A good reminder from a former president.
There are no adequate substitute for father, mother, and children bound together in a loving commitment to nurture and protect. No government, no matter how well-intentioned, can take the place of the family in the scheme of things. (President Gerald Ford, 38th President of the United States)
This post is primarily an answer to a comment from Misty Fowler on this blog. Her comment:
“I give up, I don’t think people that are set against the idea of global warming are just being blind and don’t want to hear the truth. I’m really truly not sure what people like you have against the idea of taking care of our planet.”
My first response to this question is a question. How does my opposition to those pushing the global warming movement immediately make me someone who opposes the idea of taking care of the earth? This is a plain and simple logical falacy in that it assumes that I can only take care of or that I only care for the planet if I buy into a particular worldview on global warming.
I have already highlighted some of the bungled attempts to legislate “earth” sensitive products (GE fluorescent bulbs and ethanol), which especially in the case of ethanol are actually more destructive to the earth than the ‘dirty’ products they were supposed to replace. Given the track record of these ecologically friendly products, I believe I have the right and responsibility to be skeptical of the fixes many of the advocate propose regardless of my feelings about the science.
I think what Misty mistakes as lack of care for the earth really is based perhaps (I can’t speak directly for Misty, so I am generalizing here) in a fundamental philosophy difference in how we see the world. I am a conservationist, meaning that I believe in personal (not government mandated) stewardship and wise use, and that I have what Peter Borrelli calls a anthropocentric world view. This view starts with viewing man as the measure of creation.
This view [conservationalism] is opposed to the preservationist philosophy, which fundamentally has a biocentric view of man and nature, meaning that man is just another creation and so is of no more value than a dog, cat or house fly. The preservationist advocates a position of nature lock out because humans have no right to disturb the flight patterns or mating habitat of an animal, reptile, bug or whatever. It also centers on a scarcity versus abundance mentality or zero sum world view–i.e., if man’s population grows xyz animal loses. It is this view that allows preservationalists to make man the problem because he is the great annoyer of nature. It is this view that allows environmentalist to ignore the human costs of their actions/policy initiatives (i.e., DDT and 40 million children [who have died since DDT’s ban– thanks Ed for the correction here. WHO puts the number at 1 Million+/year, 90% of which are in Africa] around the world from malaria or the increased burden the poor and low-income families in America are carrying) because their suffering is equal to or in some cases not as significant as the bird that has the minor risk of dying from DDT exposure.
As a conservationalist, I am and will forever be opposed to prohibitionist and mandate policies regarding the earth, because they a) increase the size and scope of government and b) lead to a huge loss in freedom and liberty. With respect to the first point, I lived in Russia and saw first hand the effects of a state run everything. This form of centralized government ultimately leads to unwise use of resources and the destroying of the environment. It also destroys the average citizen’s desire to be a good steward.
My idea of good principle grounded environmental policy is based on incenting behavior not mandating or punishing behavior. This incentive based policy is one of the primary reasons that the polar bear population is growing as noted in a recent USA TODAY article. This policy approach limits the role of government, frees humans to make good choices and fosters freedom and liberty. So do I favor tax breaks for enviro-friendly cars; yes. Would I favor mandating that by 2012 every American should run a enviro-friendly car; absolutely not. Should I be rewarded for paying extra for energy efficient windows and appliances; yes. Should the government mandate my choice in appliance or windows; no.
Paul Johnson’s Modern Times makes a clear connection between relativism, nihilism, and Naziism. Clarence Thomas builds on Johnson’s assertion by saying:
The common idea that you can do whatever you want to do, because truth and morality are relative, leads to the idea that if you are powerful enough you can kill people because of their race or faith.
Thomas then asks the question:
So ask your relativist friends sometime: What is to keep me from getting a gang of people together and beating the hell out of you because I think you deserve to be beaten? Too many people think that life and liberty are about their frivolous pleasures. There is more to life. And again, largely what relativism reflects is simply a lack of learning.
Why is this idea important to me as a conservative, because as a conservative, I believe that not all ideas are created equally, not all “ways” of life are correct and moral. There does exist a higher moral order, which cannot be violated without grave consequence for mankind. I do not determine that moral order, God does. Thus only an order which is not one man’s preference versus another has the chance to be truly just, moral, and equitable. Relativism in practice leads to the worst forms of tyranny and inequity.
I think Clarence Thomas (Imprimis, October 2007) hit the nail on the head with this quote:
“There may be a disconnect between my world and yours, because when my grandfather was raising me, people didn’t talk about their rights so much. They talked about civil rights, yes, but they didn’t simply talk about rights and freedom. They talked more about the responsibility that came with freedom–about the fact that if you were to have freedom, you had to be responsible for it.
Then..
“What my grandfather believed was that people have their responsibilities, and that if they are left alont to fulfill their responsibilities, that is freedom.”
We’d all be better of and more free if this is how we legislated and this is how we lived!
A thought from my boss, Paul Mero:
“Libertarians love liberty. Conservatives love freedom — that combination of liberty and virtue conforming to the moral order.”
Here’s a bit more coverage on the conservative roundtable held at Sutherland yesterday with Ed Feulner as host.
