Environmentalism is for commies

Todays installment comes from a site for small business owners, smbresource.com. It starts off with fairly reasonable statements:

The ethic of your business extends entirely from its profitability. If you're not profitable, you may be green, but you won't have any green, and neither will your employees.

I know it's selfish, but you can't expect a business owner, particularly a small business owner, not to put their business first. And there's nothing wrong with that. Things take a strange turn.

Those on the left, and those who don't run a business, find it easy to behave histerically towards the businessman who puts food on their very tables. They believe as they always have that the productive have a greater responsibility. It's hard to fathom this logic of why a hardworking productive person is responsible for the lazy, but we see it all around us.

You'd think this came from an article about welfare. But it doesn't; he's still talking about environmentalism. Environmentalists get angry at businesses for polluting, or for massive energy use which thereby causes release of CO2. The 2nd factor one can convince business owners to save power by arguing that it will save them money on electricity, but the first case is an externalized cost. Pollution needs to be regulated, and it most certainly is unethical to pollute your community.

My favorite part:

This is the ultimate desire of the "going green" crowd. They don't care about the environment, they just hate success, and in particular, success achieved in the way of productive business ventures.

Of course, we don't like what the opposition is saying, so we demonize them as much as we possibly can. It's the equivalent of saying "my teacher is just out to get me" when you get a bad grade. It would be lovely to think that people who oppose pollution in all its forms hate businesses and hate productivity, but it doesn't make dick for sense. They may put a higher value on endangered species, trees, or clean water than you do, but that doesn't mean they "hate success". Had me going for awhile there chief.

Error Scale: 2 & 9. 2 For most of the argument, 9 for the crap about how environmentalists hate businesses, success, Mom and apple pie.

-Enginerd

Cheap oil is a right

The Ayn Rand institute is very angry, and of course everyone was following 9/11. Nevertheless, some people react more strongly than others:

Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower surrendered the West's property rights in oil, although that oil rightfully belonged to those in the West whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible. The first country to nationalize Western oil, in 1951, was Iran. The rest, observing our frightened silence, hurried to grab their piece of the newly available loot.

Natural resources are a bit tricky in my mind. Obviously, whoever invests in the infrastructure to harvest the resource deserves some compensation. But who really has the right to Irans oil? The industrial revolution sprung from the west, which made oil a valuable commodity, but does that give the descendants of those inventors the moral right to travel 'round the world taking whatever they need?

This author says yes. I have to say I'm a bit surprised, I would've thought the line of reasoning would be a bit different from the Ayn Rand institute, something more like "whoever has the ability to take it has the right", but I guess I haven't studied their philosophy enough.

A more logical approach would hold that the people of a country deserve the profits derived from their natural resources. The US creates inventions that the world runs on? The profits derived from selling those products is the compensation. Say we can't do that without oil? Well, then it would be in the best interest of OPEC (et. al.) to provide cheap oil. But of course, the market sets the price, and oddly enough people only bemoan the free market when the results turn out against them. People pay a fortune for pharmaceuticals from the US that cost pennies to produce? Well, you've got to let the market set the price, or else we'll have shortages. Oil is expensive? We deserve oil because we provide the world with so much else.

Error Scale: 3. More arrogant and hypocritical, but moral arguments are always debatable

-Enginerd

Let the masses rule? Impossible

So apparently some radicals think that the public should decide how best to govern the nation:

The foundation has posted its Transparency in Government Act of 2008 on the Web at publicmarkup.org and has invited the public to tweak, add to or criticize any aspect of the proposed bill. The goal, said Ellen Miller, executive director of the foundation, is to change the backroom, secretive way that legislation is typically passed in Washington.

Now, some people think this is a bad idea:

The idea was not as well received by Paul Miller, past president of the American League of Lobbyists. Miller says lobbyists are unfairly portrayed as backroom-deal makers.

There is more transparency in legislation than ever before, Miller said. But he disagrees with putting bills up for all to rewrite.

"I don't think the way you advocate is to put everything online and say, 'All right American people, weigh in on that,' because then what's next?" Miller asked. "Are we going to let the American people decide our defense policy, our trade policy, our immigration policy?"

I'm just going to assume he was quoted out of context, and meant something more like "Policy decisions require a broad base of knowledge and careful, critical analysis, that members of the public simply do not perform." But still, telling the public that they shouldn't have a voice in government decisions IN A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY seems just a tad idiotic.

Error Scale: 4 (assuming there was some redeeming context)