A Conservative Tumblog

You know, I’m frequently chastised for my vicious contempt of environmentalism in pretty much all its forms. I mean, pick your subject. It’s pretty much guaranteed that I’ve got some derisive ridicule about how it’s retarded and one is an idiot for bringing it up.

Hybrid cars? It’s a stupid fad that smug morons pounce on despite the fact that they’re an even worse long-term effect than the internal combustion engine. Public transportation? Oh gee really, I can pay for a service that doesn’t revolve around my schedule and can’t be reasonably relied on? And I get to cram next to stinky filthy strangers? Yeah, I’ll pass. Or, even dumber, bicycling? Yeah, like I’m really going to wake up needlessly early to do 15mph to work instead of doing 90mph in my car. And where exactly do I put all the stuff I’m carrying? And how do I get there in a suit? It’s stupid, and I want to smack people who advocate this right in the face. Recycling? Why should I bother, however minimal the effort, when I can pitch it all in the same place? Maybe if you gave me some kind of incentive (and no, threatening me with fines is not an “incentive;” it’s blackmail). Minimize my shower time? Yeah, go screw yourself. No way I’m giving up the bliss that is a 40-minute shower when I’m in the mood for one. You know, I refuse to even elect getting my bills online—even though I pay them all online (or direct withdrawal). Why? Because I’m a lawyer. The thought of not having a paper trail is horrifying in this litigious world. And those reusable grocery bags? I’m sorry, but as a male, I simply cannot abide going into a grocery store with a cloth bag draped over my arm. There’s a word for guys like that. It’s “fag.”

And don’t even get me started on the really stupid stuff—like the compost toilet, or growing crops without pesticide use, or NOT using my heater/air conditioner (I live in the desert, you morons), or chaining yourself to a tree. Or low-flow toilets. God, those are the most vile—in every sense of the word—creation anyone ever came up with.

Honestly, I hate the environment so much…

Well, OK, wait—let’s clarify. I don’t hate the environment. I just don’t care about it. A rainforest burns down and I’m like, “OK, so?” What I hate are environmentalists. They’re smug assholes who think they’re better than you for no good reason whatever, and are constantly trying to force their views and lifestyle and practices on you. It’s not enough for them that they’re environmentalists. You have to be one too. By force if necessary. Sound familiar? And it’s all bogus junk science—and demonstrably so. They’re psychotic zealots, operating on nothing but pure ignorance, who are huge fans of forcible conversion. I loathe everything about them. I burn styrofoam on Earth Day just to thumb my nose at it all. (No, really.)

All that said, however, I finally have found one cool and smart way that I can go green. And I think it’s awesome. There’s a European company that’s currently marketing a new device. Simply put, it creates heat by efficiently converting electricity. They’re cheap and easy to make—according to the site, they’re composed simply of glass, tungsten, and argon (all very common materials). And, as an added bonus, they’re totally compatible with your home’s existing hardware. (So, basically, you’re recycling your pre-existing materials!) There is a side effect though, according to the company’s web site. The heat created by converting electricity has the unintended result of creating photons—which can be dangerous to the human eye. However, this side effect can easily be abated (and utilized multi-purposely! Another environmental plus!) by putting some form of shade or housing device around it.

I think this is a fantastic idea, and I can’t imagine any environmentalist that wouldn’t want to get behind this. If you’re interested, check out their site.

Read More →

laliberty:

With discussions of “rhetoric” in the air, I thought it timely to propose what I have observed - from online discussions, family get-togethers, and everything in between - as the archetypal rhetorical conventions of big government sympathizers (i.e. the left, generally, though not exclusively):

• deflections (altering or averting the basis of the discussion to a different but seemingly related topic), 
• assertions of pathos (appeals to one’s emotions, usually in the form of a sad hypothetical or a specific personal account, intended to either pity a concession or portray the opposition as a monster; this could also take the form of fear mongering), 
• assertions of ethos (attempts to find hypocrisy in the opposition’s position, either by alleging that a different position held by the opposition is counter to their opposition’s current position, or by simply alleging “You would sing a different tune if it were you [or other person you care about] who needed [said government program]”)
• ad hominem attacks (related to pathos, such an attack charges either the opposition or another person who shares the opposition’s position in order to render an argument invalid, this often takes the form of accusations of racism, sexism, or some other form of bigotry), 
• straw men (absurd conclusions, ostensibly based on the opposition’s argument, created in order to be refuted)
  and perhaps most common of all… 
• non-sequiturs (similar to straw men, these are failures in logic that assume incorrect conclusions; often a form of reducto ad absurdum based on incomplete or incorrect data)

These conventions can be explained by what is arguably the greatest weakness of big government sympathizers: a lack of reasoned thought and creativity that is the result of their inability to look beyond the status quo.

This lack of reason and creativity leads to a bounty of non-sequiturs:

Being against so-called “gun control” means that I want a world where people launch rockets at their neighbors. Being against drug prohibition means that I want a world filled with violent drug-dealers and abusers in psychotic rages. Because I am against government schooling, I am against education and I want the world to be illiterate. Because I am against the government taking my money and inefficiently giving it to the poor, I loathe poor people. Being against the FDA means that I think companies should poison their customers. Wanting to eliminate the FCC is tantamount to championing porn on every television channel. Because I am against government-run health care, I want children to die in the streets. Being against the warfare state means I’m an isolationist who wants us to be defenseless. An argument against farm subsidies is an argument to let the world go hungry. Because I’m against the minimum wage, I am pro-slavery. Advocating against public parks means I hate trees. Because of what I believe, no one would ever build a road, pick up garbage, police the streets, put out fires, patrol our coasts, or protect us from evil corporations, slumlords, and insurance agents.

So every argument usually ends up becoming a defense of what’s possible when government is not there to provide a good or perform a service (poorly and inefficiently).

But the salient point in my consistent position against government overreach is: no one could really know how something may best be done once free people are able to utilize the market’s ingenuity-incentivizing system of supply, demand, competition, cooperation, and comparative advantage to create efficient alternatives.

The mutually beneficial trade of a free, decentralized market is far superior to central planning, and, as I touched upon in my Case Against the TSA, the results of which are essentially unknowable for two fundamental reasons. First, to paraphrase Hayek, there’s no way to imagine what can be designed by millions of people acting freely; and second, to paraphrase Mises, it would be impossible to implement any scheme properly or efficiently even if planned by intelligent, well-meaning angels.