Sunday, June 29, 2008

Are we up for the Great Battle For Freedom?

There’s a big battle out there.
So big we may not even know it.
You could say we cannot see the wood for the trees.
I refer to the government’s emissions trading scheme and its international variants.
You could say its the biggest ideological battle since capitalism versus communism.
And we had thought capitalism had won.
But no, the socialists have regrouped for one more battle and in the guise of a new religion, they look set to increase state control of industry far bigger than the social democratic , mixed economy countries ever achieved in the 1970s (or the Muldoonist 80s in New Zealand) when socialism reached a zenith.
Carbon taxes, carbon trading, call it what you want. The end result is the same. Greater state control of private enterprise and more nannying into our lives.
Wherever we look, governments are pushing through various legislation, some faster than others.
Here in New Zealand we see emissions trading, which is set to cost tens of thousands of jobs, raise fuel and food prices and lower our living standards.
Of course, we mustn’t forget how government will use its agents of state, the SOEs to claim something different, however flawed, even when it threatens to break its pet lobbying groups.
We also see how governments will also push legislation through, regardless of the economic and social conquences, even to the point of risking its own majority. This is how the socialists in Liarbour and the Greens think. Their statist ideology comes first.
Over in Australia, we see how similar environmentalism is also set to cause the country billions of dollars and harm living standards too.
And in the UK, with plans to build thousands of windmills even though they will need conventional power back up to work.
There won’t be much environmental gain anyway. We saw this with the support for biofuels. But environmental friendliness is not the real aim. It’s about control. Witness how Green Parties everywhere tend to be socialists in drag, or watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside. Witness how the dirtiest countries, like the former USSR, tend to be the socialist/communist ones, while the richer capitalist ones are usually cleaner.
And now, after communism was shown to fail, we see a fightback under the guise of supporting Gaia. We should not have private cars, we are told, they damage the environment. We cannot use petrol too, likewise. But Pruises are more environmentally damaging and so are diesel buses! We are told to use biofuels but then we realise they cause bigger problems, like habitat devastation and starvation. And we’ll have it drummed into us concepts of carbon foot prints and food miles.
We should be carbon free but non nuclear is still wrong. And if you doubt the nannying, look how the greenies are obsessed by what we eat (it can’t be pies) and what we watch (it can’t be The Great Global Warming Swindle).
And now they and their Liarbour allies are pushing carbon trading schemes the world over, with governments looking at huge windfall taxes.
What timing too? When global economies are particularly vulnerable, helped in part by the enviro-socialism they promote stopped sufficient discovery of oil and led to the push for biofiuels.
True, there will be some capitalists seeing new opportunities, like fifth columnists. And wasn’t it Lenin who said the capitalists would sell the rope from which to hang themselves?
In the meantime, Fran O’Sullivan argues how Liarbour should try and gain a cross-party consensus on climate change, which probably means leaving such measures until after the Election. But Liarbour is too keen on state control to even consider those who disagree with it.
And Poneke notes how climate change evangelists seek to brand sceptics planet destroyers.
Like he, I smell the bullshit too. Was it Rod Oram that was the facilitator?
Anyway, the stakes are truly high. Not just economic wealth but control, our freedom, the rights for us to do what we want. Be it in business, how we live, what we drive, what we heat, how we heat our homes, where we go for our holidays, and after the government’s latest piece of annoying, even what type of lightbulb we use!
Are we up for the Great Battle For Freedom?


KG said...

"But environmental friendliness is not the real aim. It’s about control."
You bet it is. And the bastards are winning, thanks to a supine, uninformed populace.
Are we up for this fight? No.
Not when reality television and welfare payments and sheer laziness rule the day.The socialist scumbags will win because they have a clear vision of what they want--and what they want is total control of your life and mine.

mawm said...

I don't want an Emissions Trading Scheme - and I'm sure that more than half of New Zealand would not if they were to wake up to the fact that there is a personal cost.

I don't want to be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol - and I'm sure that if they bothered to read it, most of New Zealand wouldn't want to either - just to reduce our insignificant CO2 production by an even more insignificant amount.

kg - at least we do not have the EU as well to contend with in NZ.

Psycho Milt said...

I have some sympathy for the concept that we should reject emissions trading schemes - the whole thing smells of bullshit.

On the other hand, the concept of a moral crusade centred on a proposed basic human right to pass the environmental costs of production on to future generations? Yuk - that has a pretty unpleasant smell about it too.

KG said...

"kg - at least we do not have the EU as well to contend with in NZ"
Well, it doesn't go by that name here Mawm, but Dear Leader is a great admirer of the EU project and Blair's "New Way"--it beggars belief that she and her gang wouldn't borrow some of their philosophy and methods from them.

"...a proposed basic human right to pass the environmental costs of production on to future generations?"
WTF? who is claiming that as a "basic human right" PM?
What the opponents of NZ and Australia's Kyoto crap are opposed to, is crippling our economies in order to make bugger-all difference to the sum total of worldwide emissions, assuming those emissions are in fact contributing to global warming--something that's looking increasingly unlikely.
At the same time we're being forced to buy silly light bulbs, India is building the world's largest coal-fired power station with World Bank funds--and China's building one new station every week.
If you want to worry about the environmental costs of future production, then changing the lightbulbs in your home and recycling plastic bottles will contribute three-fifths of fuck-all to that.
Chat to the Chinese instead.

Psycho Milt said...

WTF? who is claiming that as a "basic human right" PM?

Well, so far on this thread, Fairfacts Media, you and Mawm. You can dress it up in terms of "why should we stop if the Indians and Chinese won't?", but that's still your basic premise.

KG said...

Nope--of to remedial comprehension classes for you. :-)

KG said...

"off" that is. Bloody typos.


I have just posted a comment on Adolf's sheep thread noting that ETS will spoil the sheep industry.
We need to look at food choice issues too.
In the fruit and vege shop yesterday I noted much fruit and veg frm Australia, plus snow peas from Africa.
Under ETS would such foods still be viable. Would we now be existing on a diet of pumkin and kiwifruit?
How will ETS and such statism affect our rights to drive cars? How soon before have to pay to enter Auckland, just like London?
So much statism from the leftist nannies is often couched in eco-friendly Gaia-loving terms when the collectivists just want to control our lives.

Anonymous said...

You only have to see the Greens and their policy on pies and school foods to see that they are nothing than control freaks.
Yes, i can see that obesity might harm the environment if it means we grow too much food, but really they should just butt out.
What has smacking got to do with the environment too?
But again the Greens poke their noses into everyone's business.
The NZ Greens are not greens, they are statist neo-communists.