No, this article doesn't make it on a number of counts.

How's this as a candidate for some sort of award: "Human use of the environment is by definition an improvement to the environment, otherwise it wouldn’t happen." Maralinga?

Sophistry all the way down the line.

What a joke to write: "human use of the environment is by definition an improvement of the environment".

Perhaps Justin should visit some of the vast wastelands caused by human use (or rather abuse)of the environment that are to be found all over the world. Four dramatic examples would be the Aral Sea, the leveled hills of Western Virginia (via coal mining),the vast tracts of former rain forest in the Amazon basin, and the vast areas of China which are essentially environmental disaster zones.

He should also read todays posting by Barry Pittock.

Meanwhile I quite like these two magazines which define what an environmental ethic is, and what a truly human culture based on this ethic may look like.

http://www.resurgence.org

http://www.orionmagazine.org

Plus as always a reference to an institution that was set up with the intention of re-educating humankind altogether re the non-human inhabitants of this mostly non-human world.

http://www.fearnomorezoo.org

Plus this very stark image tells us all there is to know about the paradigm which drives the current system. A paradigm which is profoundly anti-human or the complete opposite to that expressed in the references above.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.htm

"The western world is on the brink of sliding into fascism with the rise of a creed that government has and ought to have the unlimited power..."

Corporate America, together with big organisations from the mainly Anglo-Saxon countries and their allies (Saudi Arabia) or derivatives are using their influence on world governments to control the world to enrich themselves.

We should work towards getting rid of Obama, Saudi "royal family", IMF, World Bank, GATT, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Monsanto and many other big corporations that have implemented policies to impoverish the common person.

They should be brought to justice and executed for commercial crime like they do in certain countries.

http://www.globalissues.org/video/729/lori-wallach-free-trade-the-price-paid-part-one

A greedy, selfish, ignorant article.
The author doesnt spell out what he means by "human values" and given the diversity of humanity's actions, it could basically be read as "anything humans do". Given that it is humans that are environmentalists his argument could not be more illogical.

I find it hard to fathom that anyone could be so dumb as to state "he environmentalist values the same piece of land to satisfy a different kind of human want - for growing plant species that were here before 1788". What a disengenous, lie of a statement. If the author cant understand how the whole web of life works and how dependant humans are on the environment then he really is mentally defective. It is not about saving old trees it is about sustainably using the environment around us. Not depleting and wasting what we cant replace and fouling our nest in the process.

All round this argument is sinking to the depths of weaselness and is a new low for the climate change deniers. How much more can they debase themselves and their ideology of greed and exploitation?

<<the process by which original prices arise is far more representative of society and the greater good>>

Really? Were is your evidence fool? The greater good? Good for the wealthy who just keep getting richer. Good for white people. Good for despots and tyrants. Good for religious fanatics. Not so good for the rest of us who slave away on the consumerist treadmill, going nowhere but backwards.
Representative? "Every dollar is a vote". So how is the wealthy getting the vast majority of votes representative? The poor and destitute get virtually no vote at all. Representative! Get your hand off it mate.

Im not even going to bother with the rest of this fascists article. It is just too ironic for words for this prat to be talking about enviro fascism while promoting real fascism. The type of fascism where society is run by business for business. Todays world in other words.

The author is at least making a valid point that valuing the environment loses its meaning when humans are not valued. Some parts of the environmental movement are misanthropic and currently gaining ascendancy. They have strong influence in government circles, a fact which should cause great concern.

The eco-fascists will hate this article as both this writer and the anti-pops writer are attacking them using a humanist values argument and all the whiners throw back is 'we'll all burn in hell if we don't do as they want'.

The writer has accurately demonstrated the poverty of the far right/left environmental positions. They have no tenable creedo and make outlandish and ill thought out slurs on other cultures, especially Muslims and women.

While there should be action on climate change, the key drivers need to be consensus rather than the attack dog mentality of the eco-fascists.

At the bottom of the article under ‘About the author’ is:

< Justin Jefferson is an Australian who wishes to show that social co-operation is best and fairest when based in respect for individual freedom. >

I’ve got to vehemently disagree with this philosophical position. The greater our individual freedoms in the first instance, the more power the aggressive and unscrupulous will wield, and hence the more suppressed the rest of us will be.

The more individual freedom in terms of less lawful restrictions, the more uncertainty there will be about where we stand with the law, with each other, and with what is acceptable and what isn’t.

Clearly, we need a strong rule of law, strong governance and good even-handed regulation, so that we all know what we can and cannot do and that the same applies to everyone. THAT would result in the best and fairest system and the best average level of individual freedom.

Of course there is a point of balance. If the rule of law is too restrictive, then we’ll get declining freedom.

Within the article:

< Ironically, while environmentalists never tire of saying that human beings are part of the environment, for some reason they think humans are the only species for whom it is immoral to use natural resources so as to live and reproduce. >

Hey, whaaht?!

continued

< The western world is on the brink of sliding into fascism with the rise of a creed that government has and ought to have the unlimited power to control any and every aspect of human life that affects the environment or that uses carbon, in other words, everything. >

How extraordinarily over the top! Here’s hoping that the governments of the world can get their collective acts together, in a well-coordinated manner, in order to address climate change and sustainability. And yes, if it is done effectively, it will lead to a fundamental modification in the way we live, with some reduction in freedom in order to prevent a huge reduction in freedom a bit further down the line.

The author would be totally crackers to think that we could deal with the enormous threats to our future if we just let people adapt of their own accord with no lawful directives. Apparently he hasn’t heard of the tragedy of the commons.

Come on, we’ve got what you might call fascistoid regimes in most if not all so-called democracies, inasmuch as the big business sector rules, with governments beholden to them!

Now if we could just get the business community to embrace the future good (that is; the maintenance of a coherent and healthy society in which they can continue to profit) instead of being hung up on the short-term profit motive, then we’d be on the right track….with the same sort of fascistoid government, if you want to think of it in that way.

The trick is to get the basic priority to change. The answer certainly does not lie with weaker governance that just allows everyone to continue with business as usual.

Justin is worried about the wrong thing altogether. He’s worried about strong governance having big negative consequences, rather than weak governance and the resultant continuation of humanity’s massively unsustainable momentum having much bigger negative consequences.

Jefferson has written a very interesting and thought provoking article. Mervyn Bendle in Quadrant (December 2009) argues along similar lines. Bendle discusses the philosophical meaning of “Liberty” with reference to John Stuart Mill and Sir Isaiah Berlin plus a brief mention of Karl Popper.

On the side of “positive liberty” - Berlin’s phrase -are those that set out to organise society for the assumed good of society - Jefferson’s eco-fascists. This has a long history starting with Plato and going through time to Rousseau, Marx and finally Professor Hamilton in the recent Higgins bye- election.

In the negative liberty camp is Pericles, John Locke and Berlin. Negative liberty is what I understand as freedom for the individual to make decisions for himself or herself. It implies minimal governmental coercion and as far as possible free markets.

I must say that I like the concept of negative liberty. Jefferson is correct to warn of the dangers of environmentalism.

"The greater our individual freedoms in the first instance, the more power the aggressive and unscrupulous will wield.."

Don't agree with you there Ludwig but I'll fight for your right to say it, unlike the poleaxe commentaries of the whacko eco-extremists.

I'd say that the more nutty wing of the eco-lobby portrays definite fascist tendencies, including warnings about 'rivers of blood' unless we don't do as they say.

In their defence, I can see that they are acting for what they think is best for you and me. I'd just wish they'd remember that I am not a collective but an individual. I think it was Edmund Burke who said of Napoleon that 'no one likes missionaries carrying guns'. No one likes rabid eco-fascists telling me or who ever what to do.

Their ideas on population are barking mad and their ideas on implementing poverty reduction schemes are embarrassing to anyone who has worked in the developing world.

I kind of feel sorry for Justin. Having made a creditable effort at instigating quality discourse (despite some 'long bows' and fluffy logic at times mate) he is shot down by snipers not at all interested in engaging in the thrust of his argument, instead smugly satisfied in crowing loudly at his occasional chinks in the armour.

Sadly, our environment is nowhere near as barren as our arenas of public debate.

atman, it's a valid point, but a pretty minor one in comparison to the truckloads of hyperbolic nonsense surrounding it.

anti-green, "negative liberty" is a slogan, not a position. valid concern over governmental power is no argument for every-man-is-an-island libertarian fantasy.

Personally, I agree with the general thrust of the article (it was, however, written provocatively and got the response expected).

Justin’s arguments are not new, but worth keeping in mind if you have high environmental values and wish for ‘something’ to be done about it. Part of the reason environmentalists are unsuccessful so often is that they stress the value of the environment for the environment’s sake. Making a better connection to, and publicising, the value to other people derived from these areas of concern may be a more effective approach.

BBasher - I don't quite know what you are referring to by "hyperbolic nonsense" but I can assure you that misanthropy is certainly not a minor issue in today's Green movement.

Despite this being a less than perfect article and the fact that the author makes some outlandish statements, he is certainly aware of the danger of scientifically unfounded eco-totalitarianism funded by substantial new taxes such as the ETS.

If you think that the author's fear of "facism" is unlikely you should be aware that David Suzuki, for example,wants dissenters jailed which is quite a startling comment in itself. Ultimately this issue is all about wealth and its redistribution the issue of climate is simply a convenient way for a new left elite to seek power.

Bushbasher:

I think you miss the point “Negative Liberty” is a term attributed to Isaiah Berlin. It is a series of chapter headings under which we can discuss ideas of individual freedom and decision making, ownership and control of private property, the defence of capitalism, ideas of justice and equality before the law and so on.

“Positive Liberty” on the other hand is the chapter headings in which one discusses tyranny, collectivism, authority and hierarchy.

Those critics of capitalist society who ignore the power of Adam Smith “invisible hand” are at the extreme risk of experiencing his “invisible foot” on their back side.

gee, i'm missing a lot of points today.

atman, i agree the author has a point, the point you made. and i agree that there is an anti-human strain to green politics. but it is only a strain. it is vastly overrated in number and power, by the author and by idiots like cheryl screaming about eco-fascists.

as for the hyperbolic nonsense, if you can't already see it, i doubt anything i say will help. but you can tell me where the cuyahoga river fits into jefferson's cute values calculus.

anti-green, berlin or not, it's a slogan. no one is denying the "invisible hand". i'm simply denying that anything of substance follows from reciting slogans. i just don't think "minimal governmental coercion and as far as possible free markets" means anything, unless you make some attempt to quantify "minimal" and "possible".

but you can help. just tell me which society, past or present, that you regard as closest to your libertarian paradise. then i can have some sense of what you are actually wishing for.

Jeff,
Don't give up your day job.

This would get a fail at year 11.

Starts with dubious assumptions and goes down hill from there.
Your "facts" are selective to support the above assumption .

Like the first commenter said bad Sophistry

Garry in Liffey, Ho Hum, mikk, Ludwig, bushbasher and examinator.

Of course none of you live in houses, sleep in pyjamas, eat commercially produced food or goods, use cars, consume electricity or especially communicate by computer. If you do and then attempt to reject the arguments presented by the author then you open yourselves up to all sorts of ridicule and ascusations.

"...there is no such thing as values over and above human values. If we took away all the people, there would be no value in the environment."

Well yes, but humans and the environment are very much linked. Go back to Year 9 Biology and studies of the ecosystem to see that humans can influence for the better or worse impact on the environment, which ultimately affects the human condition.

There would still be value in the environment if there were no humans, there just would be no value to humans (if they did not exist), but I am sure the animals, microorganisms and plant life would 'find' value (albeit not consciously).

After reading this article I am left feeling that something is missing. Did the author miss the news, Copenhagen was a failure and there will be no world government dictators deciding what we should do in regards to carbon emissions. It was always going to be a failure.

Of course we should keep our governments accountable but there have been strong moves away from the authors perception of facism which he fails to mention. The interfering morality of the Church is much less than ever before, and we will eventually even have same sex marriages (it has to happen). We are more and more moving away from dictating to people what they should do in their personal lives (as long as it does not harm others). It was much worse during the reign of Queen Victoria and in Pilgrim America.

If humans value other humans it is imperative that we don't destroy the environment we all live in and that wealth/resources are distributed more evenly. And this is apart from the debate on climate change.

Even some animals know not to foul one's own nest.

Pelican,
"There would still be value in the environment if there were no humans".

Absolutely.
The author of this article and his ilk have no concept, as mikk, points out, of our dependence on a well ordered eco-system. Environmental values are human values and vice versa - there can be no separation.

For instance, I offer the example and contrast of the two countries that make up the island of Hispaniola. The eastern part of the island belongs to the Dominican Republic, while the western part belongs to Haiti. Aerial photos depict two vastly different landscapes. The Dominican Republic is covered in vegetation, while Haiti is almost completely deforested.

Haiti was once a lush and tropical. The aerial photographs of the border between these two countries starkly reflects the amount of deforestation that has taken place on the Haitian side of the border.

Haiti is designated as the poorest country in the western hemisphere and one of the poorest in the world - a country where the inhabitants are forced periodically to make biscuits out of clay. The poverty endured by Haitians is directly linked to deforestation and habitat loss.

Human values and environmental values should be entwined - to separate the two is to invite disaster.

I could not agree with the writer more. People are deluding themselves if they believe governments are all about "the people" likely more about themselves and how they are seen.

An example: There is a farmer up a pole in Shannons Flat, New South Wales, dying of starvation. Why? Because the governments Federal and State have put him in the position of not being able clear and use his land to farm. They have done this in accordance with the so called promises signed under the Kyoto Protocol to cut CO2. They have not compensated him so the man, Peter Spencer, is willing to die because he cannot sell his land, he has no options and his life has been ruined.

Good government control? Is the Kyoto Protocol worth this man's life. I don't think so.

In Britain farmers are paid NOT TO GROW PIGS. That's the UEC coming into play. Is that okay in a world where many are starving? The EUC wants to pick and choose who grows the produce and who gets the money. And should they be allowed to dump processed chicken of suspect freshness on African countries rather than letting the people grow their own?

Give me answers, I'm willing to be convinced that the actions of politicians and governments are necessary and for our well being, but they would have to be very good answers to convince me that it is not greed.

Four paragraphs from the person who created and inspired the Zoo in my previous post.

The modern everyman of consumer society is a propagandized individual, participating in illusions and, effectively, self-destructing.

The modern everyman is being created by the power system of the world, because it is the interests of that power system for there to be consumer egos who are completely self-involved, self-seeking, and stupefied.

At present, a culture of total war, a culture of death, is ruling, while the people are engrossed in consumerism.

The present-time human world is fragmented and stupefied, utterly misled by the grossest kind of deluded thinking about "reality". The mass populations of the world are being seduced by the absurdities of "consumerism".

Atmans statement that
"Ultimately this issue is all about wealth and its redistribution the issue of climate is simply a convenient way for a new left elite to seek power"
seems to make the most sense to me.
The Watermelons would have us riding bicycles while they jet about the world redistributing our taxes,
after having put aside enough to cover their humble expenses of course.

It is a sign of an informed but uneducated mind that prevents the rising to concepts of universal breadth.

Many of the comments to JJ’s piece are stumbled by the very boulders the author can see, can’t dislodge, but cannot include in his conceptual argumentation.

The western world is on the brink of sliding into …

To my long experience the western world has never been out of...

Fascism! I was born in it and could realize its extent by migrating to a less fascist country than the one I was born in.

Which person we happen to deal with or we encounter in the course of our day, doesn’t show some form of anxiety, apprehension or right-out fear?

With the unlimited and unknown array of irrational rules imposed on us, with the constant danger of a law officer’s tap on the shoulder, where is a free citizen? Who is the State?

I wonder how a judge can get from home to his Court without breaking a law or another.

Yes we have the freedom to criticize authors and should do it mercilessly but we must do our best to be plausible with our arguments.

The Author of this article raises Ideas that have occupied the greatest minds.

He may even have read the text of the Australian Constitution, which is no mean feast. Have we done the same before arming ourselves with a pen?

The effort of man to raise the first question about himself was of Titanic dimension. Can we emulate his effort?

Or do we need be the guests of a prison or a concentration camp to fathom our dept?

"I could not agree with the writer more. People are deluding themselves if they believe governments are all about "the people" likely more about themselves and how they are seen. "

Exactly RaeBee - Look at our own K. Rudd. In the context of the article, his actions and intentions (ETS) raise many questions rather than give us any answers.

Justin,

State Capitalism not Fascism.

Intervention by the State is State Capitalism which in some aspects was beneficial and that being one who generally believes in small Government. For example , in 1875, England lifted its prohibition against working class organisations and permitted collective bargaining, resulting late Victorian England being a much happier place for the working class than Dickens’ England*. This trend of Government “knows best” interference aimed/aims through bureaucratic mechanisms to reconcile the conflicting demands of the labour, capital and since the Great Depression the consumer, via the State, which acts as master and arbiter.

Alternatively, Fascism maintains that “freedom is the monopoly of the State (Wasserman), wherein there is no equity of power and liberal democracy is deemed weak. Only the strong should leader and with an iron fist are required. In this regard Mussolini declared:
“Fascism is a religious concept ion in which man is seen immanent relation to a higher law, an objective Will, that transcends the particular and raises him to conscious membership in a spiritual society.” Similarly, nationalism was seen in WWI and WWII Germany and Japan. State capital remained evident through the directives of Japan’s Ministry of Technology and Industry since after WWII until the present day.

In sum, State intervention on the environmental issues is not Fascism. It is small “s” State Capitalist societies pressing large “S”, State Capitalist societies to follow their agenda.
*In part, the formation of the first labour unions was allowed to short-circuit overt radicalism.

Philip,

Your description and the recent US bailout comes closer to Fascism, but it should be remembered it is not the acts of the Corporates rather intervention by Government against free market economics which are national socialist. Of course, there maybe Corporate puppet masters in the guise of lobbyists, but that is not the point.

Cheryl,

The term Fascist is a characteric of State by definition and is diffiucult to assign to any lobby group.

Maralinga is hardly an advertisement for government management of the environment, is it? Would you do that to your own property?

Atman,

You might consider this story. There are many others, but this one avoids shrieks about racism.

With the right growing conditions, potatoes can feed up to four times as many people to the hectare as grain. When the potato arrived from the New World, it proved very difficult to develop varieties suitable for Northern Europe because of day length issues. Eventually, the Irish ended up with 2 varieties that they could use, especially the Lumper potato. The population of Ireland grew from approximately 1.2 million in 1600 to 8.5 million in the 1840s, even though Ireland's British conquerors had commandeered much of the best land to grow export crops. (England was outgrowing its ability to feed itself.) The population growth in Ireland was especially rapid because traditional inheritance customs and colonial laws required land to be divided among all of the sons. By the 1840s, a significant fraction of the population was living on land holdings too small to feed a family on anything but potatoes.

The Andean farmers who domesticated the potato had more than 250 varieties. The Irish reliance on only two genetically identical varieties was extremely dangerous, as subsistence farmers are well aware, because the plants will all be equally vulnerable to any disease or environmental shock, and an entire crop can easily be lost. This is exactly what happened in the 1840s, when the late blight arrived from Mexico. 1-1.5 million people starved and another 1.5-2 million were forced to emigrate. They didn't have enough land to switch back to grain. See David Montgomery's book "Dirt: the Erosion of Civilizations" and the Wikipedia article on the Irish Potato Famine, with links to scholarly books and papers.

cont'd

cont'd

No doubt, as the population built up, there were Cheryls to claim that any concern about human numbers was "barking mad" and immoral to boot, that the Lord would provide. I would suggest that it is the population boosters who were the real misanthropes and that to ignore environmental limits in the name of individual human rights is both stupid and immoral. There was a recent letter to the editor of New Scientist on climate change, in which the writer said that he wouldn't be concerned about it, unless it was going to affect him "materially and directly, within the limited window of my remaining years". This is the attitude JJ is championing, and not just about climate change.

It has also never been clear to me that tyranny by a central government is worse than tyranny by individual property owners. In a socialist or fascist system, a man tells me what to do, and I have to obey him because he speaks for the State and is backed up by another man with a gun. In a libertarian system, a man tells me what to do, and I have to obey him because he owns the resources that my family and I need to live. He is also backed up by a man with a gun, who is charged to protect the owner's property rights. What is the difference? At least if the socialist state is a democracy, I have some possibility of changing things with my vote.

N'est-ce pas Poirot - I quite agree.

While it is tempting to use words like Fascism to make a point, it detracts from reasoned debate. We are all guilty of using language to empahsise a point at times but we should endeavour to keep it within the realm of reality.

Accountability of governments and ensuring there are adequate checks and balances; or improvements in participation of citizens in democracy are one thing - however ascribing Fascism to environmental protection is pushing the envelope a bit.

Bushbasher wrote:

“but you can help. just tell me which society, past or present, that you regard as closest to your libertarian paradise. …..”

Given that society is always in a state of flux and changes from day to day; further given that any two persons will have different perceptions of society, there can be no precise answer to your question.

The terms positive and/or negative are not in themselves important except to indicate a sense of direction or tendency in which society might move.

Jefferson has identified a totalitarian direction in environmentalism. That is he recognises it is authoritarian, hierarchal and has an ideology dogma. Climate gate illustrates how certain powerful professors can influence Journal Editors and also research funding. Labelling non believers as “deniers” is an example of how mild abuse rather then free discussion can be used stifle to debate. Like it or not these are tendencies towards a dictatorship. The dictator may have been elected into office. The ruling party knows what is best for us and naturally governs in our “best interest.”

Several postings find the word “fascist” to be an offensive description for the philosophy of environmentalism. Ok how about substituting the phrase, “the democratic republic of politically correct thinking people?”

The other direction is towards liberty and freedom of the individual. Yes even in a free society there has to be constrains. My point is that constrains on individual action should be minimal. Obviously certain types of behaviour will not be tolerated even in the freest of society. All functioning societies must have “law and order.”

My final point is that these and almost certainly other social forces are in a state of unstable equilibrium (to borrow a term from mathematics).

>> Jefferson has identified a totalitarian direction in environmentalism.

no he hasn't. he's simply claimed it. what the hell is so totalitarian about trying to arrange an international *agreement* to control gasses? would you argue the same if it were liquids or solids? or, do you not care if your neighbor pisses and craps on your lawn?

of course, if you're really interested in totalitarianism, you might discuss bush's henchmen torturing and executing people in the midst of lying us into a war, and justifying it by arguing that the president of the u.s. can legally do whatever he damn well pleases. why don't you ask hicks or hanif whether they fear bob brown's fascism more or less than howard's?

but i suspect you guys are not really interested in totalitarianism. you're simply interested in slinging insane charges of fascism, all the while calling for reasoned debate.

>> That is he recognises it is authoritarian, hierarchal and has an ideology dogma.

compared to who and what?

>> Climate gate illustrates how certain powerful professors can influence Journal Editors and also research funding.

if this is news to you, you know bugger all about academia.

>> Labelling non believers as “deniers” is an example of how mild abuse rather then free discussion can be used stifle to debate.

if the loon shoe fits, wear it. yes, namecalling can stifle debate. but some forms of disbelief amount to nothing but a religious-like denial, and that is simply true for much of the disbelief of AGW. the arguments of special-pleading, cherry-picking AGW-denying twats deserve not an ounce of respect.

>> Like it or not these are tendencies towards a dictatorship.

yes, and if i jump in the air, i'm tending towards the moon.

i don't like the authoritarian tendencies of western democracies very much either. but i plan to wait at least a week or two before i morph into a complete conspiracy nut.

As previously noted the word Fascism and its derivations should not be applied to the environmental lobby, not because said greenies are correct or wrong, or, because they are loud and organised; rather, Justin and Cheryl and others use the word so incorrectly, it isn't legitimate to use it,even as tougue-in-cheek emphasis or exaggeration.

The following makes sense to me, and I do not see a whiff of fascism in it:

‘The protection and conservation of the natural environment and the planned use of natural resources in recognition of the close relationship between man and nature and the finite nature of the earth’s resources.’

‘… the world environmental crisis arises from:
• The affluent society’s abandonment of the virtue of frugality;
• The continuance of too much of the attitude of “taming the wilderness” coupled with insufficient appreciation of the value of unique flora and fauna; and
• A failure to recognise the interdependence of men and nature.’

The policy went on to call for such things as 5 per cent of the country to be national parks, taxes on environmentally damaging products, research into solar energy and fusion energy, etc.

Governments wanting to keep people fearful of dubious or even out-right incorrect outcomes are what? Democratic? Working in favour of the people and their well being?

More and more we are being herded like sheep into a society that will one day be too scared to leave their homes, eat what that choose and never have fun or if they do they will pay money for it. It will be supervised.

They pay scientists and academia to do studies to tell us things we already know, why? We can't think or look after ourselves; we work, we pay taxes, we raise families, few of us break the law.

Who are these people forever intruding on our lives with dire warnings on.....simply everything. They won't even let people die when they should and then complain that the health system is imploding under the burden and costing too much.

What exactly do you call that type of government? Once upon a time governments governed, like they improved living standards, infrastructure and such. Now they just jet around the world talking about.... well you know, if I say it, I would be told to take out the profanity.

Quite honestly, just my opinion, most politicians are the greatest freeloaders in the world today.

Happy everything to you all, have a lovely holiday and Christmas. I still call it that, even though some say it's inappropriate, those thought police again. Bugger it even though I am an atheist, I like calling the holiday Christmas.

Implicit in the article is the assumption as if humans are not the product of, and not dependent on, the natural environment ... namely as if humans are some kind of an a god-like race which transcends natural evolution and does not need to live in harmony with nature. Such an ideology contrasts with everything biology, anthropology and agricultural science demonstrate, as well as with history which documents the collapse of civilizations which cut their forests and polluted the water, as in Gerard Diamond's "Collapse". A "human over nature" anthropocentric view can only lead to self destruction of the human ability to grow food and survive.

The author is correct in stating the 'world is on the brink of sliding into fascism', as now 51% of the largest financial institutions in the world are corporations, not governments.
Where the libertarian argument always falls down, is in the libertarians' inability to see their liberty invariably comes at the price of someone else's. This is classic:

“Prices arise from the actions of everyone in the world in buying or selling, or abstaining from buying or selling, the resource in question, voluntarily, and in which every dollar is a vote...”

While this is undeniably true, it merely underscores the various levels of liberty in the human state.
A large fraction of the Human Race does not have any dollars to vote with; in fact almost half the world's population live on less than $2.50 a day. For 3 billion people, that's 7.5 billion votes.
Compared to this, Bill Gates has what this month? Forty three billion votes?
Yes, our politicians are a sad and sorry lot, but whose fault is this? At least they do show some response to our desires, even if generally too little, too late; and as others have pointed out, we 'ordinary' people have some power to change them.
Only through governments, can we hope to change corporations.
The true measure of a human being, is the ability to empathise. To be able to imagine what it must feel like to someone else, and not be locked into your own situation, thinking only of your own needs, your own desires.
I don't believe any animal can do this. Sadly, it seems no libertarian can, either.

To antigreen; "Several postings find the word “fascist” to be an offensive description for the philosophy of environmentalism. Ok how about substituting the phrase, “the democratic republic of politically correct thinking people?” I just love that.

But how many of the greens really, really care and believe what they say. Are they really foregoing or outlaying anything to back up their views or just telling other people what they should do?

I know many people have wholeheartedly changed to cleaner energy sources and recycling because they can afford to and have made the effort and not because they were 'green' or forced to, they simply want to help clean up the environment. However, not everyone can afford these measures even though they would like to and not all the greens are practising what they preach, they just want everyone else to do it.

As for Mr. Rudd, is he verging on what could be "fascism" by definition - do as I say regardless of debate, discussion or reasoning as has been suggested by some?

I suppose you could say we have some sort of democracy here whereby we can change government but what do we get when we change, another lot of spinners promising everything and delivering little of substance, putting their hand in the expenses kitty and another lot of trippers flying to far flung countries only to come back and tell us what we already know. We have computers and we read you see, we have a modicum of common sense and intelligence.

Mr. Rudd can apologise all day to everyone for everything but that sort of fluffy spin doesn't cut it with most people because most people don't care, they are too busy living. Run the country Mr Rudd, do something worthwhile about the things that need doing. Take your pick; infrastructure, water collection and recycling, land release rather than preservation in National Parks so people can build dwellings, just anything that will really benefit OUR country.

This rather dramatic headline has a few flaws, only if the link between the title and the general flow of the arguments presented weren’t so untenable.
Is the author saying that greening the environmentalism is the same as Nazi occupied Germany ( world )or Stalinism if one must categorize the communist periods into leader regime states ( excuse the pun )&#61514;
The unfortunate fact of life is that if there is a dollar to be made then the greening of the world will become a real possibility.
Power politics is just alluring enough for this to be attractive, but not so alluring as to promise any more than a compromise in costs.
The FACT that the USA has better results on greening the world is nothing to do with altruistic ideals it’s purely dollar driven.
So it’s really up to the technology buffs to market the solution. Look at Phillips USA for the positive contribution, in that they run their whole administration on solar derived power.
Cheryl is quite right in her Voltarian assumptions, btw.
The problem with freedom of speech is that that Australia thinks it has such a thing , because we have this forum as an outlet that supposedly represents ” freedom” .
Quite untrue.
A quick tune in to question Time in Oz politics would soon alleviate that falsehood.
Nazism and Stalinism? And their use of resources is not an argument for or against the validation of capitalism.
Ownership of resources. Is the fundamental right driving capitalism, who determines the misuse of the resources is the inherent problem?

Grim,

You say that “now 51% of the largest financial institutions in the world are corporations, not governments”. This may be the recycling of on old myth that x number of corporations are wealthier than most countries in the world, or it may be something else. Would you please give me a list with the actual figures and explain how the cut-off for “largest financial institution” was chosen? If you are unable to do that, can you give me a reference please?

Wow- I'm almost tempted to apologize to all of the authors I've made fun of in the past because this article is even worse than even THEY are.

After reading the opening drawing up parallels with Nazism, Stalinism before the subject is brought up I knew it was not going to be an article I would be taking seriously....

...Yet when the actual subject came up my jaw DROPPED.
Basically, a whinging bleating (and rather devious) attempt to raise the plight "Oh what right do environmentally-concerned democratic nations have to regulate the practices conducted on its soil at the expense of someone's right to make money otherwise ignoring it, and declare areas state parks when somebody would like to buy it?"

Erm, basically every principle about preservation of life, sustainability, long-term maintenance of land and use, preventing unpredictable changes in ecology which may affect us, and possibly consideration of any practice that may interfere with the neighbour's use of their own property vs one less-than-honest tightarse who wants to save (or make) a few more dollars than he already is?
And as Australia is neither short on food domestically or even on our giant export markets- the 'need' is rather flimsy too.
Boo, freakin' hoo I say.

Afterwards, a few stereotypes about the entire population who aren't corporate libertarians (and I assure you my definition is quite accurate), another Hitler reference (this time in relation to democracy), and we have quite a dud article indeed! I feel like a part of me died stooping so low to actually address it.

Oh and by the way Cheryl I think you need to see an optometrist- or maybe a psychologist- you're seeing your little "Anti-pop" goblins in articles (and following comments) that AREN'T ABOUT POPULATION.

Chris C- regarding Grim's statement it is quite possible- as these days plenty of governments may have privatized- or always used private trusts, banks and institutions to manage national wealth- although I agree I would be interested to see the data also regardless.

However Grim is absolutely right that one person's right in a libertarian society DOES directly detract from the rights or well-being of another (rights themselves being a subjective term).

In the farming example- a guy that bulldozes a forest on his own property may result in animals fleeing and infesting his neighbours' property instead- despite his neighbour being sensible enough to have purchased an un-infested property to begin with now being moot and having to take the expenses to fix up the damage inflicted by his neighbour. And of course I could go on harsher tangents (like building a polluting factory that contaminates the soil on the neighbour's property- or the air he and his livestock breathe.

Plus there is the simple consideration that 'cooperation' to remedy this (although frankly I doubt those who claim this even believe it) falls flat on its face when a crooked individual personally doesn't care to cooperate because there's more money to be made by doing something else to their detriment- which reduces 'cooperation' to lobbying via bribes vs threats to go ahead with the detrimental tangent.

Nobody really believes we are heading to Nazism etc,but we are losing our freedom of speech and I have the feeling our democracy as well. We have no say about most government decisions and changes to our constitution, they happen and we, the people, don't know until after the fact.

Again, I will mention Peter Spencer, up a pole on his land dying of starvation because he has lost everything. If he dies the government will sigh with relief because the worrisome buzzing this man has caused will no longer exist. Mr Spencer will become just another of the many farmers who have committed suicide because of government policy, being left with no future and no hope.

I remind everyone again this man has been unable to clear and produce anything on his land, the government made it part of the Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gases. The man was supposed to be compensated but received nothing. Every time the matter goes to court and it has on numerous occasions the judges throw it out, they won't hear it! It has ruined him and that is why he is up a pole dying.

It is bloody amazing how little media attention this has received, I wonder why? And Peter Garrett who was approached to look at the issue said "These matters should be handled in Court". Well that would be fine if they ever heard it in Court. That's what happens when you have useless twits in government portfolios who haven't got a clue about any issues.

DOES THIS MAN HAVE TO DIE TO MAKE HIS POINT? Is it a fair go in Australia that politicians, who are supposed to be making decisions to benefit the people of this country, can do this to an Australian?

“that human population is the problem, and that unlimited political power is the solution.”

Certainly human population is the problem but political power, unlimited or otherwise is not and never will be the solution.

The solution is, as it always has been, ultimately, the survival of the fittest.

Now, when you have burgeoning population numbers loosely divided between the educated people of the developed world (albeit with a few who have lost sight of the real issue) and ignorant third world folk, regardless of what you may think of as the morally righteous entitlement, one certain fact is manifest.

The fittest to continue the development of the human race are not the uneducated, ill skilled and ignorant.

As to political power – politicians have a lust for it. The most despicable are those who rally under the banner for “the common good” – collectivists / communists / socialists.

They have no real authority but demand to control the resources of everyone else.

They have no education but demand no one else should be educated.

They have infiltrated the environment movement not to “save the planet” but to impose their bastardry on everyone else using “the environment”: and “AGW” as a substitute for “the common good”

The “collectivists” are a pestilence upon the earth. Their politics have inflicted misery and death upon millions and their attempts at political control should be resisted at every turn, not because capitalist libertarianism is “fabulous” but simply because capitalist libertarianism leaves the “power” in the hands of multiple individuals, instead of collecting it all and placing it in the hands of usurpers like Lenin and Stalin.

collectivists have hi-jacked the AGW debate and the environmental movement and will use it to impose socialism by stealth

And as dear old Comrade Lenin said

“The goal of socialism is communism”…

Which, as this article illustrates, was not different to fascism.

Libertarian capitalism is not “perfect” but it sure beats the collectivists manifesto on every point

- especially through the limiting the centralization of economic / social / political power and control.

My apologies to all, particularly Chris C and King Hazza for my clumsy wording; I was working from an aged and rotting memory.
The actual quote should read:
“51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred (sic?) wealthiest bodies are corporations."
The source can be found here:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats#src23

Once again, Rouge compares apples to oranges; first he writes of 'survival' of the fittest; then (perhaps suddenly realising that accountants aren't actually particularly 'fit' to survive) changes to 'development' of the human race.
Come to think of it, accountants aren't much use there, either.
Another apt quote from the above source:

“The total wealth of the top 8.3 million people around the world “rose 8.2 percent to $30.8 trillion in 2004, giving them control of nearly a quarter of the world’s financial assets. In other words, about 0.13% of the world’s population controlled 25% of the world’s financial assets in 2004.

Who is it that "have no real authority but demand to control the resources of everyone else"?

Grim “Once again, Rouge compares apples to oranges; first he writes of 'survival' of the fittest; then (perhaps suddenly realising that accountants aren't actually particularly 'fit' to survive) changes to 'development' of the human race. Come to think of it, accountants aren't much use there, either.”

I leave the matter of “worthiness to survive” with the individuals who buy, “at arms length” my services and they are queuing up so on that parameter I doubt Grim is as likely to survive as I, regardless how he judges his own relative merit.

I figure the private sector, who generate the wealth of nations, prove their worth. The problem is the public sector- sucking off the wealth creators by application of taxes and levies and ETS schemes.

One thing is certain, development of the species will never be arrested by the accountants, who provide value to justify their income but by every publically employed parasite who does not.

Somehow I feel safe in speculating, Grim is a career public servant arrestor and likely has a net worth less than the value of my tie collection.

All that apart,

“In other words, about 0.13% of the world’s population controlled 25% of the world’s financial assets in 2004.”

And if you gave out equal shares to everyone, in 7 years that proportion would again hold true.

The point is people are not all equal, some are gifted and suited to achieve and survive (the fittest)

Whereas others are not (often those who find succor in the politics of small minded envy).

And pontificating by Grim or the other followers of collectivism will never change that

Hence history is littered with the repeated failures of their collectivist political ideology, by any name, from kibbutz to socialism and communism or fascism.

Central control of everything is the recipe for collective disaster Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot style

And David Spencer is still up a pole starving to death because the governments both state and federal (Howard and Rudd plus the NSW State government)took his life's work to compensate for the Kyoto agreement CO2 protocol, and will, if they can and it looks like they will, take his land away with no compensation. Prime real estate in the highlands.

We are not heading towards fascism? The politicians in this country are making their own rules and signing agreements we have no access to or information about. They change the constitution to suit themselves anyone who doubts this is a fool.

Go ask anyone interested in the constitution and constitutional law and ask how many times it has been changed without the knowledge of the people.

Politicians are elected to look after the people NOT to tell the people what to do and not to use taxes in whatever way their party wishes. We do not elect them for that, they are only caretakers.

Question time in parliament is nothing but an exercise in stupidity and anyone who has watched it would know these people are all coming close to idiocy. It's fascicle, not even the worst comedy compares to question time in our parliament. It makes me cringe with embarrassment.

Constitutionally we should have referendums but we don't....why? Because they cost too much so governments don't have referendums, they call their decisions mandates on election.

They should not, by law, change the constitution but they do because they can without our knowledge and if that is not heading towards fascism then we might already be there.

<< And David Spencer is still up a pole starving to death because the governments both state and federal (Howard and Rudd plus the NSW State government)took his life's work to compensate for the Kyoto agreement CO2 protocol, and will, if they can and it looks like they will, take his land away with no compensation. Prime real estate in the highlands. >>

Garbage. Spencer can come down any time he likes and have a feed.

As far as his "life's work" goes, he spent nearly 30 of the last 40 years amassing his wealth by exploiting Papua New Guineans and playing politics in the PNG highlands. He's no battling farmer.

He should come down from his perch, sell his "prime real estate" and retire instead of behaving like a narcissistic goose. Nobody's stolen anything from him - rather, he needs to face the reality that he now lives somewhere where he can't do what he likes and has to obey the law like everybody else.

Grim,

Thank you, but the link you gave does not allow me to open the items in it that seem to be relevant. However, I have found another source:
http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html.

It lists countries, not governments, and it does not actually show that corporations are wealthier than the countries. It lists countries by GDP and corporations by sales. Neither is a precise measure of wealth, so even a country with comparatively smaller GDP will, because of its assets, be wealthier than a corporation with comparatively high sales.

The results are not surprising. The first 22 are countries. The first corporation on the list, General Motors comes in at 23 with $176 billion in sales. Next is Denmark with a GDP of $174 billion, but Denmark’s assets are far greater than its GDP, and I ‘d prefer to live in one of Denmark’s cities than one of GM’s factories.

The first four corporations are US-based. The next is German-based. The next three are US-based. The next is Japan-based. So, what we are really seeing is that corporations based in very large economies, such as those of the US and Japan, will earn more in sales than the poor countries, such as Pakistan and Peru, will produce in a year.

The point is less dramatic if it is put his way: 36 of the top 50 are countries and only 14 are corporations.

Chris C “It lists countries, not governments, and it does not actually show that corporations are wealthier than the countries. It lists countries by GDP and corporations by sales. Neither is a precise measure of wealth, so even a country with comparatively smaller GDP will, because of its assets, be wealthier than a corporation with comparatively high sales.”

Ah Chris, Grims piety got the better of him.

I am tempted to suggest he consult his own accountant before he humiliates himself with the comparison of – dare I say it (and quote him) “apples and oranges”

I recall it was, I think Belgium (or perhaps Poland) who was facing the wrath of the IMF some 20 years ago for being perilously close to loan default, commented regarding an assessment of its “national wealth” something about the realizable value of one of its medieval cathedrals - which is valid (unless you want to seize it and realize proceeds from a carry away sale).

I would further observe… you mention GM and as wealth, noting it is the first corporation listed in that stupid list (the IPS being a propaganda stink tank for small minded, envious socialists, who consider themselves too “intellectually inclined” to read The Daily Worker).

Whilst GM might have very high revenues, its shares have been traded as junk bonds for the past decade and its profits are non existent…

Hence, its present status and the shroud of US chapter 11 bankruptcy protection…. Something else Grim should ask his accountant to explain.

Now I would expect no country experiences the volatility in sales which any corporation is subject to… the hysterically called “global financial crisis” represented a contraction estimated to be about 3 % in GDP – where as GM quarter to quarter performance was a drop of 47%
http://www.autoinsane.com/2009/05/07/news/business-finance/gm-q1-revenue-drops-47-while-company-hemorrhages-market-sharecash/

noting, the impact of The Great Depression” produced around 30% decline in US GDP between 1929 and 1933

So Grim... before you bore us with your ignorance I seriously suggest you consult with someone with an economic or accounting background,

Hey Chris,
That's an interesting way of looking at things; reducing the 'drama'.
If we only want to be 'less dramatic', why not just look at the top 20. There you have 100% countries and no corporations. By the time we get to your fifty, we are up to 14 out of 50, or 28%, then on to my 100 and we're up to 51%...-hang on, is this starting to look like a bell curve, or a hockey stick?
If we just look at the last 25 financial entities on that list, only 5 are countries; which means 80% are corporations.
The last country is Bangladesh, coming in at 95 on the hit parade. Would you rather be a worker in Bangladesh, or Tokyo Electric Power, at 96?
Of course, as you rightly point out, comparing sales to GDP is only one measure of wealth, and -even to an accountant as limited in understanding as Rouge- a balance sheet is meaningless if it doesn't include debits as well as assets.
I wonder if a list of the top 100 financial debtors would look much different?
Of course, then we would have to separate public and private debt, and we are back to the dreaded apples and oranges again.
But of course there are other ways of looking at the same statistics; eg,
51% of the top 100 financial entities have full employment.
51% of the top 100 financial entities have virtually zero liability for anyone over the age of 65, or under the age of 16.
51% of the top 100 financial entities spend little or nothing on education for those under the age of 16.
And to my mind, the most cogent point of all in a discussion which so freely refers to fascism, communism and totalitarianism, 51% of the top 100 financial entities are demonstrably undemocratic.
One share one vote, not one person one vote.

Grim “a balance sheet is meaningless if it doesn't include debits as well as assets.”

Well talk about stupid…

it is obvious you are making pronouncements through your fundamental orifice

because

Even a first year student accountancy clerk would be able to tell you that:

As far as a balance sheet goes:

“Assets” are “Debits”

And

“Liabilities” are “Credits”

Therefore regarding “-even to an accountant as limited in understanding as Rouge- “

Excuse my “limited understanding” but it is, quite obviously, significantly greater than yours -

Yet you keep coming back to dazzle us with your profound ignorance –

go figure?

And as we are talking “And to my mind, the most cogent point of all in a discussion . . . . . .One share one vote, not one person one vote.”

Three "cogent" points this humble accountant would seek to bring to that aspect of the debate:

1 Corporate “Voting rights” are, generally and rightly, proportional to “invested risk” (since no one is forced to hold shares).

Excepting

2 provisions for the protection of minority share holders, as included within the corporations statutes of most “western” democracies

3 Differential Classes of Shares, promoted with differential obligations and entitlements

Come on Grim… you are such fun!

A dullard with a mouth big enough to drown in and the stupidity to keep jumping into it.

Every time you try to show me up, for whatever reason…. You end up buried, head first, in the brown sticky stuff….

Keep em coming…

I just love crafting my “limited in understanding” educational briefings just for you

From CJ: "He should come down from his perch, sell his "prime real estate" and retire instead of behaving like a narcissistic goose. Nobody's stolen anything from him - rather, he needs to face the reality that he now lives somewhere where he can't do what he likes and has to obey the law like everybody else."

You CJ and people like you are the ones who will in the long run happily see the rights of the people in this country taken away. You probably haven't been further than the Blue Mounts and don't give a rats about our farmers as long as you are comfortable in your city dwelling. But whether you are or are not from the city it is WRONG that any government should take away the rightful ownership of any land from anyone without compensation.

And for the record, you are wrong, HE CANNOT SELL THE PROPERTY!

Mr. Spencer's land HAS BEEN locked up in the name of KYOTO and meeting the government's CO2 targets and he has not been compensated. His land is called a "sink" and many, many more farmers have had their land taken from them and some have suicided.
Whether you know Peter Spencer as having made money in Papua New Guinea makes no difference at all, it is not democratic. It has happened to many other farmers and probably will happen to many, many more.

I wonder how you would feel if it was your land and this was happening to your family. It seems you have no idea what freedom and democracy means. You would let everything be taken away that means anything to the individual, land, homes, thoughts, freedom of speech, the whole lot. What sort of individual would agree that what is happening to Peter Spencer is right? Only you can answer that CJ and I know who the goose is.

Grim,

We could do the top 1,000, around 80 per cent of which would have to be corporations because there are only around 200 countries on Earth. All I was trying to do was to get a precise understanding of loose terms thrown around in this debate.

The simple point is that corporations are not countries or governments. They do not have the powers or obligations of governments, any more than sporting clubs do. They are powerful in some cases, indeed, but I do not see any alternative to having some big corporations in the world. It is actually efficient, and they have to work within all sorts of laws, which can be argued about separately.

It makes perfect sense that someone who puts $1,000 into 1,000 shares in a company gets 1,000 votes. Otherwise, two people with one dollar each at stake could put someone else’s $1,000 at risk.

This discussion is a long way from the environment. You have even got me agreeing with Col Rouge, when I do not share his political philosophy at all, but I do see the sense in the semi-free market economy we have because it allows people to be rewarded for effort. Nor do I see environmentalists as necessarily fascists, communists or socialists. Nor do I see fascism running the world. I think the whole division of the world into “the Left” and “the Right” is silly.

On a separate point, I am not so sure animals cannot empathise. I had an old, sick dog, who had breathing difficulties. When she started to pant, my other dog would go and lie in front of her and lick her face, as if trying to make her better. I know this is unscientific, but he obviously knew something was wrong and wanted to help her in his doggy way

Col,

Well, this is a first. I agree with the points you make about corporations and countries in your 31/12 10.23am post. The other point I want to add is that corporation profits are really the profits of the shareholders who have invested their savings in the corporation. (I know, some profit is retained and not distributed.) Many superannuation funds, of ordinary working people, invest in corporations, so we have become a shareholding democracy.

I would never want a centrally controlled economy, though I would have more rules than you would about corporate behaviour, but that is a different issue.

For the record, RaeBee, I live in a rural area west of the Great Divide.

<< HE CANNOT SELL THE PROPERTY! >>

Says who, and why not? I don't suppose you'd like to back up that shouted claim?

Hey Chris, I also see the sense in the semi-free market economy. What disturbs me is the trend.
After a crisis of companies being “to big, to be allowed to fail”, the response was to allow them to get even bigger; and reduce the number of competitors. The “51%” is a recent statistic, and still growing.
Also, this concept of 'efficiency' bothers me. In economics, where prices are largely (if not wholly) governed by the labour input, efficiency could be simply described as more product per unit of labour. In a growth economy, this must be a good thing.
In a stable or contracting marketplace however, any increase in 'efficiency' simply leads to a concentration of profits at the top, and a reduction of jobs at the bottom.
Good for corporations, since corps, don't have to deal with unemployment, but bad for countries.
Also, the idea that share returns are proportional to invested risk seems to have become a thing of the past; ie
Now it seems 51% of the world's largest financial entities believe they should have the right to privatise (keep) profits, while nationalising (palming off to the 49%) the losses.
In the banking industry, the manufacturing industry, the mining industry and the agricultural industry we are told that it is more 'efficient' to be bigger, and have fewer competitors.
What happens when there is only one bank, and one car producer, and one mining company, and one agribusiness?
Libertarians are locked into the paradigm that only governments pose a threat to private ownership.
As homes are become less and less affordable for 'average' people worldwide, and banks begin to consider renting the houses to the people who couldn't afford their mortgage, as the largest companies merge and amalgamate,and swallow or destroy small, innovative businesses, and the constant squeezing of small farmers off the land by bigger farmers in the name of 'efficiency' in this and other countries, that paradigm seems naive indeed.

Hey Chris (continued)
On your other point about your dog, I too have witnessed such acts by many kinds of animals.
I think the point I am trying to make lies in the difference between the words 'empathy' and 'sympathy'; the difference between just feeling sorry for someone and actually understanding how it must feel. I have myself been the recipient of doggy sympathy at times when I've been hurt or sick. In hunter gatherer societies, there was/is almost always a tradition of hunters thanking their prey for their sacrifice, so the hunter's family may live. I think empathising with prey/enemies is something humans are best at; although I admit it is more a matter of degree, than a simple yes/no.
I think in times of war, many or most soldiers are forced by their humanity to engender at least a profound contempt, if not an absolute hatred of their enemies, in order to overcome this empathy.
I believe what we desperately need to do now to address the current economic and environmental crises is to extend that empathy to everyone everywhere, and stop thinking that what we do in our little corner doesn't affect anyone else; or that no one else will go short, if we take too much; or that one person should have greater rights than others merely through the accident of birth.
A libertarian would no doubt describe this as 'piety'. I would describe it as simple common sense.

Chris C “I would never want a centrally controlled economy, though I would have more rules than you would about corporate behaviour, but that is a different issue.”

Since I have not defined the extent to which rules should be imposed, I fail to understand how you can presume you would like more than I.

However, my personal view, having spent many years observing corporate behavior is

I see no point in pointless rules

I believe simple rules are more difficult to circumvent than the complex machinations

Many rules are not there to regulate but simply to inhibit or rectify an emotional challenge (eg FBT) which makes them fundamentally, bad rules / laws.

No amount of rules will ever protect the gullible from the easy talk of the con man or those with criminal intent, who ignore the rules anyway; they will only burden those who are not likely to need regulating anyway.

Grim mentions “trends”

my personal observation to trends is what appears as the drift toward greater monopolies in trade.

Typically the Woolworth / Safeway and the Myer / Cole amalgamations, which did serious damage to the “balance of power” in the wholesale produce markets as well as the retail sector,

Hence it is with delight I see new players, like Aldi and Costco setting up to challenge market dominance yet I still wonder why the Hawke / Keating governments endorsed the amalgamations?

I further see the role of Telstra in the telecomms industry as too powerful and would rather the wholesale (network) arm be divorced from the retail domestic corporate interface, just as the US FTC is still chipping away at Microsoft with their anticompetitive operating system source code access.

Australia suffered for decades the folly of the two airline agreement and is challenged with the current petrol concentration

Breaking / preventing monopolies and oligopolies, regardless they be publically owned or privately owned, is the only way to protect "free market" competition and is the area of proper “regulation”, not simply building what amounts to “hurdles” to new participants in commerce at any level.

I would like to say that environmentalists and greenies are two very different creatures. Greenies are politically motivated, many of them hiding behind a tree to hide their true communist/socialist colours. They are rabid and most have no idea of Australia's native ecology.

Environmentalists are not like greenies. We are people who know that all must coexist. We are annoyed, offended and upset when we farms being landlocked while rainforests, forests and important bushland destroyed for mining and poor urbanisation. We do not want farmers attacked and abused.

Environmentalists call for areas like the remaining areas of the Daintree Rainforest be classified as carbon sinks to counter carbon as that makes more sense, as well as protecting essential ecology.

Environmentalists recognise a financial worth and see how it can help to protect. We do not seek to stop backburning as we know that it is essential for the preservation of native flora.

The author wrote: "However, there is no such thing as values over and above human values. If we took away all the people, there would be no value in the environment."

The above is obvious nonsense. The world has existed for about 4.6 billion years. Humanity has existed for probably less than a million years in its present form. Like other species we will become extinct. The environment had value before we existed and will continue to have value when our species becomes extinct.

Grim,

I take your point about the difference between empathy and sympathy.

Col,

I concluded that I would want more rules on companies than you from the many posts I have read from you espousing your free market views on this site over the past few years.

You say: "However, there is no such thing as values over and above human values. If we took away all the people, there would be no value in the environment.

No one has a right to speak for environmental values over and above human values in the environment. Those who presume to speak for “environmental values” supposedly over and above human values, are merely speaking for their own values in using the same resource in a different way."

The environment was here before man, and it will be here after man, I don't think you really understand much at all.

You are one of these people who says, we made the word, so if we don't exist, it doesn't.

Before today, you didn't exist because I didn't know your name; and you will exist no more as I will soon forget your name.

Thank God your type are a shrinking minority.