Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Godless Capitalist

Greens vs. Humanity?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The difference is the nature of the threat which justifies response to the threat.  In the case of your seeping toxic waste, the govt is responding to an ACTUAL threat.  In the case of mere dumping, you seek to have it respond to only a POTENTIAL threat.
I agree with this... This is a potential lethal threat. I would not be opposed to someone who owned 500,000 acres dumping in the middle of his property. What I would object to is my neighbor on his 1/5 acre lot doing the same. To me the situational context matters... where is he dumping, what are the dimensions of his property and its location, etc. are all valid question that must be taken into consideration. Not just property rights and that is the end of the thinking. Dumping on the 1/5 acre lot, the potential nears 100% of me recognizing the ill effects of his dumping and there would exist a different context for dumping on his property in the 'middle-of-nowhere'.

For instance, you own a gun.  IF you point it at me and demand my money, that is an ACTUAL threat of force being initiated against me.  As such, I (or my agent, the govt) have the right to defend against that threat of initiation. 

On the other hand, if you merely own a gun, it is only a POTENTIAL threat - ie it is POSSIBLE but not NECESSARY that you might initiate force against me with it.  It is ALSO possible for you to use the gun defensively instead.  What distinguishes the potential from the actual is human ACTION. 

I don't believe this to be an accurate analogy since gun ownership has a potential as you pointed out to be not only hamful, but beneficial, depending on human action. Toxic waste is only harmful, no possible benefits could come from dumping this on your property. I believe this minor difference makes all the difference.

The question more specific and refined would be: Does the government have the right to preemptively legislate behavior that when executed by the individual on property he owns (in the given context of his surroundings etc.) have the potential, very near 100%, to cause harm or damage to his immediate neighbors property or life, with no potential benefits?

Yes, they have this preemptive right ONLY in this very limited context. Where the potential for harm nears 100% and the potential for good is 0%...

In the former, the concept "threat" is based upon what YOU *do*.  In the latter, the concept "threat" is based upon what you are CAPABLE of doing, but have not actually done.
I would argue, since the action is completed and given the context of this discussion, toxic waste in the ground in such near proximity to my property cannot be good and that the initiation of force occurs when he dumps the waste in his yard, but is not realized until I am affected. For instance it may take a few days to realize the effects, in this case he would be liable for all damages up to the point in time where he dumped the waste.

And it is this latter concept which is an example of "guilt until proven innocent".  You are treated as if you HAD acted in a certain fashion when in fact you had not.

I can see this applying to the gun example, but not the toxic waste example. Guilt and innocence only apply to an alternative. (e.g.- I can use the gun for criminal or self defense purposes, one lawful one not.) Once the waste is dumped, there is no alternative. There is no potential for benefit only destruction... For the gun example, the gun per se, is a potential... a potential for good or evil based on its user. The only alternative for the waste is not to dump it (which is fine by me). But once it is dumped in this situational context, force has been initiated. Just like if the bullet has been fired, regardless of if it hits or misses me...

Your confusion rises from this same error.  You ignore the difference between 'potential' and 'actual'.  You instead treat them as one in the same.  As indicated above, they are not.

I see the difference... When the potential for harm nears 100% and the potential for good is 0% I believe this is a necessary distinction.

Again, I would only support preemptive regulation ONLY in this very limited situational context. Where the potential for harm nears if not equals 100% and the potential for good is exactly 0%...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Your claim about 1/5 an acre dumping as being 100% threat makes numerous assumptions. For instance, to prove the threat, you would have to show there was no containment, and that the waste dumped is something that CAN seep or intrude on your property etc.

In other words, the dumper doesn't have to prove his dumping is NOT a threat (ie prove a negative) - YOU have to prove his dumping IS a threat (ie provide EVIDENCE for your POSITIVE claim). The former is what regulations demand. The latter is what defense against the initiation of force demands.

2. The comparison between a gun and waste is quite valid in the context. Waste is a by-product of production (and as such is the result of benefitial activities). Such waste REQUIRES disposal. So the question is simply: will that disposal be one which does or does not initiate force. The same is true of a gun: will its use be one which does or does not initiate force.

3. It is not up to the govt to decide what is or is not a "benefitial" activity.

4. If YOU can prove that an action is an actual threat of force against you, then you (or the govt) may act to prevent that action. No matter what scenario you concoct, nothing will change that fact. Without proof of an ACTUAL threat, you may not use force.

5. Dumped waste is not *automatically* a threat. It is ONLY a threat if there is evidence it will intrude onto your property. WITHOUT such evidence, there is NO threat. So your claim is false, and thus so is the argument you base upon it.

6. You say you recognize that potential is not actual (meaning they should not be treated the same because their identity is not the same), yet you say IF potential is x percentage it should be treated AS actual. In other words, you are acting as if they are the same even when saying they are not.

Think of it in this way - how does one *determine* the *percentage* of a specific "potential" threat to initiate force? By looking at the evidence. But if one finds evidence of a threat of initiation of force, then one is speaking of an ACTUAL threat, not a 'potential' threat.

Without evidence, you are simply claiming a man is guilty on NO basis whatsoever. THAT is immoral. And THAT is the whole basis of regulation - including the one you seek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you are saying. The law would never say:

NO toxic waste dumping on your property.

Which I would disagree with...

It would say something like this:

If your total land area is less than 1000 acres and is no closer than 15 miles to the nearest town, a town being defined as blah blah blah... And your property does not have the proper scientifically determined means for disposal, whether that method by a Thermal Oxidizer, underground piping, underground storage, blah blah blah... Then you shall not dump on the property, but shall be required to take it to an approved dumping station.

Basically the law would be written, so the average person could not drop toxic waste in their yard. I know that the average person may not have access to toxic waste, etc... I feel I am 99% there, it may be my 'bad programming' from working in chemical plant design most of my life. Some stuff, if release into the atmosphere would not be very good. And it seems like companies would not be as safe as they are today, if it were not mandated (I gather this from mettings I attend, where the cost of safety is looked upon rather negatively, as an extra cost that takes from profit, not from saving lives, or a safe working environment. Granted I have not worked for every company and this may just be bad perspective.)

I'll think about this over the weekend and post any comments Monday if I have any... (I am only on the internet M-F 6am-2pm)

If I am understanding correctly, I would say this...

The regulation serves no purpose. If the potential is never actualized, then the time wasted on drafting, voting, etc. on the regulation was wasted production. If it is actualized, then there would be another recourse to law. Either way the regulation prevents or stops (or helps) nothing... This leads to another question...

Would this law be justified...

If toxic waste you dump on your property (directly or indirectly) injures another person or damages another property then you shall be liable for all damages to said property and person. Including all attorneys fees etc... If death is the result of your action then you shall serve a term in prison no less than 5 years and a fine of $100,000...

Either way the regulation would not have saved this man's life... but the law above gives his family a recourse in law...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only does it serve NO purpose, it actually stands in opposition to reality and rights in three ways (as I have already stated):

It presumes guilt until proven innocent

It reverses the burden of proof (and in most cases demands someone prove the negative)

It demands a potential ('no not ALL potential, just SOME potential') to be treated as actual"

So it is WORSE than merely 'pointless'. It is anti-man and anti-reality.

(As to your "companies would not be as safe without people forcing them to be safe" claim, you are blanking out what has been emphasized numerous times now - that there would be consequences TO any force or threat of force which could be PROVED they were engaging in. So your fear is unfounded because it presupposes NO consequences, which is not the case.

Note - I would say it is this fear which is driving your attempts to initiate force against companies and people WITHOUT evidence of any wrongdoing on their part. Fear is an emotion. It is not a fact of reality and as such you cannot properly base your actions upon it.)

--

As to your last question, are you suggesting that a man's family would have no recourse in law under a proper system (which is our context) if force was initiated against him and he died? On what basis do you make such a claim? Do you really think such a system would say "Oops, he's dead. Oh well. That's all folks."??? REALLY check your premises if this is your claim.

OR is your intent to dictate justice out of context - ie regardless of how much waste, how much danger, foreknowledge of the danger, etc etc - a man should ALWAYS recieve such and such a punishment and provide such and such a restitution? Since the concept justice includes proportionality, to demand a set response no matter what the action or purposefullness of the action is to demand intrinsicism when it comes to justice (which is not justice at all).

If the dumper, for some reason, does not deserve such an overwhelming response, you have not served justice. You are violating him as well then. And if the dumper, for some reason, deserves MORE of a response, you have not served justice. You are not defending the victims well enough. In either case, such predetermined punishment only THWARTS justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(As to your "companies would not be as safe without people forcing them to be safe" claim, you are blanking out what has been emphasized numerous times now - that there would be consequences TO any force or threat of force which could be PROVED they were engaging in.  So your fear is unfounded because it presupposes NO consequences, which is not the case.
For the record, this was my observation of the conduct of my company, not necessarily how I would run the company. See the previous the referenced post please.

As to your last question, are you suggesting that a man's family would have no recourse in law under a proper system (which is our context) if force was initiated against him and he died?  On what basis do you make such a claim?  Do you really think such a system would say "Oops, he's dead.  Oh well.  That's all folks."???  REALLY check your premises if this is your claim.

OR is your intent to dictate justice out of context - ie regardless of how much waste, how much danger, foreknowledge of the danger, etc etc - a man should ALWAYS recieve such and such a punishment and provide such and such a restitution?  Since the concept justice includes proportionality, to demand a set response no matter what the action or purposefullness of the action is to demand intrinsicism when it comes to justice (which is not justice at all).

My point was without an objective law to deal with the specifics of toxic waste dumping this would be difficult to accomplish. I do not think a blanket "Anyone who initiates force' law is sufficient to cover every situation... In some situations, some people might not see the initiation of force in all that they do. Some may be general oversights and objective law helps to clarify this. I guess my question to you would be... What is proper content of the law in this situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the record, this was my observation of the conduct of my company, not necessarily how I would run the company.  See the previous the referenced post please.

Straw man. I never claimed this related to how YOU would run a company. I claimed you were letting FEAR of how OTHERS would run a company cause you to initiate force against them. Specifically, I claimed you were blanking out the fact that, under a PROPER system, such others would face consequences for their initiations of force.

My point was without an objective law to deal with the specifics of toxic waste dumping this would be difficult to accomplish. I do not think a blanket "Anyone who initiates force' law is sufficient to cover every situation... In some situations, some people might not see the initiation of force in all that they do. Some may be general oversights and objective law helps to clarify this. I guess my question to you would be... What is proper content of the law in this situation?

First off, do you REALLY think that a govt would have only ONE law "do not initiate force"? PLEASE. This is supposed to be a rational discussion.

Second, the way you avoid MOST confusion about what is or is not an initiation of force is the definition of principles and premises. For instance, you identify rights. You identify what constitutes property. You state that rights can only be violated by an initiation of force. You define force (contact with the person or property of another without that other's consent).

Now, even with THIS rudimentary set of principles established, NO ONE can now claim that they didn't "see the initiation of force" in the contact of their waste with another's property.

Of course, law would specify more than just that information. But it would NOT specify the conditions you made for the specific reasons I stated. NONE of your arguments (FEARS) justifies the three violations of rights and reality you KEEP insisting upon.

--

This conversation has gone from how to deal with environmentalists to whether initiating force against others for fear they MIGHT initiate force against you should be law. I suggest getting back on topic - or studying more about proper law and the evils of regulations. As it stands, your fears, not reason, are dictating your actions and desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you give the proper content of such a law?

BTW, this is on topic regarding environmentalism... and I do have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. You keep rejecting out of hand (or worse, agreeing and yet ignoring) the principles I am arguing. I am simply not going to get into a concrete-bound discussion. Either argue the principles, or widthdraw from the conversation - ESPECIALLY since it IS off topic now (even if you intend to eventually apply whatever you learn about regulations TO environmentalism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you will not reply (or are unable) we are left in a parculiar state. I believe going from principles to specifics is what philosophy is about... Talking about principles is given, Rand has covered that very well. I am talking about application of those principles to man's life... If you don't want to go to the 'concrete bound' as you call it, then it is you sir, who should withdraw... Because it is not the 'concrete bound' to ask for clarity in how you would apply those principles you speak of... especially if it helps the understanding of the concept by others, which if I am not mistaken, is the point of this forum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say a particular principle is right. I say it is wrong. Looking at the application of that principle will NOT prove the PRINCIPLE right or wrong. Such proof must be found in the premises of the principles NOT the concrete application of those principles. Focusing on the concrete BEFORE this is what MAKES a discusion concrete-bound - by DIVORCING it from reality (from premises which are CONFIRMED valid).

In other words you have the means and methods of logic and reason COMPLETELY BACKWARDS!

Unless you RECOGNIZE that fact, there is NO means for you to carry on a rational discussion on the topic with ANYONE. THAT is why I told you to either ARGUE the PRINCIPLES or WIDTHDRAW, for if you do NOT argue the principles, you have already INTELLECTUALLY withdrawn from discussion anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAC,

Hope you don't mind if I jump in. It sounds like you want there to be specific environmental laws so that people can know in advance exactly what is and what is not permitted. The problem is, there are so many contextual issues that this can only be dealt with in broader legal principles. In order to specify in legislation what constitutes a threat on a given property, you'd have to specify *everything relevant* about that property. The number of laws would be stunning.

Rather, such issues can be dealt with by laws we already have. Assuming the neighbor isn't dumping toxic waste for the purpose of harming you, here are a few you could call on. Negligent damage of another's property is punishable in civil law, and in some cases (though probably not this one, unless it amounted to manslaughter) criminal law; or, if the waste has not yet damaged your property but you can prove that it will, there is enormous precedent for putting an injunction on the dumper, commanding him to find another way to dispose of the waste.

In other words, the relevant *legal* principle isn't so broad as "don't initiate force". That IS what underlies it, ultimately, but obviously that's too abstract a principle to constitute an entire legal system. What it is, is the *standard* of a proper legal system.

RadCap is right to point out that overly specific regulative laws would have the effect of prohibiting dumping in cases where there was no harm to be done. (i.e., punishing without proof.) The goal is not to have a law which will determine in every case whether or not harm will be done; that's what a hearing or trial, using expert witnesses (or whatever) is for. Rather, the law is a mechanism to specify the type of rights violation occurring in such a case, and to specify the proper range of punishment/restitution. The important point here is that the likelihood of damage has to be proved, in *each case*, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Does this help? I'm having a bit of trouble pinpointing your exact difficulty, but I think it might be somewhere in what I just wrote...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAC,

There is a fundamental difference between protecting the property rights of individuals and protecting the "environment" from individuals.

If you want the government to keep me from poisoning your section of the river, that's fine. If you want the government to keep me from poisoning my lake, even if I don't damage anyone else's property in the process, that makes you an environazi.

If environmentalists really care about the fate of the spotted owl, they should start a collection to buy some land where they can provide a safe place for spotted owls to live. They can save their spotted owls all they want. They can't save my spotted owls unless I give my consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record, I am not an environmentalist and I could give a hoot about the spotted owl. I understand the protection of rights argument, and I agree with it. Where I become confused is in the implementation of certain principles to certain specific situations in life. I thought that if I saw a properly constructed law in this matter, it would serve to help my understanding... As it stands in my mind, there is a 'breakdown' in that area that exists between understanding the principles, but not knowing how to implement them to a specific situation. It doesn't happen often, but when it does I like to resolve it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a fundamental difference between protecting the property rights of individuals and protecting the "environment" from individuals.

I completely agree with you on the principles but I am unclear about how property rights would be applied in certain specific instances. What about, for a example, river water or air that move from place to place on their own and are not neatly confined the way a lake is? What about the ozone layer? (assuming that human action is damaging it, which I know may not be the case) What about global warming? (again assuming human-caused warming is real)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about, for a example, river water or air that move from place to place on their own and are not neatly confined the way a lake is?

If you pollute your section of the river but the pollution doesn't reach my section, you haven't violated my rights. If it does, you have.

What about the ozone layer? (assuming that human action is damaging it, which I know may not be the case) What about global warming? (again assuming human-caused warming is real)

It is no accident that these two are the environmentalists' pet problems: No one individual's actions will ever really damage the ozone layer or cause global warming, but--the environmentalists claim--if billions of people do it simultaneously, doom and gloom will ensue. A scenario that truly makes a collectivist jump with joy, as it provides an excellent pretext for government intrusion into the lives of individuals. Finally, they gleefully believe, they have found a problem that capitalism doesn't have a solution to, but collectivism does.

But their jubilation is premature. Capitalism does have solutions to problems like this. If an activity is harmless on a small scale, but harmful on a large scale, there is a threshold at which it becomes harmful. Performing a unit of the activity will be legal until the threshold is reached, but illegal after the threshold has been reached. If too many people want to perform the activity, the opportunity to perform it will become a scarce resource and people will be able to buy and sell it among each other.

The job of the government is to pass a law--based on objective reality--defining the threshold above which the activity is harmful and therefore illegal, as well as how exactly an individual can claim a right to perform a unit of the activity. (In most cases, the right to perform the activity should be apportioned among people based on how much harm they are to incur if the threshold is exceeded.) The rest is best left to the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for the record, I am not an environmentalist and I could give a hoot about the spotted owl.

LOL I didn't think you were one. I used the words "you" and "I" in a general sense in my post above--you might substitute "Person A" and "Person B" for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is no accident that these two are the environmentalists' pet problems: No one individual's actions will ever really damage the ozone layer or cause global warming, but--the environmentalists claim--if billions of people do it simultaneously, doom and gloom will ensue. A scenario that truly makes a collectivist jump with joy, as it provides an excellent pretext for government intrusion into the lives of individuals. Finally, they gleefully believe, they have found a problem that capitalism doesn't have a solution to, but collectivism does.

Thanks for the answer.

I'm still perplexed by the insistence that environmentalism = collectivism. I don't think all environmentalists are collectivists or that environmentalism is based on collectivism; it's just that most people are not aware of capitalist solutions to environmental problems.

Also, while I think your solution is workable, it does not explain who would actually own the resource. It sounds as if it would not be privately owned, because if it were govt could not regulate how much it could be damaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still perplexed by the insistence that environmentalism = collectivism. I don't think all environmentalists are collectivists or that environmentalism is based on collectivism; it's just that most people are not aware of capitalist solutions to environmental problems.

If you want to protect your own environment, that doesn't necessarily make you a collectivist. If you want to "protect" other people's environment against their will, that does.

Also, while I think your solution is workable, it does not explain who would actually own the resource. It sounds as if it would not be privately owned, because if it were govt could not regulate how much it could be damaged.

Either you misunderstood my post completely, or...

I'll give you a concrete example. Assume that we live on a tropical island. There is a certain kind of exotic coconut growing on this island that is very delicious, but it releases fumes when you crack it open. The fumes of a single coconut are harmless, but if people open more than 3500 coconuts a week, the combined fumes of the coconuts can cause people to go blind. For the sake of argument, also assume that the person opening the coconut is not necessarily the one likeliest to go blind from its fumes. (I hope this helps you appreciate how improbable a scenario of this kind is in the first place.) So what does a capitalist government do to keep people from making each other blind?

Ban the eating of coconuts in all quantities? No. Put a tax on coconuts so people eat fewer of them? No. What it does is prosecute the guy who opens the 3501st coconut (and 3502nd, and so on) for causing the victims to go blind. This is why the option to open a coconut will become a scarce resource. If there are 1000 people living on the island, each of them would get to open 3.5 coconuts a week. Those who want to open fewer of them could sell their options to those who want to open more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm still not understanding. The coconuts example is essentially an air pollution issue. A certain level of pollution is safe, but past that level it will begin to harm people. So govt regulates the maximum amount of pollutant that can be emitted. Your proposed mechanism sounds fine, but does not address my question.

My question is: who owns the air in the first place? It sounds as if you are saying that the air is owned collectively by everyone on the island. If not, please explain who owns it.

(By the way, this scenario is not improbable at all. Air pollution is very real.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question is: who owns the air in the first place?

The air--like sunshine or wind--is not a scarce resource. It is there for everyone in unlimited quantities. The concept of ownership does not apply to it.

If I aimed a gun at you and pulled the trigger, the charge against me would not be air pollution (even though I "pollute" the air with a bullet that kills you). The charge against me would be murder. Similarly, when you open the 3501st coconut, the charge against you would be causing the victims, if there are any, to become blind. The scarce resource is not the air, but the possibility to open a coconut without facing criminal charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EUREKA :D Now I understand what you are saying. The air itself is not the issue; the air just happens to be the medium through which the pollutant is transmitted from one person to another.

(I think if you were to explain this perspective and solution to an environmentalist who was concerned about air pollution, they would likely agree with it. Again, I don't think most environmentalists are inherently collectivist; they just have never been exposed to capitalist approaches to environmental issues.)

Now, what about the ozone layer? That is a limited resource, and if part of it is destroyed the result could be at the very least increased risk of skin cancer for everybody. What is a correct capitalist approach to that issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the old saying? Ah yes - "Reading is fundamental"

Capitalism does have solutions to problems like this. If an activity is harmless on a small scale, but harmful on a large scale, there is a threshold at which it becomes harmful. Performing a unit of the activity will be legal until the threshold is reached, but illegal after the threshold has been reached. If too many people want to perform the activity, the opportunity to perform it will become a scarce resource and people will be able to buy and sell it among each other.

The job of the government is to pass a law--based on objective reality--defining the threshold above which the activity is harmful and therefore illegal, as well as how exactly an individual can claim a right to perform a unit of the activity. (In most cases, the right to perform the activity should be apportioned among people based on how much harm they are to incur if the threshold is exceeded.) The rest is best left to the market.

This is what I meant about thinking in principles and not being concrete-bound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(I think if you were to explain this perspective and solution to an environmentalist who was concerned about air pollution, they would likely agree with it. Again, I don't think most environmentalists are inherently collectivist; they just have never been exposed to capitalist approaches to environmental issues.)

The leaders of the environmentalist movement care about as much about the environment as Democrats care about the poor. They use it only as a means to get people to follow them.

The followers, well...some of them are just mistaken because they believe the hoaxes, but the overwhelming majority is attracted to the movement because they share the movement's hatred for success, capitalism, and America. In other words, the environment is not the primary issue for them, either.

Now, what about the ozone layer? That is a limited resource, and if part of it is destroyed the result could be at the very least increased risk of skin cancer for everybody. What is a correct capitalist approach to that issue?

If the problem were real, the solution would be the same as with the coconuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your example with the coconuts seems to depend on the idea that the rights violation occurs when the pollutant is released and directly harms someone.

The ozone layer protects us from UV radiation. Assuming that CFCs damage the ozone layer, the CFCs do not directly harm anyone but instead harm the ozone layer that protects us. That ozone layer does not belong to anyone, so in what sense is a rights violation committed by someone who damages it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The leaders of the environmentalist movement care about as much about the environment as Democrats care about the poor. They use it only as a means to get people to follow them.

The followers, well...some of them are just mistaken because they believe the hoaxes, but the overwhelming majority is attracted to the movement because they share the movement's hatred for success, capitalism, and America. In other words, the environment is not the primary issue for them, either.

CF

It has been pointed out to GC multiple times now (and been ignored each time) that it *doesn't matter* WHY a person accepts and promotes an ideology. The FACT is that they accept and support it. Whether their understanding of its principles are complete or incomplete does not change that fact. Whether their "intentions" are good or bad does not change that fact. NOTHING about a persons feelings or beliefs changes the fact that they accept and support it.

Someone is no less a collectivist because they accept and promote communism because they want to help the poor.

Someone is no less a collectivist because they accept and promote naziism because they want to help businesses.

Someone is no less a collectivist because they accept and promote racism because they want to help blacks.

Someone is no less a collectivist because they accept and promote welfare statism because they want to help the children.

and

Someone is no less a collectivist because they accept and promote environmentalism because they want to help human beings.

While the REASONS they accept and promote a political movement may or may not be valid, those reasons do NOT change that acceptance and promotion of that political movement. In other words, be it a "mistake" or hatred, such individuals still accept and promote environmentalism - thus making them collectivists (AND in this instance, ANTI-man).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×