And no, I'm not stretching when I say that. In fact, the environmentalist linked here admits as much and with no qualms.

Hat tip to Steve Horwitz in his third of three posts on environmentalism. See link for others.

The Op-Ed in question is by environmentalist David Shearman from Australia.

What I find interesting here is not the intention to protect the environment. Who could argue with such a goal? Nobody. Seriously. What winds up raising the eyebrows of those who lack the penchant for authoritarianism ( or at least selectively lack this penchant on this matter...see: conservatives) is how far environmentalists are willing to go to pursue their agenda.

Shearman:

Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. The subject is almost sacrosanct and those who indulge in criticism are labeled as Marxists, socialists, fundamentalists and worse. These labels are used because alternatives to democracy cannot be perceived! Support for Western democracy is messianic as proselytised by a President leading a flawed democracy

There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties. It is not that liberal democracy cannot react once it sees a threat, for example, the speedy response to a recent international financial emergency. If governments can recognise a financial emergency and in an instant move heaven and earth (and billions of dollars, pounds sterling and euros) to contain it, why are they unable to do the same in response to a global environmental emergency? Quite simply our system is seen to live and breathe by the present economic system; the problem is that living and breathing within the confines of the world ecological systems is contrary to the activity of progress and development as defined within liberal democracy.

The Chinese decision on shopping bags is authoritarian and contrasts with the voluntary non-effective solutions put forward in most Western democracies. We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions. It is not that we do not tolerate such decisions in the very heart of our society, in wide range of enterprises from corporate empires to emergency and intensive care units. If we do not act urgently we may find we have chosen total liberty rather than life.

I find this amazing on so many levels. I often find "too much democracy" to be a threat as well in some cases. I fear tyranny of the majority, stupidity of the majority and the concerted efforts of myopic interest groups to bamboozle the majority in pursuit of their own vision for the rest of us. Of course, my answer is to less democracy is not dictatorship....just less democracy! Meaning, less in play for people to impose on each other....a longer bill of rights for example to remove certain matters from the hands of busy bodies and "do-gooders".

Mr. Shearman means more authoritarianism in the form of an expert panel who imposes laws.....that "authoritarian decisions based on consensus science" should rule the day.

Says Horwitz:

That we must choose between "liberty" and "life" puts a whole different spin on the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing now doesn't it? Evidently, when you have the Truth, it must be imposed upon the non-believers whether they want it or not.

Personally, I think the term "non-believers" is a bit too much but the point is clear.

Continues Shearman:

"[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power."

M'kay.

Anyway, and here's where the $h!% really hits the fan, Horwitz harkens to Jonah Goldberg's much talked about Liberal Facsism ....a very provocative and poorly titled book that looks more appropriately titled when progressives like Mr. Shearman show up. Horwitz mentions how Goldberg's theme looks eerily justified when we consider such positions like Mr. Shearman's.

Horwitz:

[Goldberg] argues that modern American liberalism, deriving from Progressivism, shares some important features with the political economy of 20th century fascism. Modern liberalism, he argues, is fascism with a smiling face. Their underlying philosophy and many of their institutions are similar to those of the fascists, but their intentions are much more noble. The op-ed above certainly fits that description.

Talk about The Fatal Conceit on steroids!

In closing, in quite a different approach and perspective from my previous blog post on this matter, this approach would unilaterally put the kabosh on a lot of activity in the name of the environment. I see horror and corruption in the implementation of such a regime. I see narrow-minded policy and pure self-indulged myopia. I see more problems created than solved....problems which would perversely be used to justify more heavy-handed mauling.