Posted by: graemebird | February 24, 2008

Condemnation Of Alleged Voluntarist-Environmentalists At Mises

I cannot get this condemnation through at since I’m moderated there. So If you wish to link to it be my guest.

 One alleged Misean and some others who have jumped the fence, have been giving George Reisman a hard time over his strong opposition to the hated environmentalists.

Reisman claims, and I think rightly, that the environmentalist movement is rotten at its core. That it is evil on first principles because of the doctrine of the INTRINSIC VALUE OF NATURE.

Now the thing is this. They cannot oppose this claim head on because it is right. This is in fact the environmentalists doctrine and it is in fact an evil doctrine.

So what they face here is a problem of disaggregation. If they want to retrieve some scintilla of validity from the great bulk of baseless evil that is the environmentalist movement, they then have to disaggregate to find where that value might be. They have to do so in such a way as to not take the Reisman principle head on.

I have tried to lead these kids by the hand in this matter. One of them is doing a philosophy PHD at Lousianna, so you’d think he would have gotten the point.

So I have suggested that perhaps nature corridors around newly homesteaded property titles may be in accordance to natural law. I’ve suggested that they look for a different name. I’ve suggested that there may be some value in the natural world that one could philosophically derive from its value as our oldest museum.

But the kids don’t want to go in for any of this and I suspect they may well be actual, full-blown, environmentalist nutballs. Certainly Tokyo Tom is. And thats but one of his handicaps.

But this Goeffrey fellow eludes me since he’s taking a bigoted anti-philosophical approach to the problem though he’s a philosophy student.

Anyway here’s the last comment I couldn’t get through:

This is just incredible. You guys cannot wrest the title of environmentalism off the evil mainstream. And you do not want to try. You don’t want to oppose these guys head on, and you soft-peddle their criminally-insane behaviour. Yet you don’t even feel it necessary to describe yourselves with different terminology.

Voluntarism is not good enough. Its insufficient. Necessary but insufficient. Because we have a grave crisis these environmentalists have forced us into with regards to energy production. And we don’t need to voluntarily convince investors not to put up coal-fired electricity plants, nuclear power plants, and coal-liquification plants besides those nuclear power plants.

We don’t need to convince people not to invest in deep-sea oil exploration and we don’t need to sap peoples enthusiasm for deregulation in this regard and for setting clear homesteading rules.

So many aspects of environmentalism (contemporarily understood) are just NOT ON…. voluntarily or not.

I can go in for nature corridors, and other buffers around newly homesteaded private property. I can go in for concerns over biodiversity. But what I cannot go in for is naieve kids projecting their own naievete onto others.

If you call yourself an “environmentalist” you are giving your weight to this criminally-insane movement, as it stands here today, in the present, in the real world. Not as you would want the movement to be.

 Get yourself another name or get used to the condemnation that you will have earned.



  1. It is amazing that we can find traitors to humanity even in such bastions of righteousness as the Mises Institute. This infestation by these misantrophic fanatics never seems to bottom out. At the moment we are hurtling toward an Ice Age and these people want to accelerate the process. For what reason? To cull the human species. This is the equivalent of homicide, what they do, and they should be at least treated the same way as anyone actually legally charged with homicide.

  2. > can go in for nature corridors, and other buffers around newly homesteaded private property. I can go in for concerns over biodiversity.

    Sir you are caving. The only reason one would care about biodiversity is to have enough foxes to hunt. Nature is our slave sir and it would do well to know this. No kowtowing like so many coolies before a colonial officer, dear sir.

  3. My, such elitist dribble doesn’t convince me in the least. Dandys like you Wanky Q. boy are a blight on an environment for all!

  4. Energy Independence Now!

    No more Oil Wars!

    Stop funding the terrorists!

    Drill in Anwar.

    Build more nuclear power plants

    Use More coal.

    Use more natural gas

    Turn trash into energy

    Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.

    If France can do nuclear power so can we.

    If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.

    If Australia can do LNG power so can we.

    Domestically produced energy will end recession and spur the economy.

  5. Mr Bird how can you stand to tolerate such human trash on your blog? This smelly litle prole Thompson is besmirching my honour.

  6. Thompson (I shall omit the appelation Mr as that only applies to respectable citizens). That sort of abomination which you describe is only practiced by members of your political creed, not by right thinking gentlemen. So do drop your abhorrent presumptions that I would engage in such demeaning behaviour, you cesspool of disease.

  7. Hey. I rather liked that poetryman’s post.

    Good show.

    Keep it up Quartermain.

  8. […] A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office Most expensive blog. Cheapest Thinktank. « Condemnation Of Alleged Voluntarist-Environmentalists At Mises […]

  9. An environment for all? Wow, some really do worship Mother Gaia.

  10. Hi, Graeme. Since you’re already highly effective at make me and other misanthropic, evil enviros look rational, instead of responding there I’ve posted directly on your
    copy of your latest LvMI post:



  11. GraemeBird, Jimmy Jam, Raheem: you are being moderated and otherwise blocked not because of your views but because you can’t seem to be civil. You are using the blog to hector and trash everyone and your comments end up distracting people from fruitful discussion. You are doing your cause no good. I’m happy that you have your own blog. Please post all the flames here that you can, and keep them off the Mises blog.

  12. Geoffrey Plauche. You are a fence-jumper and a wimp.

    Now Plauche!!!!!

    Do you in fact have any evidence whatsoever that industrial-CO2 is BAD for the environment in contrast to all extant scientific evidence which tells us that industrial-CO2 release is GOOD for the environment.

    If not why did you wimp out?

    Your supposed reputation means nothing to me. And from here on in you will be known as “FENCE-JUMPER-PLAUCHE”


    Arch-collaborator and weakminded wimp.

    Someone who would have done better to respect his elders and his betters.

  13. Look Jeffrey.

    There’s nothing wrong with 95% of my comments. The fact is you’ve grown punch-shy.

    You are scared shitless at having the “CRANK” accusation thrown at you just like all those years ago.

    Thats why you are weak on environmentalism.

  14. Graeme, TT is on the other side of these issues, but he knows how to be civil. Call him crafty if you want……..


  15. I suppose in your zealotry you missed this post of mine:

    “Oh, and I’m also aware of the studies that show that a somewhat warmer climate will generally be good for human beings and human agriculture, and higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere promote better plant growth in general. What we don’t want is too much warming, but I haven’t seen conclusive or even credible evidence that we’re in for catastrophic warming.”

    Posted by: Geoffrey Allan Plauche at February 28, 2008 1:05 PM

  16. JEFFREY ……. TT is a spammer. He’s basically cyber-stalked Reisman for two years. Its disgraceful that you continue to allow this to happen.

    I didn’t miss any of that Fence-Jumper-Plauche. Thats the whole point. You knew that and STILL you wimped out. Why didn’t you say no!

    Lets go over it again.

    Do you in fact have any evidence whatsoever that industrial-CO2 is BAD for the environment in contrast to all extant scientific evidence which tells us that industrial-CO2 release is GOOD for the environment.

    If not why did you wimp out?

    You wimped out even though you knew the truth of the matter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: