Are Environmentalists really whackos?

Yes, they should be 'divested' of their modern conveniences and sent to live in the wilderness.

27 (90%)

No, we need to go back to mudhuts and grass skirts!

3 (10%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[ladyattis]

Well?

-- Bridget

[AbsurdParadox]

What if you believe we need to go to mud huts for non-environmental reasons?

[ladyattis]

What if you believe we need to go to mud huts for non-environmental reasons?

Then you're a Rule 34 case.

-- Bridget

[Jason Orr]

Some are, some aren't.

[velojym]

I know a few folks who take it upon themselves to live in an 'earth friendly' way, even to the extent of buying large-ish tracts of land and not doing anything with it, except as a campground or the like.
Others... are just freakin' nutz.

[YixilTesiphon]

Nature Conservancy-type people, or people like me? No.

Al Gore and the folks who dress up like evil ears of corn? Yeah.

[cerpntaxt]

See, the biggest problem is their belief that no one can own land. They don't seem to understand how that makes things so complicated and is so illogical, not to mention the whole homestead principle. If you take it as a given that no one can individually own land or like a forest or something, then what they say kind of makes sense... well at least until some of them start advocating force. Even if you don't believe that land can or should be privately owned, you shouldn't be forcing collective ownership. I have a friend who participates in Food Not Bombs. I don't agree with a lot of what she says, but it all stems from this disagreement over the question of land. I dunno, some of them are nice people.

[bakerbaker]

theres some rally going on in SP on april 14th...supposedly its going to be part of a national call of action, demanding congress to somehow cut carbon emissions by 80% come the year 2050 (don't ask me how...just thinking about it makes my head want to explode...)

would you all think it inappropriate of me to stand across the street, holding signs that say things like:

end global warming:  worldwide genocide now!

humanity is evil!

sensible people for the robotic takeover of earth!

you exhale carbon dioxide!

you're part of the problem:  stop breathing

fucking hypocrites!

global warming is a lie!

what about the medieval warm period?

save the earth:  kill yourself!

practice what you preach:  destroy your car

[YixilTesiphon]

BAHAHAHAHA!

[markuzick]

See, the biggest problem is their belief that no one can own land. They don't seem to understand how that makes things so complicated and is so illogical, not to mention the whole homestead principle. If you take it as a given that no one can individually own land or like a forest or something, then what they say kind of makes sense... well at least until some of them start advocating force. Even if you don't believe that land can or should be privately owned, you shouldn't be forcing collective ownership. I have a friend who participates in Food Not Bombs. I don't agree with a lot of what she says, but it all stems from this disagreement over the question of land. I dunno, some of them are nice people.

No, the problem is that they want ownership of land. They just want the State to own it directly, as opposed to granting the privilege of control to individuals and businesses. Both of those paradigms are two sides of the same coin, and are at the root of State monopoly power. It's the unearned ownership of raw land, at the expense of the right of people to freely create property rights in the use of land (to live freely on earth), that causes the most environmental mischief. You cannot expect monopoly owners to worry about the slaves they exploit, or the condition of the environment in which they are kept.

[cerpntaxt]

Well my friend wants social control not state control. I dunno what that means but she certainly is no statist; just a collectivist.

[markuzick]

Well my friend wants social control not state control. I dunno what that means but she certainly is no statist; just a collectivist.

By what means can she compel social control, if not by some form of state? Control (ownership of) land, collectively or individually, is the essence of the State.

[Alex Libman]

Them peak oil freaks had me fooled for a while...

[cerpntaxt]

Well my friend wants social control not state control. I dunno what that means but she certainly is no statist; just a collectivist.

By what means can she compel social control, if not by some form of state? Control (ownership of) land, collectively or individually, is the essence of the State.

Obviously.

[freeAgent]

Some are, some aren't.

Pretty much.