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

[Hittman]

Most are.  Most are batshit insane. 

[Evil Muppet]

Absolutely.  Environmentalists are completely insane. 

[lordmetroid]

There are two kinds of enviromentalists... The romatics which also happens to be the fundamental loud vocied fucktards! And then the rational guy who prefer to study the situation and think about all the viewpoints like that nobel price winner of peace that feeds the world and was on "BULLSHIT!" as the super environmentalist. I don't have any problem with those people at all. They are my heroes!

[goten1201]

i like the rational ones, so very few there are,  the other ones that would rather have plants live than people live.  They can die in a pool of their own eco friendly waste.

[libertus]

Well thats a loaded poll if I ever saw one.

[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.

Obviously.

Why do you think it's obvious? It is to me, but I thought that most libertarians were for the ownership of raw land.

[libertus]

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

When people talk about social control, they seem to be promoting Marxism, which is essentially State monopoly. They do this accidentally on the logical fallacy that the state IS the people.

Nietzsche said it best in "Thus Spake Zarathustra"
"The state is the coldest of all clammy monsters and it lies cooly;
and this lie oozes from its icy lips: "I, the State, am the people."

[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.

Why do you think it's obvious? It is to me, but I thought that most libertarians were for the ownership of raw land.

Well she wants voluntary social control... I dunno how feasible that is but that's her stance. "The earth belongs to everyone." You know, that BenTucker/Georgist stuff.
I believe in the (de facto) ownership of land via homesteading.

[mrapplecastle]

what is an environmentalist?

[cerpntaxt]

I assume we're talking about those that call for state based solutions to the "tragedy of the commons".

[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.

Obviously.

Why do you think it's obvious? It is to me, but I thought that most libertarians were for the ownership of raw land.

Well she wants voluntary social control... I dunno how feasible that is but that's her stance. "The earth belongs to everyone." You know, that BenTucker/Georgist stuff.
I believe in the (de facto) ownership of land via homesteading.

You can have property rights in the use of a natural resource, but as you had nothing to do with the creation of that resource in the first place, nor can you trace the transfer of ownership back to the creator, you only have the moral right to prevent the use by others, if their intended use objectively interferes with your previously established use.