A comment on the aforecited TP post reminds me of something I've been meaning to say: The arguments conservatives use for inaction on global warming seem sharply at odds with their arguments about terrorism.
Consider Dick Cheney's celebrated One Percent Doctrine, which says that even a 1% chance of catastrophic terrorist attack should prompt us to respond as though it were a certainty.
Well, the chances of catastrophic damage from global warming are a hell of a lot higher than 1%. So ...
Now, Boudreaux says that responding to global warming could hurt capitalism, so we should just "neglect" it. But responding to terrorism in the hysterical way we've done since 9/11 has sent the national budget completely out of control. The deficit has exploded, defense spending is rising every year, and the Department of Homeland Security has become a massive distributor of patronage money, which, as all good capitalists know, distorts the hell out of markets.
So where's Boudreaux's outrage about that? Will he say we should neglect terrorism rather than risk capitalism?
I really wish global warming were a scary foreign brown person. Then maybe we'd $%#! do something about it.
(There will be much more about this in my posts about fear, which I've been writing for over a week now and have spiraled completely out of control and at this rate will never be published, since I can't seem to get to the damn point, so never mind.)
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 3:52 pm
16 Aug 2006
Capitalism as it is regulated by government today (to stop all power from eventually concentrating into the hands of a few and to make slavery illegal, and to limit work weeks, etc), works better (but not necessarily longer) than its less regulated forms in the past (Rome, Egypt, Greece..). He does not seem to realize that capitalism isn't new, only the word is new, and effective throttling of its excesses is necessary to slow or hopefully prevent what has always been in the past its inevitable path to destruction. Anti-slavery laws created a level playing field and the world is a better place for it.
As the late Mr. Rogers once said, "Can you say Carbon tax?"
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
ac5p Posted 3:46 am
17 Aug 2006
Permalink
fiskhus jim Posted 6:26 am
17 Aug 2006
Protecting human rights and lives tends to decrease both flow and volatility since, in some measure, these factors are a result of violaence and hostility - or, at least, competition.
Therefore, the moneymen lurking in the back of every Republican's closet tend to promote activities which are, in reality, harmful to humans, since those are the activities that result in higher profits.
In essence, this is also why the "Peace Dividend" was not permitted to pan out - because Clinton's surplus benefitted American citizens more than Pentagon Contractors.
Permalink