I don't mean to go off on a rant here...
Anyway, this video is Exhibit A of just how creepy the creeps of Envirowackoville have become. Utterly predictable, because those who assume a given ideology (or a hybrid of ideologies) are driven to fulfill the demands of that ideology (or ideologies, leading often to tragi-comic consequences). For environmentalism, that end point is the reverence of "Nature" for its own sake at the expense of humanity.
We are already experiencing hidden genocides as a direct consequence of the mass hypnosis of yuppies under the environmentalist spell; the malaria outbreak in Africa that could have been dampened by the order of millions of lives if Rachel Carson wouldn't have come along with her crank ideology that exalted the thickness of baby bird shells over the question of whether or not little human babies live or die.
Then we have the subsidization of corn ethanol, which has government's typical unintended (or intended?) disastrous consequences, in this case, the starvation and malnourishment of millions of invisible people in faraway lands. And for what? So that we can cut a negligible amount of greenhouse gases from our already negligible contribution to the big blue atmosphere?
This is madness, but it is so regularized and mainstreamed that many don't recognize it as madness. It is like the majority of people live in a house of mirrors their whole lives and when they finally see the truth reflected in a plane mirror, it appears distorted.
The moral truth is that the end of human life is human life; how to best accomplish that end is the question of political economy. And in direct contradition to the beliefs of the many, it is not collectivism and altruism that edifies life for the greatest number of people, but respect for each individual. The individualist creed entails allowing each man to be who he is and to adapt to his environment in accordance with his nature, while civilizing him through education and the development of rationality.
The mental order of the many is the political order of the whole. The respect for political order, guided by the correct morality, is the foundation of civilization. The protection of property is the mental security needed for people to create and produce without fear. Acknowledgment of the sanctity of the family by society is in accordance with man's biological nature and emotional needs. War against these basic tenets as the leftist does, with his destructive anti-civilization mentality, giving rise to various ideological manifestations, and society and order, so necessary for individuals to pursue happiness, is undermined. How ideologies either undermine or edify civilization must be understood if people are to take threats more seriously, and tragedies on a massive scale are to be avoided.
Likewise, the avoidance of ideology, as a belief that it is extreme in and of itself, is disingenuous and naive. Pragmatism and nihilism, the former shrugging at ideology and the latter rejecting it, do not absolve man of moral problems. These ideologies themselves only set man adrift to writhe in existentialist fugue. It takes principled opposition to counter today's next permutation of collectivist "isms" - "radical pragmatism." Remain oblivious to ideology and you are but flotsam and jetsam in the human Ganges. Principled opposition is required to counter collectivism and its precursor nihilism. Embrace collectivism or allow it to arise through stubborn passivity, and bad things are liable to occur. Adopt the individualist and objectivist ethos in words and deeds and live.
4 comments:
"Then we have the subsidization of corn ethanol, which has government's typical unintended (or intended?) disastrous consequences, in this case, the starvation and malnourishment of millions of invisible people in faraway lands."
Why is the above quote the concern of "true" libertarians? The farmers grow the corn, get paid, and we dilute the petrol with it and reduce our dependency on Saudi oil. if you are concerned that somehow a penny or two of your taxes subsidize this activity, then why don't you turn your attention onto Cato which allows for tax deductible contributions, and I suppose a penny or two of my taxes help to indirectly support Cato, since the taxes have to be borne by somebody and it is probably a few progressives who find your views asinine. Let's call a spade a spade.
A subsidy is when a robber (i.e. government) takes your money and gives it to someone else.
A tax deduction is when the robber abstains from looting some of your property.
See the difference?
...there is no difference because the tax money to pay for things libertarians like still have to be paid by somebody and the main point here is the clear hypocrisy of libertarians who expect a tax deduction from the federal government simply because they express their ideas about a government they don't even want through Cato! Talk about a big fuck you! Get real!
=the tax money to pay for things libertarians like still have to be paid by somebody=
This is a false statement. I don’t want anyone to pay taxes. So whether the robber thinks that someone HAS to pay taxes for SOME reason is no concern of mine.
Post a Comment