “the rape of the commons.” Admittedly, governments frequently have not dealt with this well, but show me where the market has dealt with it better.
But such lack of faith in the free market does not even come close to advocating a planned economy. And to suggest that environmentalism is an agenda foisted on the unsuspecting by the “LEFT’ has the effect of hijacking the real agenda. The real agenda is whether we humans need to take any responsibility for what we do to the environment, particularly where that environmental effect is felt by others..
I believe even conservatives have accepted that we need to live by a set of laws, and that these laws need to be enforced by a police force taking direction from our government. These laws are there to protect humans. Is it inappropriate to have laws protecting the environment?
That the EPA is not the best way to deal with carbon exploitation, is probably right. In order for something like that to work would require the agreement of many, so the support of both chambers is probably necessary.
So Krauthammer is entitled to his opinion, but why his language, and why his attitude? First of all, why does he dismiss those who may disagree with him in such a dismissive, supercilious way? And secondly, do we still believe in the Devine Right of Kings – that some people, by virtue of birth are entitled to much, whereas others, by virtue of birth, deserve little. If he actually believes that westerners have more than people in underdeveloped countries because they work harder, he is simply naive. He may believe in the Devine Right of Kings, but there is no virtue in that.
On another point, Karl, you have more than once suggested that any movement away from conservatism is on the way to communism. That the left values equality, and that the right values standards. I will admit that I do not yet quite understand what you mean by that, but let me share with you a different perspective.
The right holds individual freedom as the highest good, and extends this to measure prosperity in terms of how much freedom a person has. To state the extreme, slavery is not the problem of the slave owner, it is the problem of the slave only. The onnous is on the slave to wrest his own freedom. The left holds group freedom as the highest good, and by extension measures prosperity in terms of how much freedom all those in the group have.
I think there is a tendency within all political ideologies to romanticize their ideology. This can be terribly costly. The most glaringly devastating recent example of that were the neo-cons in Washington. I am convinced they actually believed, repeat, actually believed, that as the American military came driving into Bagdad, the people would welcome them, as the French or Dutch welcomed the allied soldiers at the end of WW2. That romanticization has cost the world very dearly, and the Iraqi people even more.
Honestly, I'm having some real trouble getting over the fact that you would link to someone like Krauthammer. He is what I would term on the fanatical right. I grant that there is some truth in what he says, but where he goes after that, well . . .
ReplyDeleteI accept the fact that you are a conservative thinker, and I respect you for that. But surely you are also one who seeks the truth. In terms of climate change and environmentalism, why would you rather allow your opinions to be shaped by Krauthammer than, say Donald Gutstein. http://thetyee.ca/Books/2009/12/10/ClimateDeniers/index.html
Even if you don't agree with Gutstein, and wish to discount some of what he says, surely he comes across as a more reliable source of information that Krauthammer.
Incidentally, while you are a The Tyee, you may want to do some additional reading. In my view it is one of the better "alternate Media" sites geared at a Canadian audience.