Liberal fascism??!

The libertarian-Right blogosphere is abuzz about Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism. It's getting delightful one-star reviews on Amazon from lefties who haven't even bothered to read it. (Amazon has been quietly pulling most of them down.) The book's very title - the accusation it contains - sends left-liberals into conniptions.

Left-liberals don't want to admit, or to have anyone else notice, the truth about their politics:

- That they are, at heart, "about" controlling others through government coercion, i.e., through legalized physical force;

- That they share that impulse with communism, socialism, and fascism;

- That before "fascism" rightly became a bad word, left-liberal philosophers were intellectually "in bed" with fascist philosophers and vice versa.

From what I'm told, Jonah's new book demonstrates the above. I am looking forward to getting my copy!

I was thinking about the following 2x2 matrix to describe the different political philosophies. (I hope it's original with me, and not in Jonah's book.) It shows the similarity and the differences among communism, fascism, socialism and American left-liberalism, evaluating them on 2 key questions:

1) Is the philosophy openly totalitarian? Or merely a stepping-stone? (i.e., officially denying it's totalitarian, but still always favoring government power?)

2) Economically, does the philosophy advocate the abolition of private property? Or does it try to retain some notion of private property ownership?

Actually, let's make it a 3x2 matrix, to also include my philosophy, which is: true individual freedom with property rights under limited government, a.k.a. laissez-faire capitalism. Here goes:

	Abolish private property	Keep some notion of private property
Openly totalitarian (anti-liberty, anti-democracy)	Communism	Fascism
Covertly totalitarian (government power, under guise of democracy)	Socialism	Left-liberalism (and to a smaller degree, "compassionate" social conservatism)
Anti-totalitarian (truly limited government)	None (contradictory)	Laissez-faire capitalism

Thought for the day

Humankind's nature is to mold the environment to its own advantage. That's why and how humans survive.

But we are not omnipotent. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." And, despite there being six billion of us, the environment is still much bigger and more powerful than humans. It consists of titanic oceanic and atmospheric forces powered by that enormous fusion reactor called, you know, the Sun.

The Global Warmists habitually exaggerate humanity's impact on the environment. That is, they exaggerate humanity's power to affect the environment. And, they claim, humanity should stop doing it. Blame Humanity First!

Global Warmism thus denigrates all of us - or humanity as such - for any weather that is perceived as inconvenient, or any climate-related misfortune. Simultaneously, Global Warmism asserts a comforting illusion that humanity, being all-powerful and all-important, could return to 1960s climates (perfect in hazy retrospect) if only we are sufficiently eco-virtuous.

In the end, Global Warmism functions as a convenient theodicy - the explanation of "Why Bad Things Happen to [allegedly] Good People" - for the modern-day pagan-atheist-narcissist.

Apology to my reader

...for giving a cite in my post below. I promised myself I wouldn't, lest this blog stop being stupid and lazy.

Plunder the Moon? Hell yes!!!

h/t Instapundit… An enviro-wacko worries about humans ‘plundering the Moon’.

The Moon is dead, dead, dead. Any resources we acquire there, such as clean energy (the article mentions He3 as a possibility), will only benefit humankind. Of course we should plunder it, IF and when it becomes economically beneficial. It’s a no-brainer. No animals would be harmed. No ecosystems would be displaced. What could be better?

But to E-Ws, the idea of humans economically benefiting from anything beyond primitive hunter-gathering and subsistence farming is reprehensible… deplorable… an occasion for the 3 W’s, Worry, Whining and hand-Wringing. Concepts such as human use, human benefit and human enjoyment feel bad to them.

Suppose you had a neighbor or “friend” who paid lip service to loving you, but in reality, was upset by any action you could take that might benefit you. Especially if it was going to benefit you financially or let you enjoy good things in life. Would you not logically conclude that, in fact, the person hates you - and is a repulsive nut? That's why I call 'em enviro-wackos, and how I know they hate humankind.

Hillary Clinton...

...is a corrupt shrew. She only returned Hsu's $850,000 because she got caught. Hsu is probably just the tip of the iceberg, with her. And when she speaks, the anger that practically oozes from her reminds me of old videos of Adolf Hitler.

What's so stupid and lazy about this blog?

I don't document anything or give cites. I barely put any thought into it. I don't even try to be funny. The only way to put in less effort, would be to not do it.

I'm OK if I never get a single reader or commentor. I am doing it as pure 'therapy'. Oh, and to get used to blogging software a little.