The Barbarians of Environmentalism! december 29, 2008
Posted by Mr. Hellström in Uncategorized.add a comment
Environmentalists believe that nature has an intrinsic value. They think that things are valuable in and of itself, even if these things are good for us humans or not. This has led them to believe that other things than humans have rights, and that we don’t have the right to use nature for our own purposes.
It’s important to know that the intrinsic theory of value, that constitutes the foundation of environmentalist thought, is flawed. The basic requirement for something to have value is a valuer. Without a valuer there can be no value. As Ayn Rand said:
“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.
Man needs to farm the land, and kill animals to produce food. Man also needs to cut down trees to make houses, paper, and other important things. Modern technology, industrial production, and other life-giving things are necessary if we wish to maintain civilization itself. If we were to stop exploiting the earth humanity would surely become extinct. Man’s survival and flourishing is depended upon his ability to use reason to change his environment to the better. Man needs to study, understand and use nature. It is the application of reason that has enabled him to rise above a caveman state. Nature is of value, but not in itself, only for man.
Since environmentalists support the intrinsic theory of value they see mans exploitation of nature as a problem – evil in fact. They maintain that everything we do, that we need to do in order to live, is wrong.
But how do they expect us to survive if their ideas were to be implemented? The simple, but true answer is – they don’t. Human survival is seen as an inconvenience, since we need to exploit the Earth to live. For the environmentalists billions of lives ought to end, to save their precious and unharmed nature. They don’t just want to return to the primitive stages of development, they want humanity to end. The biologist David Graber once said:
“Human happiness … is not as important as a wild and healthy planet. Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along”.
People in general seem to think that environmentalists want to save us, and that they battle against environmental problems, but instead they battle mankind. They want to protect the environment, not for our own sake, but for natures. As the environmentalist David Foreman said:
“We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight”.
Environmentalism shares the fundamental principle of hatred for human life, like Nazism and Communism. This makes it the most profound evil the world has ever seen. But it still differs from Nazism and Communism in that it doesn’t just advocate the individuals’ self-sacrifice for the race or class, but sacrifice for the not living.
Privatisera sjukvården! december 27, 2008
Posted by Mr. Hellström in Uncategorized.2 comments
En jämförelse mellan länder som har en friare marknad med de länder som har en mindre fri sådan visar att det finns en tydlig koppling mellan frihet och välstånd. Det räcker med att man tittar på de länder som tidigare omfamnat statlig styrning av ekonomin för att se att staten hindrade uppkomsten av billigare och bättre alternativ och därmed gjort det betydligt sämre för sin befolkning. I dagens Sverige har vi några områden som fortfarande styrs av detta destruktiva och hämmande system – en av dessa är sjukvården.
Om marknaden kan skapa välstånd inom alla andra sektorer – varför inte inom sjukvården? Om vi tack vare marknaden kan åtnjuta en högre levnadsstandard än någonsin tidigare i historien, då är det minst sagt bisarrt att vilja driva sjukvården enligt ett system som inte möjliggör detta. Utökad frihet för marknadskrafterna har gjort att fler och fler lyfts ur fattigdom och misär. Om marknaden möjliggjort innovation, bättre kvalité och bättre priser inom teknik, bil och livsmedelsindustrierna så skulle den också göra det inom sjukvården.
Ett bra och tydliggörande exempel av det hela går att finna om man jämför bilarna som producerades i Östtyskland (planekonomi) med dem som producerades i Västtyskland (marknadsekonomi). Här ser man tydligt hur de olika systemen har olika reslutat. Kvalitetsskillnaden mellan dessa bilar var påtagliga. De västtyska bilarna av betydligt bättre kvalité och variation än de östtyska.
En fri marknad skapar också valfrihet. På en fri marknad kan vi fritt välja mellan vem vi ska handla av. Vi behöver inte gå till Lidl eller Coop om vi inte vill – vi kan välja ICA Maxi istället. Hade vi inte haft en fri marknad för livsmedel, utan istället en statligt styrd produktion så hade vi inte haft det valet. Då hade vi varit tvungna att gå till de ställen staten bestämmer – vare sig vi vill eller inte. Så är i praktiken sjukvården idag.
En fri marknad för sjukvård är ett måste för att få en så bra sjukvård som möjligt, eftersom det är det enda ekonomiska systemet som möjliggör innovation, och uppkomsten av billigare och bättre alternativ. Så vill ni ha bättre vård med valfrihet och kvalité så är en fri marknad den enda lösningen.
Anarcho-Communism – Just another evil! december 3, 2008
Posted by Mr. Hellström in Fri- och rättigheter, Staten.1 comment so far
Anarcho-communists are just communists with another strategy; they all want to abolish private property. The idea is virtually the same, but the means to reach the end are different. This is why I believe that cooperation with anarcho-communists/collectivists is wrong.
Civilization requires private property in order to exist, and the individual requiers the right to private property to be able to flourish, and by advocating the abolition of private property one is advocating decivilization and human suffering and death.
I don’t see how an anarcho-communist, who is anti-private property, could ever be an ally to groups who favor private property. Just because both are against the existing State it doesn’t follow that they want, or strive, for the same thing.
There is one thing that anarcho-communists hate more than the State, and that is private property. Private property is a reason for them to oppose the State, and may I just point out that that is the direct opposite of my political views. The views held by the anarcho-communists should be understood as just another evil ideology that stands in the way of a free and prosperous society.
One has to look at anarcho-communism as just an alternate strategy of communism. They, like other communists, want to abolish private property, and view the State as the upholder of the ”injustice” of private property, but have a different strategy than other communists. They just have other means to reach the end-goal of communism (a stateless and classless/egalitarian society). This further strengthens the view that one should view the anarcho-communist, not as a friend, but a foe.
Anarcho-communism strikes me as profoundly unsound. Anarcho-communists that I have talked to have supported the confiscation and abolishment of private property, viewing private property as a “crime”. How could they then be an ally to groups in favour of private property?
Some claim that the differences between my position and that of anarcho-communists (and closely related ideologies) are just semantics. Nothing could be further from the truth! Anarcho-communists being anti-private property and me being pro-private property are not semantics. We stand in complete philosophical opposition. They are my enemy – just like Nazis, Marxists, Social Democrats, Mutualists and Environmentalists.
A fundamental principle of anarcho-communism, and any other branch of communist is: “to each according to his ability; to each according to his need”. This principle implies that no genuine right to property exists, since the needs of others goes before anything else. This in fact makes the claim that they ”don’t entirely oppose private property”, or “it’s just semantics” into a false statements.
If someone is opposed to private property I consider them an enemy, not an ally. They hold an opposing view. If someone says that they want to abolish the State in order to seize all property, and put it under the control of the collective, and claim that property is a crime I can’t view them as allies. They would see my property, not as mine, but rather something that I’m not entitled to. So their ”little communes” could, according to their views on property legitimately steal it from me, since they don’t recognize my right to it.
It’s not just different “predictions” about what a stateless society would look like, its opposing views about the most important of issues; the individuals’ right to enrich his own life by reason, and to keep the products of his labor.
Anarcho-Communists are anti-private property, and are thus a true enemy of freedom.
