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.