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 )
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.