Comments Minkler has made

Rand

I don't discount Rand the way that most respondents to this posting do. Maybe I haven't grown up yet, but Ayn Rand's work was not only influential in my youth, it continues to influence my thinking about various issues and the motivations of people when I hear them promoting particular agendas.  Which is why I am saddened to see an institution that bears her name take this outrageous stance on environmentalism. In my opinion, the best way to refute the Rand Institute's posting is to point out the flaws in their arguments, not to trivialize Rand's work as juvenile.  In fact, I think the environmental movement could learn from Rand's work, which should not be discredited by the extreme view presented by the Rand Institute.  Their posting is an extreme objectivist fringe, attacking the opposite extreme environmentalist fringe and ignores the 99% of both camps that fall somewhere in between.  
I'll briefly explain how I can be both pro-Rand (with some reservations), and pro-environment (also with some reservations).  What the Rand Institute's posting completely misses is that human beings absolutely rely on the earth and it's eco-systems.  All of the unlimited human genius in the world cannot remove our dependence on the environment.  I personally believe in the intrinsic value of the natural environment to a certain extent.  But even if you don't, you can't ignore the fact that humans are not closed systems.  We are reliant on, and connected to, the natural environment.  In order for human beings to be free to achieve their almost unlimited potential, then we had better be interested in protecting the environment that we rely on.  If the Rand Institute wants to be pro-human, then they should be pro-environment as well in order to provide the current, and future, generations of humans the opportunity to realize their genius.  
This is not to say that the only value I place on the environment is those services that it provides to humans.  But to show that even if you hold that view, there is still plenty of incentive to be environmentally responsible.  Maybe this is obvious to environmentalists, but some one needs to explain it the Rand Institute rather than laugh them off the blogosphere.
If Dagny Taggart had been aware of the long-term limitations that reckless pollution could impose on the ability of humans to act on their independent rational thought and free will, she would have said... "That metal of yours is brilliant and may save my railroad.  But Hank, we cannot subject the communities downstream to those nasty by-products, which would unjustly limit their ability to succeed as you have.  Nor can we, in good conscience, allow this factory to foul the air that we all rely on to thrive and create.  No Hank, that would make us no different from those that would place restrictions on our abilities to create and succeed.  My trains have switched to organic biofuels Hank, now you must green your processes before I'll buy your rail.  I refuse to succeed by destroying the ability of others to succeed as well Hank.  I prefer outright competition.  Now I'm off to the community farmer's market with John, clean it up Hank, then we'll talk."On The ghost of Ayn Rand reminds us that environmentalists want to KILL US ALL [cue music from Psycho] posted 3 years, 7 months ago 18 Responses