NAZI GREENS - An Inconvenient History • Martin Durkin

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: ScepticScot



Do not get the wrong idea I am not saying any system will be perfect but I lean towards decentralized authority and individual freedom even though I know it works more like a wave. Decentralized units for various motivations will always move towards centralization over time because apparently groups are advantageous until they become abusive and are dismantled to start the cycle all over again. They become abusive because they tend to forget over time this cycle as they find ways to exploit the advantages of the group and leadership roles. This is why I advocate for the decentralized aspect because it is the furthest away from the end of the cycle.

The centralizers are political entrepreneurs who get their "profits" from the centralized system. Centralizing is their profession and they get paid for success.

De-centralizers gain nothing from working to maintain the status quo, they only get what they already have. De-centralizers are also enjoying non-political life. Politics is not something they can do full time, where as, as above, the centralizers are doing what they do -- like criminals.

a reply to: daskakik

When Anarcho-Capitalism is over the horizon, the visible horizon is Minarchism.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
If a government serves the people, really, it will evolve into anarchy.

Government has always gotten bigger, therefore government has never served the people.

True but, it doesn't change reality.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
When Anarcho-Capitalism is over the horizon, the visible horizon is Minarchism.

It doesn't change minarchy into something other than government.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
If a government serves the people, really, it will evolve into anarchy.

Government has always gotten bigger, therefore government has never served the people.

True but, it doesn't change reality.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
When Anarcho-Capitalism is over the horizon, the visible horizon is Minarchism.

It doesn't change minarchy into something other than government.

Overt slavery was the reality. So there must still be overt slavery, according to your argument.

Minarchism could be so small as to defy its existence. Wrong again.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Overt slavery was the reality. So there must still be overt slavery, according to your argument.

No, that isn't what I am saying.

Minarchism could be so small as to defy its existence. Wrong again.

Hell, why not go full anarchy. It could be ...

originally posted by: Talorc
This is false equivalence. You're trying to equate environmentalism with fascism and socialism, when there's no good reason to assume they must go hand in hand. Environmentalism is just common sense, while fascism and socialism are political leanings. They don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

I think there is ample evidence to say, at least, that socialism goes hand in hand with environmentalism if it is not a load-bearing pylon.

I think the argument that ecological conservatism was a purely rhetorical political instrument is false.

originally posted by: greencmp
I think there is ample evidence to say, at least, that socialism goes hand in hand with environmentalism if it is not a load-bearing pylon.

I'd say it is part of everything.

In this day and age, people are not going to let others dump their waste into their air and water. Even if handled at the local level it is still enforced. You can't get away from that no matter how hard you try.

I think the argument that ecological conservatism was a purely rhetorical political instrument is false.

Even if it wasn't, it isn't indicative of a political position.

It might be that card carrying environmentalists tend to lean a certain way but it isn't like they don't exist all along the political spectrum.

a reply to: daskakik

True, Thoreau certainly wasn't a socialist totalitarian.

I would say that I am concerned with all of the possible ideological avenues to the justification of socialism and I think environmentalism definitely qualifies as one of the many.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Talorc
This is false equivalence. You're trying to equate environmentalism with fascism and socialism, when there's no good reason to assume they must go hand in hand. Environmentalism is just common sense, while fascism and socialism are political leanings. They don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

I think there is ample evidence to say, at least, that socialism goes hand in hand with environmentalism if it is not a load-bearing pylon.

I think the argument that ecological conservatism was a purely rhetorical political instrument is false.

Perhaps you're right. All I know for certain is that every great idea can be ruined once it becomes political. It's sad that something like environmentalism can be distorted in that way.

originally posted by: greencmp
I would say that I am concerned with all of the possible ideological avenues to the justification of socialism and I think environmentalism definitely qualifies as one of the many.

Anything can be politicized. Are you going to worry about everything?

My observation is that you are not. You are just trying to hit the usual suspects.

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Talorc
This is false equivalence. You're trying to equate environmentalism with fascism and socialism, when there's no good reason to assume they must go hand in hand. Environmentalism is just common sense, while fascism and socialism are political leanings. They don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

I think there is ample evidence to say, at least, that socialism goes hand in hand with environmentalism if it is not a load-bearing pylon.

I think the argument that ecological conservatism was a purely rhetorical political instrument is false.

Perhaps you're right. All I know for certain is that every great idea can be ruined once it becomes political. It's sad that something like environmentalism can be distorted in that way.

Very true, the inflexibility of uniform action seems to be a universal failing of collectivism.

I think the voluntary cultural mentality of maintenance rather than the official hammer of compulsion is both less threatening to liberty and more conducive to the efficient and responsible stewardship of natural resources.

originally posted by: greencmp
I think the voluntary cultural mentality of maintenance rather than the official hammer of compulsion is both less threatening to liberty and more conducive to the efficient and responsible stewardship of natural resources.

Got any examples?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
I would say that I am concerned with all of the possible ideological avenues to the justification of socialism and I think environmentalism definitely qualifies as one of the many.

Anything can be politicized. Are you going to worry about everything?

My observation is that you are not. You are just trying to hit the usual suspects.

If you have any ideas about possible vectors to socialist totalitarianism to contribute, please don't keep 'em to yourself.

I'd be more than happy to hunt them down and inspect them.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
I think the voluntary cultural mentality of maintenance rather than the official hammer of compulsion is both less threatening to liberty and more conducive to the efficient and responsible stewardship of natural resources.

Got any examples?

Plenty, I think anyone who tends their land has a better understanding of what to do and how to keep it clean and productive than anyone else.

They also have a major advantage that can't be claimed by any central planner, they live there.

originally posted by: greencmp
If you have any ideas about possible vectors to socialist totalitarianism to contribute, please don't keep 'em to yourself.

I'd be more than happy to hunt them down and inspect them.

Anything and everything can be used. Happy hunting.

Plenty, I think anyone who tends their land has a better understanding of what to do and how to keep it clean and productive than anyone else.

Always the same, examples on the personal level to try and convince people that it will work on a larger scale.

a reply to: daskakik

"Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping toward destruction. Therefore, everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interest of everyone hangs on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us."

-Ludwig von Mises

a reply to: greencmp

Who would have though someone named Ludwig could be such a drama queen.

Just beacuse it makes you tingle deep down inside doesn't make it true.

Romantics, everywhere you look.

Here is how a future extrapolation that involves the "Green Agenda" is comparable to Nazi totalitarianism. Modern environmentalism while composed of many neo-primatives and luddites has mostly a scientific basis for its ideas. The "Green" movement embraces new "clean" energies and sciences based on sustainability/renewability and resource management , climate change etc while tying itself to socialist causes and politicians.

I think Bertrand Russell understood this well and was quite honest and objective in his analysis even though he himself advocated for such a system.

The scientific society will be just as oligarchic under socialism or communism as under capitalism, for even where the forms of democracy exist they cannot supply the ordinary voter with the requisite knowledge, nor enable him to be on the spot at the crucial moment. The men who understand the complicated mechanism of a modern community and who have the habit of initiative and decision must inevitably control the course of events to a very great extent. Perhaps this is even more true in a socialistic State than in any other, for in a socialistic State economic and political power are concentrated in the same hands, and the national organization of the economic life is more complete than in a State where private enterprise exists. Moreover, a socialistic State is likely to have more perfect control than any other over the organs of publicity and propaganda, so that it will have more power of causing men to know what it wishes known, and not to know what it wishes unknown. this governing class, as they acquire increasing knowledge and confidence, will interfere more and more with the life of the individual, and will learn more and more the technique of causing this interference to be tolerated. It may be assumed that their purposes will be excellent, and their conduct honourable; it may be assumed that they will be well informed and industrious; but it cannot, I think, be assumed that they will abstain from the exercise of power merely on the ground that individual initiative is a good thing, or on the ground that an oligarchy is unlikely to consider the true interests of its slaves, for men capable of such self-restraint will not rise to positions of power which, except when they are hereditary, are attained only by those who are energetic and untroubled by doubt.”

Bertrand Russell - The Scientific Outlook – 224

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Interesting quote but I don't understand why you pegged it on the green agenda.

In the very first sentence he makes it clear that the scientific society serves the whole political spectrum in the same way.

What I take from it is that under an authoritarian government it is easier to control information. I don't think any one would disagree. Still, it doesn't say that a libertarian government or even anarchy is a guard against this. I know that some people have perfected the mental gymnastics that leads them to believe that they can be.

There seems to be a willful ignorance about the key elements which put into action the change from a "free" society to an "authoritarian" one. Free and authoritarian are in quotes because it seems that we can't agree on what they actually are so, it is a rather relative measure.

Proponents of free markets will argue that they provide an unparalleled opportunity to move upwards. I'm not going to argue but I will ask, once a person reaches a position of wealth and power within this free society, what will he strive for?

Let me rephrase that. Who is it that actually pushes for larger government?

I think that the answer to both of those questions is the same.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Interesting quote but I don't understand why you pegged it on the green agenda.

In the very first sentence he makes it clear that the scientific society serves the whole political spectrum in the same way.

What I take from it is that under an authoritarian government it is easier to control information. I don't think any one would disagree. Still, it doesn't say that a libertarian government or even anarchy is a guard against this. I know that some people have perfected the mental gymnastics that leads them to believe that they can be.

There seems to be a willful ignorance about the key elements which put into action the change from a "free" society to an "authoritarian" one. Free and authoritarian are in quotes because it seems that we can't agree on what they actually are so, it is a rather relative measure.

Proponents of free markets will argue that they provide an unparalleled opportunity to move upwards. I'm not going to argue but I will ask, once a person reaches a position of wealth and power within this free society, what will he strive for?

Let me rephrase that. Who is it that actually pushes for larger government?

I think that the answer to both of those questions is the same.

To keep it, of course.

And I notice that you do see the connection between the interests of the incumbent economic actors and the only provisor of protection from competition from upstarts (who's relative outlay is smaller and more efficient due to their late entrance into the market), the state regulators.

Therefore, less government power allows better competition for capital resources which determines what degree of effort should be invested into which specific products. That is the catallactic argument in favor of free markets.

As it happens, better living circumstances for liberal societies are produced by the productivity gains resulting from this process which ultimately outweigh planned economies.

More people are raised out of abject poverty in this way than in any other way.