Politiska oxymoroner

Tibor Machan på The Daily Bell reder ut förvirringen kring den politiska etiketteringen och den rent ut sagt konceptuella korruptionen avseende Libartarianism (klassisk liberalism) i artikeln, ”Left-Libertarianism – An Oxymoron?”.

[…] By its nature libertarianism is about political liberty for all individuals to do whatever is peaceful or non-aggressive, including acquiring and holding property or valued items either found in nature or obtained through free trade and inheritance. Claiming that libertarianism can include more or less severe limits on the right to private property − imposed by public policy and law − as Left-libertarianism does, simply renders the view indistinguishable from what social democrats and welfare statists propose. It reminds one of market socialism, arguably another oxymoron.

[…] It appears clear that libertarianism is to be dealt with apart from dealing with the Left or the Right in political theory. The attempt to fuse the Left or the Right with libertarianism just produces confusion; to put it somewhat more formally, deploying the concepts Left and Right here fails to distinguish or differentiate anything of significance in the realm of political theory

Grönokratins monomani och Undergången

Noterat i essän ”All The Leaves Are Brown” på Claremont Institute:

On what principle is it that when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?

– Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1830

[…] Environmentalism didn’t exist in its current form in Thomas Babington Macaulay’s time, or he would easily have discerned its essential pessimism bordering at times on a loathing of humanity. A trip down the environment and earth sciences aisle of any larger bookstore is usually a tour of titles that cover the narrow range from dismay to despair. […]

*   *   *

[…] This preference for soft despotism has become more concrete with the increasing panic over global warming in the past few years. Several environmental authors now argue openly that democracy itself is the obstacle and needs to be abandoned. […]

When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it. This [rationing] has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not.

– Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus vid Britain’s Policy Studies Institute i sin bok How We Can Save The Planet

*    *   *

[l]iberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the U.S.A., unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens…. There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties.

– David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith i boken The Climate Change Challenge and The Failure of Democracy

Shearman har gjort andra lika smickrande uttalanden om vart vi bör rikta blickarna i världen för att komma till rätta med den förestående katastrofen:

[T]he savvy Chinese rulers may be first out of the blocks to assuage greenhouse emissions and they will succeed by delivering orders…. We are going to have to look at how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions. […] To retain an inhabitable earth we may have to compromise the eternal vicissitudes {variationer och förändringar i nåntings utveckling} of democracy for an informed leadership [myten om den upplysta despoten] that directs. There are countries that fall within this requirement and we should use them to initiate more active mitigation…. The People’s Republic of China may hold the key to innovative measures that can both arrest the expected surge in emissions from developing countries and provide developed nations with the means to alternative energy. China curbs individual freedom in favour of communal need. The State will implement those measures seen to be in the common good.

*   *   *

Vi fortsätter citera akademiska politiska teoretiker. Några av dem är fullt beredda att att kasta Lockes principer om Individuell frihet överbord för att istället kunna lägga grunden för den Gröna Globala Grundlagen, Robyn Eckersley vill stöpa om hela Upplysningsprojektet för att uppnå sina idéer om den post-liberala Staten (sic!), han säger bland annat i boken The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignity:

By framing the problem as one of rescuing and reinterpreting the Enlightenment goals of autonomy and critique, it is possible to identify what might be called a mutually informing set of ”liberal dogmas” that have for too long been the subject of unthinking faith rather than critical scrutiny by liberals. The most significant of these dogmas are a muscular individualism and an understanding of the self-interested rational actor as natural and eternal; a dualistic conception of humanity and nature that denies human dependency on the biological world and gives rise to the notion of human exceptionalism from, and instrumentalism and chauvinism toward, the natural world; the sanctity of private property rights; the notion that freedom can only be acquired through material plenitude; and overconfidence in the rational mastery of nature through further scientific and technological progress.

Jo jo, det tänks verkligen ordentligt på de Samhällsvetenskapliga Institutionerna runt om i världen.

*   *   *

Environmental tales of tragedy begin with Nature in harmony and almost always end in quasi-authoritarian politics.

– Nordhaus och Shellenberger i boken Break Through: From The Death Of Environmentalism To The Politics Of Possibility:

The problem is not simply that it is difficult to answer the question ‘Who speaks for nature?’ but rather that there is something profoundly wrong with the question itself. It rests on the premise that some people are better able to speak for nature, the environment, or a particular place than others. This assumption is profoundly authoritarian.

– Nordhaus och Shellenberger

De fortsätter dissekera miljö-rörelse-klimat-anti-kapitalist-och-fri-marknads-alarmisternas bakvända sätt att resonera:

Environmentalists…have tended to view economic growth as the cause but not the solution to ecological crisis. Environmentalists like to emphasize the ways in which the economy depends on ecology, but they miss the ways in which thinking ecologically depends on prospering economically…. Few things have hampered environmentalism more than its longstanding position that limits to growth are the remedy for ecological crises.

*   *   *

Vi fortsätter med lite citat om den datorstyrda klimatmodelleringen som är ett kärt och återkommande basebollträ att slå förnekare i huvudet med samtidigt som dessa i sin tur är lika pigga på att slänga samma basebollträ i närmaste träflis:

[p]erhaps the single most important reason that quantitative predictive mathematical models of natural processes on earth don’t work and can’t work has to do with ordering complexity. Interactions among the numerous components of a complex system occur in unpredictable and unexpected sequences [kaosforskning].

[…] Applied mathematical modeling has become a science that has advanced without the usual broad-based, vigorous debate, criticism, and constant attempts at falsification that characterize good science […]

– Orrin and Linda Pilkey i Useless Arithmetics: Why Environmental Scientist’s Can’t Predict The Future