Posted on 07/09/2002 3:17:32 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The green doctrine that nonhuman things have "objective value" may be descended from Marxist theory of objective value. This notion was exploded in 1871 by Carl Menger's publication of *Grundsatze der Volkswirtschaftslehre*, which exposed all values as radically subjective. As Aldo Leopold admitted, this is absolutely true for naturalistic aesthetic values.
To be accepted as an "environmentalist" nowadays, it is not sufficient to seek to implement the most effective means of conserving natural resources and minimizing environmental harm. It is necessary to accept the dogma that free people are self-destructive, and that statist aggression through global nationalization and totalitarian control of resources and behavior (including reproduction) is necessary to restrain their self-destructive tendencies (Not explained is why people suddenly become non-self-destructive when acting politically or as bureaucrats).
It is irrefutably demonstrated in the work of Coase, Posner, Breyer, Buchanan & Tullock and Olson that the common-law institutions of several property and strict liability are the most effective means of conserving resources and minimizing environmental harm, and that nationalization and bureaucratic regulation lead always to regulatory capture and the tragedy of the commons, as seen at Chernobyl, in the killing of Lake Baikal, and the burning of soft coal throughout Eastern Europe and China.
Yet to be an "environmentalist," one must pay obesiance to this command-and-control approach, regardless of the ecological catastrophe it engenders. The slightest hint of ideological deviance or pragmatism in consideration of exactly what types of institutions are most successful in achieving the purported goals of maximizing environmental health and the quality of life is enough to brand one as an "eco-villain."
The embrace of Greenpeace and Earth First! by such formerly orthodox Marxist journals as The Nation reveals a serious deterioration of the left. CPUSA National Chairman Gus Hall said as early as 1972 that "in the struggle to save the environment....we must be the leaders of these movements.... Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible." Likewise, Carl Bloice boasted last year that "The environmental movement promises to bring greater numbers into our orbit than the peace movement ever did."
(Note that West Germany and the Netherlands caught Greenpeace red-handed accepting KGB funding from East Germany to fund its unilateral "nuclear freeze" campaign in the 1980s.)
The problem is that the workers rejected the vanguard leadership of such folks. Weeds and bugs are unable to do so, and so form a more promising constituency. So the intellectuals turn their backs on the workers and appeal to suburban yuppies in the media and academia to spin their Edenic dreams.
Marxism was a fiercely industrial-rationalist faith that by nationalizing capital, productivity could be unfettered, unleashing an era of abundance. Ludwig von Mises poured cold water on that pipe dream when he demonstrated irrefutably in "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" that nationalization of capital must lead inevitably to a crisis of capital consumption, progressive impoverishment and eventual collapse, as later happened in Eastern Europe. Environmentalism responds not by abandoning the command-economy model, but by abandoning the idea that productivity and abundance are good. If socialism produces penury, then penury is good, and prosperity will destroy the world. A fiercely industrial-rationalist faith has degenerated into mystical nature-cult, a kitchy romanticist holism of "Blood and Soil."
Note that "ecology" comes from Ernst Haekel and the idea of "animal rights" comes from Richard Wagner. Both were adopted by the Nazis. See Hermann Goring, "A Broadcast Over the German Radio Network Describing the Fight Against Vivisection and the Measures Taken to Prohibit It," August 28, 1933, *The Political Testament of Hermann Goring*, trans. H.W. Blood-Ryan (London: John Long, 1939), p. 73. It is not much of a leap from Malthusianism to eugenics, nor from neo-Luddism to primitivism.
Not everything foolish is Marxist - and we only look foolish ourselves when we strain at parallels so we can call names.
It is necessary to accept the dogma that free people are self-destructive, and that statist aggression through global nationalization and totalitarian control of resources and behavior (including reproduction) is necessary to restrain their self-destructive tendencies (Not explained is why people suddenly become non-self-destructive when acting politically or as bureaucrats).
I couldn't resist posting one of my top one hundred favorite quotes:
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind.
"They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority." -- Frederick Bastiat, The Law (1850)
One can be a convervative yet still enjoy nature and want to protect endangered species and scenic areas which God has created. It only makes sense to promote condervations and to limit the drastic population growth, with ugly strip malls and tacky housing developments already having destroyed many of our battlefields and other historic sites.
I just don't understand how ballistic some conservatives go at the mention of environmentalism. Sure there are environmentalists who are also Marxists. But there are also other (who find Marx to be a crazy man espousing unworkable ideas) who are conservative and patriotic and want to preserve the beauty and history of this country.
One can be a conservative and enjoy nature and want to protect endangered species and scenic areas which God has created. It only makes sense to promote conservations and to limit the dangerous population growth, with ugly strip malls and tacky housing developments already having destroyed many of our battlefields and other historic sites.
I just don't understand why some conservatives go ballistic at the mention of environmentalism. Sure there are environmentalists who are also Marxists. But there are also others who are opposed to Marxism (a crazy man promoting an unworkable ideology) and who are conservative and patriotic and want to preserve the beauty and history of this country.
Not everything foolish is Marxist - and we only look foolish ourselves when we strain at parallels so we can call names.
As he uses the collectivist "we" tone. Bite you're lip or the kettle will be calling you black ;-)
Yet to be an "environmentalist," one must pay obesiance to this command-and-control approach, regardless of the ecological catastrophe it engenders. The slightest hint of ideological deviance or pragmatism in consideration of exactly what types of institutions are most successful in achieving the purported goals of maximizing environmental health and the quality of life is enough to brand one as an "eco-villain."
A few months ago on this forum I had a run-in with a camouflaged Green and exposed him and identified the Green cult is a cult. I continued reading and look who else arrived at the same conclusion:
A fiercely industrial-rationalist faith has degenerated into mystical nature-cult, a kitchy romanticist holism of "Blood and Soil."
The public is catching on to the Green fraud. Here comes the government to clean up the Green fraud/attack against the government's environmental policy. But, the public just isn't "buying" it that the mighty, all-powerful government was abused by a handful of Green groups. They are beginning to see that government was/is the facilitator.
The illusion is wearing very thin. And it reaches everywhere, not just the environmental issue.
One can be a convervative yet still enjoy nature and want to protect endangered species and scenic areas which God has created. It only makes sense to promote condervations and to limit the drastic population growth, with ugly strip malls and tacky housing developments already having destroyed many of our battlefields and other historic sites.
So go buy the land and do as you chose. Just don't use government as your designated agent of force to extort money from me to pay for your desires. If you're a model conservative then I'm glad to say I'm not.
Let's not miss the big picture here; being a "model conservative" BEFORE being a responsible human being is fanaticism.
Read back as far as you want my history of posting and try to figure out what I am. The picture's bigger than politics, religion or philosophy. Of which you'll learn I have aligned myself with none. ;-)
"Collectivist?" Bite your lip! That's a Royal "we", podnuh!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.