NAZI GREENS - An Inconvenient History • Martin Durkin

a reply to: daskakik

Apparently

a reply to: greencmp

The utility of government is surely the bettering of the condition of the people who elected it. A clean safe environment seems one of the most important functions of government for this very reason.

Actions of individuals and companies have both social and economic consequences that are not reflected in the economic costs of the transaction so 'free market' economics and contact law does not provide us with solution to many of the problems we face as a society.

This means that collective action and enforcement is not only desirable but necessary. Does this mean we collectively give up some small part of our freedom yes , however I would rather freedom was given up to a democratic society that I am a part of than to a company or individual that can through economic power simply ignore the costs it inflicts on others.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: daskakik

No its not. Not all societies are authoritarian. You are using semantics to make it seem so. We can see that societies who have attempted to nationalize environmentalist policies have used authoritarian methods though.

The argument being made in the OP is that environmentalism is inherently authoritarian as (and you correctly point this out above) environmental solutions require collective and enforced actions to work. However that same argument can be made with regard any form of state action including the enforcement of property rights so beloved of libertarians. With this line of reason authoritarian loses all useful meaning as all states are authoritarian.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Hitler was democratically elected Mussolini was democratically elected. Democracy is not some vanguard against tyranny it only legitimizes it.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
Apparently

When posters have in the past said things like "anything other than anarchy is oppression" or "minarchy is the lesser of two evils" then when I see them around again I roll with that.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Property rights are the natural state. I own something through my will to keep it. I no longer own something if I can not prevent you from taking it from me.

To suppose collectivism is the natural state is preposterous. It is why collectivism will always be authoritarian. The only instance would be if you could convince everyone to agree but good luck with that.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: ScepticScot

Hitler was democratically elected Mussolini was democratically elected. Democracy is not some vanguard against tyranny it only legitimizes it.

Democracy requires more than just elections.

Would you argue that Anarchy is a vanguard against tyranny? Rule by who has the biggest stick.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: ScepticScot

Property rights are the natural state. I own something through my will to keep it. I no longer own something if I can not prevent you from taking it from me.

To suppose collectivism is the natural state is preposterous. It is why collectivism will always be authoritarian. The only instance would be if you could convince everyone to agree but good luck with that.

Property rights are a social construct as much as any law, they are not a natural state.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Anytime people get along, get things done and prosper it always has to be because of some government plan, stewardship or oversight.

It's always because of some form of organization. The point at which it can be called government were the sliding goalposts mantioned above.

Well, objectively speaking, the goal posts do move. Our level of authoritarianism has fluctuated, wildly at times.

The key is that we agree that there are two poles, individualism vs statism, and we agree that there is some happy medium between them. But, we clearly disagree on where that actually is.

I think it is moving in the wrong direction.

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.

originally posted by: greencmp
Well, objectively speaking, the goal posts do move. Our level of authoritarianism has fluctuated, wildly at times.

That isn't the goal posts moving. The goal posts indicate the personal spot where someone feels that things start leaning towards authoritarianism.

The key is that we agree that there are two poles, individualism vs statism, and we agree that there is some happy medium between them. But, we clearly disagree on where that actually is.

I think it is moving in the wrong direction.

I picked this out from wiki:

Statism can take many forms from minarchism to totalitarianism.

I don't really have a problem with the anarchist stance that any government is still government. I actually agree with that premise.

It's everybody that is statist but can't accept it that sees the need to "be against" collectivism and statism.

a reply to: daskakik

I too generally begin with the purely economic anarcho-capitalist principals.

I also acknowledge that as a minarchist constitutional republican, I am at least in part statist.

Why would that make me accept socialism or fail to recognize any form of totalitarianism?

originally posted by: greencmp
I also acknowledge that as a minarchist constitutional republican, I am at least in part statist.

In part?

That's what I'm talking about.

Why would that make me accept socialism or fail to recognize any form of totalitarianism?

Nobody said it would make you do either of those things.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
I also acknowledge that as a minarchist constitutional republican, I am at least in part statist.

In part?

That's what I'm talking about.

Why would that make me accept socialism or fail to recognize any form of totalitarianism?

Nobody said it would make you do either of those things.

You just said this...

It's everybody that is statist but can't accept it that sees the need to "be against" collectivism and statism.

Or are you saying that I can accept it so I am an exception?

a reply to: greencmp

No, you are doing it as well. Quick to distance yourself. You are a statist but, just in part.

Minarchy to totalitarianism is almost the full spectrum.

a reply to: daskakik

So it's all or nothing with you, eh?

What does that remind me of?

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.

a reply to: greencmp

Anarcho-capitalism?

Not really, "almost", isn't "all".

Also, it has nothing to do with me. It's what the words mean. I don't need to tweak their meanings to keep me from sounding like I belong to the other side.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
Apparently

When posters have in the past said things like "anything other than anarchy is oppression" or "minarchy is the lesser of two evils" then when I see them around again I roll with that.

If a government serves the people, really, it will evolve into anarchy.

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

Collectivists use the government to solve social problems, which is an oxymoron.

The environment is already permanently altered: if not from Man then from the most recent Glaciation.

Environmentalism, socialism, and collectivism are con jobs in the MSM democrisis

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: ScepticScot

Property rights are the natural state. I own something through my will to keep it. I no longer own something if I can not prevent you from taking it from me.

To suppose collectivism is the natural state is preposterous. It is why collectivism will always be authoritarian. The only instance would be if you could convince everyone to agree but good luck with that.

Property rights are a social construct as much as any law, they are not a natural state.

Real law follows behavior. Law by decree is at best guessing at the natural social behavioral patterns of man.

Society is real, government is a short cut that becomes an addiction.