Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
John Mackey: Libertarian Fascist?
Jonah
Goldberg's much-delayed
Liberal Fascism used to be subtitled "The Totalitarian
Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton." It's got a new
subtitle:
Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods
Whole Foods was co-founded by current Chairman and CEO John Mackey, who in a 2005 reason forum described himself as "a businessman and a free market libertarian." (Full disclosure: He is a donor to the Reason Foundation.) The forum was on Milton Friedman's argument that corporations don't have any ulterior social responsibilities. Mackey disagreed.
The Wealth of Nations was a tremendous achievement, but economists would be well served to read Smith's other great book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. There he explains that human nature isn't just about self-interest. It also includes sympathy, empathy, friendship, love, and the desire for social approval. As motives for human behavior, these are at least as important as self-interest. For many people, they are more important.
...
The business model that Whole Foods has embraced could represent a new form of capitalism, one that more consciously works for the common good instead of depending solely on the "invisible hand" to generate positive results for society. The "brand" of capitalism is in terrible shape throughout the world, and corporations are widely seen as selfish, greedy, and uncaring.This is both unfortunate and unnecessary...
And liberals often attack Mackey and Whole Foods for not letting workers unionize.
So, any suggestions for Goldberg's new new subtitle?
UPDATE: Ezra Klein noticed this, too. Coming soon: Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Ezra Klein.
UPDATE THE SECOND: Goldberg responds to Brad Plumer, who also made the "Whole Foods not actually liberal or fascist" point:
He doesn't really seem to know what he's talking about (oh, and it's not like it's news to me that the owner of Whole Foods is a self-described libertarian but maybe the German obsession with organic food and environmentalism, for two examples, is news to Plumer). But that's okay, it's what I expected. To be continued, when the book comes out.
SPD|6.27.07 @ 1:04PM|#
How about "What The Fuck Was I Talking About?"
I fully support Mackey. If investors are uncomfortable with his
company's strategy, they are always free to sell their shares.
Jack|6.27.07 @ 1:08PM|#
How is this a contradiction? To the moron national review crowd, libertarians are liberals, just like Ron Paul and William Buckley
|6.27.07 @ 1:09PM|#
Maybe the reference is pointed less to the owner and more to the self-satisfied, crunchy green clientele of whole foods.
|6.27.07 @ 1:09PM|#
This new subtitle implies that examples of liberal fascism that begin with the letters A through G and X through Z will not be covered.
|6.27.07 @ 1:11PM|#
albo:
Man I hate self-satisfied people too. Self-satisfaction is
horrible. Self-hatred is much better. Don't you agree?
|6.27.07 @ 1:11PM|#
As long as Mackey keeps his moral sentiments voluntary, I don't
see what the problem is.
I'm going to go have lunch today at a Whole Foods just to celebrate
his non-objectivist values.
David Weigel|6.27.07 @ 1:12PM|#
How is this a contradiction? To the moron national review
crowd, libertarians are liberals, just like Ron Paul and William
Buckley
Culturally, on foreign policy, sure. But not many conservatives
would argue that libertarians are totalitarian.
|6.27.07 @ 1:12PM|#
"Like My Support for the Iraq War, the Thesis of This Book is Based on Nothing More Thoughtful Than Disgust at People Who Strike Me as Weirdos"
Michael Bérubé|6.27.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Y'all are letting Jonah off too easy -- neither item in that new subtitle makes any damn sense. He might as well have called it "The Totalitarian Temptation from Hume to Human League."
|6.27.07 @ 1:15PM|#
How about?
"I was given a book contract because Mommy is a powerful editor but
I still screwed it up!" by Jonah Doughypants
|6.27.07 @ 1:18PM|#
He is right that there is more to life than money. People value different things. People value their culture. People value their space. This guy's point is an interesting contrast to the praise Reason recently gave to the Myth of Rational Voter. That God awful piece of tribe considers anyone who isn't the perfect example of homo economicus to be irrational. The truth is closer to what this guy is saying. Maybe people object to things like open borders and fully free trade because they value things besides money. People of course should be free to do that. Sometimes libertarians have a bad habit of forgetting that.
fyodor|6.27.07 @ 1:19PM|#
Jumbo's nice critique notwithstanding, I agree with the thrust of albo's post. People usually associate Whole Foods with the environmental left, regardless of the politics of its CEO. That said, I'd agree it's a rather dorky way to represent the totalitarianism of the environmental left, clearly a desparate attempt at alliteration.
Russell|6.27.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Jonah shouldbrush up on his hegel.
One recalls Gottard Gunter's remark after his hairy sailplane
escape from behind the Iron Curtain.
Asked why he risked it , he replied " I'm such a good Hegelian that
there's a price on my head in East Germany."
As to Whole Foods, not even Adam Smith could afford moral
justification for Haggis
|6.27.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Y'all are letting Jonah off too easy -- neither item in that
new subtitle makes any damn sense. He might as well have called it
"The Totalitarian Temptation from Hume to Human League."
Good one. Damn good.
What about "The Totalitarian Temptation from Einstein to Einstein's
Bagels"
|6.27.07 @ 1:22PM|#
Jumbo's nice critique notwithstanding, I agree with the
thrust of albo's post. People usually associate Whole Foods with
the environmental left, regardless of the politics of its CEO. That
said, I'd agree it's a rather dorky way to represent the
totalitarianism of the environmental left, clearly a desparate
attempt at alliteration.
Agreed. I guess the Right can't use Starbucks anymore since
everybody goes there these days.
|6.27.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Exactly sorts of problems does he have with Hegel? I mean I can think of a few off-hand, but I wonder exactly just what sort of argument he is making about Hegel.
Bhh|6.27.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Liberal Fascism: I went to a Whole Foods once and they didn't have any Super Jumbo bags of Cheetos.
|6.27.07 @ 1:26PM|#
"I guess the Right can't use Starbucks anymore since everybody
goes there these days."
Only morons who lived on the coasts ever used Starbucks as some
kind of bogey man. I used to live in Killeen, Texas. There was a
Starbucks in the next town over that was license to print money. It
was jam packed with ordinary people. Meanwhile, all of my "hip
leftist friends" back in Washington and New York wouldn't be caught
dead in a Starbucks. Starbucks has been hopelessly common for at
least 10 years now. Only a real moron like O'Reily who in fact
knows nothing about how real people live would ever consider
Starbucks any kind of elite place and say that with all due respect
to Starbucks a company I have never had a problem with other than
the fact that their coffee is too strong and burnt tasting.
Gilbert Martin|6.27.07 @ 1:28PM|#
"The business model that Whole Foods has embraced could
represent a new form of capitalism, one that more consciously works
for the common good instead of depending solely on the "invisible
hand" to generate positive results for society."
That's not what the real business model of Whole Foods is. The real
business model is to target a certain demographic of consumer who
responds to that sort of "common good" talk in all it's various
trendy manisfestations so they can overcharge them for food. They
are in the business of selling self satisfaction along with
food.
|6.27.07 @ 1:29PM|#
John: yeah, I was thinking of O'Reilly's infamous screed about
how he didn't go to Starbucks because he wanted to hang out with
cops and firemen who got real coffee at diners...you must admit,
though, that liberals are often described as
"latte-drinking".
Still, there was once a time when each of us had to get used to the
idea that coffee was some kind of gourmet item.
Emphyrio|6.27.07 @ 1:30PM|#
I realize they're spelled differently, but did anyone else have a moment of wonder why Jonah has particular animus against Chuck Hagel?
|6.27.07 @ 1:31PM|#
It's not just a "dorky" way to descrbe the alleged "totalitarianism of the environmental left." By pointing towards the consensual transactions made by environmental leftists in a free market as an example of that "totalitarianism," Goldberg demonstrates that the charge is bogus, and based on nothing more than culture war tribalism.
|6.27.07 @ 1:32PM|#
That's not what the real business model of Whole Foods is.
The real business model is to target a certain demographic of
consumer who responds to that sort of "common good" talk in all
it's various trendy manisfestations so they can overcharge them for
food. They are in the business of selling self satisfaction along
with food.
That's kind of true, but is still a cynical way of looking at it,
unless you're willing to assume that there is no such thing as
altruism and that any good deed or act of social responsibility is
merely an act of enhancing one's "self-satisfaction".
|6.27.07 @ 1:32PM|#
I can never, for the life of me understand the disdain some
people hold for common yet convenient commercial outlets like
Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc.
Sure, McDonalds doesn't make the best hamburgers or the healthiest
food but they have a consistent product at a pretty low price. Why
this is evil incarnate to some people I will never understand.
|6.27.07 @ 1:33PM|#
"They are in the business of selling self satisfaction along
with food."
Exactly and more power to him. If rich people want to waste money
on "free range chicken" good for them.
|6.27.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Funny how so many people who think Jonah doesn't have much of a serious argument in the book can do little more than make fat/stupid jokes. Physicians, heal thyselves.
|6.27.07 @ 1:35PM|#
One more note: how thrilled must John Mackey be to see the name
of his company on the cover of a right-wing polemic? That's big
time liberal street cred.
I think he owes Goldberg a check or at least a few ears of organic
corn.
|6.27.07 @ 1:35PM|#
There is a totalitarian environmental left but it is not Whole Foods. It is the people who want to tell us we can't smoke anymore, what car we can drive, what kind of light bulb we have to buy, how good a shape our house has to be in before we sell it, what the contents of our garbage can be and things like that.
|6.27.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Funny also Steve, how people can slam on a book that hasn't even been published yet.
|6.27.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Funny also Steve, how people can slam on a book that hasn't
even been published yet.
Hey man, you don't have to actually swim in the sewer to know it's
not pleasant.
The AntiHumanist|6.27.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Mackey perpetuates a false distinction: human beings are neither selfish or altruistic; they are BOTH, employing one or the other to benefit personally from any situation. Either Mackey is declaring his altruism to better advertise Whole Foods, or, he is deluding himself into believing that he is truly altruistic, thus, forming himself into being a better ADVERTISEMENT for Whole Foods.
|6.27.07 @ 1:41PM|#
you must admit, though, that liberals are often described as
"latte-drinking".
Well, if they're described that way, then it must be true.
|6.27.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Liberal Fascism: I've Looked at 08 Polling Numbers, and Seriously Believe Hillary Clinton Is Going to Put People in Camps, So I'm Changing the Title
Otto Man|6.27.07 @ 1:43PM|#
Funny also Steve, how people can slam on a book that hasn't
even been published yet.
Yes, if only Jonah Goldberg had a long record of published writing
that allowed us to get a sense of what'll come next.
Gilbert Martin|6.27.07 @ 1:43PM|#
"Exactly and more power to him. If rich people want to waste
money on "free range chicken" good for them."
Yes that's the free market at work. Whole Foods can project
whatever image they can get away with that turns the inventory.
|6.27.07 @ 1:43PM|#
I don't think John Mackey's business model will hold up much
longer. Whole Foods was fabulously successful because it filled a
market demand for high quality groceries. Now that Whole Foods has
raised the bar, fresh and flavorful food is much more widely
available, as their competition has reacted to their success.
Where once Whole Foods was the only option for high quality food,
now only those that prioritize their environmentalism over their
children's education will choose WF over the competition.
Then again, I could be wrong. Gilbert Martin may have it right and
the market for self satisfaction is much more robust than I
think.
|6.27.07 @ 1:43PM|#
Funny how so many people who think Jonah doesn't have much
of a serious argument in the book can do little more than make
fat/stupid jokes.
Welcome to the World Wide Web.
As to Jonah, I enjoyed his earlier, more humorous writing on NRO,
particularly when his dog interviewed the Prime Minister of
Pakistan. He seems to have fallen into the NR 'traditionalist
grump' camp more often lately. But then, NR in general is a good
Exhibit A for the current malaise in the conservative world. Very
little to offer other than scolding and scare tactics.
thoreau|6.27.07 @ 1:45PM|#
I love Whole Foods. But lately I've been trying to save money. Trader Joe's is almost as good, it's cheaper, and for many items the prices are even competitive with Safeway.
|6.27.07 @ 1:46PM|#
I went into Whole Foods exactly once--to buy some beer. Wasn't impressed at the prices or selection.
|6.27.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Using your dollars, rather than the government, to change the
way markets function is one of those things that conservatarians
love, right up until somebody actually does it.
Then they're elitists, wasting their money.
|6.27.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Jonah actually can be very funny and can make very reasoned arguments, which is why people on the left hate him so much. The last thing they want is anyone questioning their dogma in an interesting and funny way. You never anyone bother to hate a nitwit like Kathryn Jean Lopez.
|6.27.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Yeah, when he spent four years calling people who disagreed with
him about Iraq traitors, anti-Semites, and unamerican, that was a
hoot.
A thoughtful hoot, but a hoot nonetheless.
fyodor|6.27.07 @ 1:51PM|#
It's not just a "dorky" way to descrbe the alleged
"totalitarianism of the environmental left." By pointing towards
the consensual transactions made by environmental leftists in a
free market as an example of that "totalitarianism," Goldberg
demonstrates that the charge is bogus, and based on nothing more
than culture war tribalism.
joe, loathe as I am to give Goldberg the benefit of the doubt, I
suspect he intends to describe the environmental left's political
agenda as totalitarian, not the consensual transactions they make
at Whole Foods. Naming Whole Foods is merely a way to identify the
environmental left. Identifying them in this way is ironic, sure,
and therefore, I'd argue passionately, dorky, but it hardly proves
he's incorrect about them (whether or not he is) as you say.
|6.27.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Thoreau,
You are right that Trader Joe's is vastly superior to Whole Foods.
Whole Foods is expensive as hell and just full of a lot of wierd
crap. I can't imagine actually doing all of my shopping there. I
also think that Whole Foods days are numbered as more mainline
grocery stores get hip to the racket that is "organic foods" and
the unrelenting tide of Trader Joes continues to rise.
|6.27.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Jonah actually can be very funny and can make very reasoned
arguments, which is why people on the left hate him so much. The
last thing they want is anyone questioning their dogma in an
interesting and funny way. You never anyone bother to hate a nitwit
like Kathryn Jean Lopez.
He's kind of like Michael Moore, I guess you're saying, just
without the market success.
|6.27.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Yeah,
There is nothing consensual or free market about the appalling list
of policies the environmental left would like to implement. If it
is all about your right to spend your money at Whole Foods, I am
with you. If it becomes about the government mandating what mileage
my car gets, monitoring the contents of my garbage and telling me
what light bulbs I can install in my house and mandating that I
gold plate my home for efficiency, as well as making sure that
nothing new gets build anywhere, then you loose me.
|6.27.07 @ 1:55PM|#
similar to Joe's, I prefer:
Liberal Fascism: Hillary threatened to send my chickenhawk ass
to fight in Iraq when she becomes President unless I removed her
name from the title
fyodor|6.27.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Then they're elitists, wasting their money.
Hmmm, well obviously we'll have to read the book to know, but
perhaps you're right that Goldberg may think there's something
totalitarian about buying organic produce and free-trade coffee. If
so, he's being ridiculous, of course. Anyway, saying that such
activities are wastes of money is far different from calling them
totalitarian.
|6.27.07 @ 1:59PM|#
fyodor,
Picking Whole Foods as his example just demonstrates that Goldberg
isn't using the word "totalitarianism" to describe a style of
government, but simply the beliefs and values of "the Left."
I've read enough of Goldberg's spewings on NRO to know what he
considers the nexus between Whole Foods and totalitarianism. He
thinks, for some ridiculous reason, that conservatives believe
there are areas of life that should be beyond politics, while the
"totalitarians" on the left think that the effects of one's private
actions should be looked at in terms of their political
meaning.
So deciding which chicken to buy based on political - as opposed to
purely economic or culinary - values is the "totalitarian"
intrusion of politics into what should be a private, apolitical
act.
The complete absense of any force, coercion, or even government
policy in that individual's decision to think about the business
practices of his butcher is irrelevant - if you believe that such
considerations should be taken into account in your purchases, you
are demonstrating the totalitarian impulse.
In other words, Goldberg doesn't know what the word totalitarian
means.
|6.27.07 @ 2:00PM|#
If it becomes about the government mandating what mileage my
car gets, monitoring the contents of my garbage and telling me what
light bulbs I can install in my house and mandating that I gold
plate my home for efficiency, as well as making sure that nothing
new gets build anywhere, then you loose me.
I don't understand this attitude, really. Are you that
anti-communial that you put the rights of the pollutors above the
right of everybody else to live in a clean environment?
|6.27.07 @ 2:03PM|#
Whole Foods is seriously creepy on the inside. Yes, they are
violently anti-union, but that is just one token of the urge for
control of their workers unlike anything since company town days.
I'd say it's a cult except that the real belief found in cults is
absent. This is just to line some pockets with a certain business
model. Totalitarian is not too strong a word.
.
Gilbert Martin|6.27.07 @ 2:03PM|#
"Using your dollars, rather than the government, to change the
way markets function is one of those things that conservatarians
love, right up until somebody actually does it."
Exactly how is Whole Foods changing the way markets function?
Markets function by hooking up demand with supply. All Whole Foods
has done is identify a lucrative market niche that wasn't being
previously exploited by someone else and go after it. And part of
what they're selling is the image as well as the product - much
like a high priced, trendy resturant is selling the "ambiance" as
much as the food.
|6.27.07 @ 2:03PM|#
"I don't understand this attitude, really. Are you that
anti-communial that you put the rights of the pollutors above the
right of everybody else to live in a clean environment?"
In a word, Yes. I really am that communal. Further I think that
those policies are based on irrational fears and overblown risks.
Recycling is one of my favorite bugaboos. The country is not short
on landfill space. That is a myth. Further, in many cases,
especially with glass products, it takes more energy to recycle a
product than it does to make a new one. The policies I described
are just feel good busybody policies that do nothing to help the
environment and everything to help the government control our
lives.
|6.27.07 @ 2:04PM|#
John,
If it becomes about the government mandating what mileage my
car gets, monitoring the contents of my garbage and telling me what
light bulbs I can install in my house and mandating that I gold
plate my home for efficiency, as well as making sure that nothing
new gets build anywhere
Goldberg's problem, as the choice of Whole Foods as an example
demonstrates, is that he thinks that merely holding the opinion
that it is better for people to burn less gas, use less power,
produce less waste, and destroy less habitat IS
totalitarianism.
|6.27.07 @ 2:04PM|#
John,
Or Jonah's witty cover putting a Hitler mustache on those fascist
liberals who oppose suspending Habeas Corpus.
God that was funny!
|6.27.07 @ 2:05PM|#
John sez:
Maybe people object to things like open borders and fully free
trade because they value things besides money.
I vote this sentence as Best HnR Freudian Slip, EVAR!
Yes, John, I'm pretty certain that Tommy Tancredo and his
fellow-travelers oppose immigration and free trade for reasons
other than economics. And I'm pretty certain that libertarians
understand that objections to immigration and free trade aren't
solely based on economics either. Unfortunately, I don't believe
these other things that Tommy and his ilk "value" are going to get
much sympathy from libertarians.
|6.27.07 @ 2:06PM|#
"Goldberg's problem, as the choice of Whole Foods as an example
demonstrates, is that he thinks that merely holding the opinion
that it is better for people to burn less gas, use less power,
produce less waste, and destroy less habitat IS
totalitarianism."
If that is what he thinks, then he is wrong. However, the book
hasn't been published yet and I have emailed with him on a fairly
regular basis and I don't think he believes that. But, I may be
wrong. I guess we will know when the book comes out.
|6.27.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Gilbert Martin,
Whole Foods, and their customers, are increasing the demand for
products produced in one manner, and slackening demand for products
produced in another manner.
I didn't say that they were functioning in a non-market manner; I
said that they were changing the market.
And however many times you use the word "image" to describe
people's desire to see less pollution and animal cruelty, it will
still be an inaccurate word choice. The word you're looking for is
"values."
Alex|6.27.07 @ 2:10PM|#
"joe, loathe as I am to give Goldberg the benefit of the doubt,
I suspect he intends to describe the environmental left's political
agenda as totalitarian, not the consensual transactions they make
at Whole Foods. Naming Whole Foods is merely a way to identify the
environmental left."
I agree with Fyodor's take on this, and suspect that's the way
Goldberg is going.
Of course, the irony -- if indeed that is what Jonah's doing -- is
that his tactic of relying on his readers to do his research for
him will most likely prove him a fool once again. Whole Foods isn't
a symbol of the environmental left, other than in the fever dreams
of culture warriors who want to, as people pointed out earlier,
paint liberals as latte-drinking. In fact, Whole Foods is
increasingly criticized for having completely betrayed the organic
movement and undermined it from within. They may say they're
organic and earthy, but what they really are doing is selling the
same crap you get at your local supermarket with a gussied-up name
and a gussied-up price, and contributing to the image of food that
-- unlike most of what we (and I include myself in this, as I'm
eating a particularly delicious BLT right now) eat these days --
won't kill you or make you obese or lead to antibiotic-resistant
strep/TB/etc as elite and snobbish. Michael Pollan made some really
good arguments about this.
SPD|6.27.07 @ 2:10PM|#
merely holding the opinion that it is better for people to
burn less gas, use less power, produce less waste, and destroy less
habitat IS totalitarianism.
Those frightened by progress will probably lash out in this manner.
Whether conservation is based on real or imagined environmental
threats is irrelevant. It just makes good sense, though it
shouldn't require coercion to do so.
I don't believe the government should have the power to tell anyone
how to use the natural resources at their disposal. That doesn't
make a person who knowingly litters, wastes energy or drives
high-emission, low-mileage vehicles any less of a douchebag.
|6.27.07 @ 2:11PM|#
But...but...Whole Foods is the only place I can get that great
Icelandic Skyr....
http://www.skyr.is/
|6.27.07 @ 2:12PM|#
John writes:
The policies I described are just feel good busybody policies
that do nothing to help the environment and everything to help the
government control our lives.
And then, three minutes later, writes that he is "pretty sure" that
Goldberg isn't arguing that liberalism and environmentalism
themselves are manifestations of an urge for totalitarian control
of peopole's lives.
OK.
|6.27.07 @ 2:15PM|#
"Unfortunately, I don't believe these other things that Tommy
and his ilk "value" are going to get much sympathy from
libertarians."
I doubt it will either but so what? There is nothing Freudian about
it. I will tell you exactly what I meant. People object to
immigration for economic reasons but not necessarily macro ones.
They feel that they will suffer through lower wages even if other
people benefit from lower prices. Further, some people do not want
500 million people in this country, whether they be Russians,
Africans or Mexicans. Some people like the open spaces and think it
is too crowded now. Further, some people like American culture as
it is. That is foreign concept to a lot of people, but no everyone
wants Mexico City in their backyard. In same way I don't blame the
French or the rest of the world when they complain about American
culture running roughshod over their own, I don't blame Americans
for wanting to keep their own culture. Lastly, it is not entirely
clear that importing huge numbers of low skilled workers is the way
to economic prosperity. That question is hardly settled in economic
circles. In the end, it comes down to whether you believe there is
such a thing as sovereignty. Many libertarians I think honestly
reject the idea of sovereignty and don't think that Americans have
the right to exclude people from coming here. I deeply disagree
with that idea. The American government has a right to shut down
its borders just like every other country. Immigration is a policy
issue not a civil rights issue. There is no "right" to live in this
country by people who were not born here. Ultimately, I am not
anti-immigration. I am anti-uncontrolled immigration. No question
the US needs to continue to be the home for the world's best and
brightest seeking a future. I am just not sold on the idea that it
should be an outlet for corrupt failed Latin American governments
making a grand bargain with rich Americans who can't get enough
slave labor from the locals.
|6.27.07 @ 2:18PM|#
"That's not what the real business model of Whole Foods is. The
real business model is to target a certain demographic of consumer
who responds to that sort of "common good" talk in all it's various
trendy manisfestations so they can overcharge them for food. They
are in the business of selling self satisfaction along with
food."
Best descritpion of Whole Foods I have ever read. The WF near me
has beer and wine, this is the only reason for me to wade through
the endless sea of Volvos to get inside.
|6.27.07 @ 2:18PM|#
I always thought Libertarian Fascists were people who thought the phrase "Live Free or Die" was a command.
|6.27.07 @ 2:18PM|#
"And then, three minutes later, writes that he is "pretty sure"
that Goldberg isn't arguing that liberalism and environmentalism
themselves are manifestations of an urge for totalitarian control
of peopole's lives."
WTF Joe? Don't you get the difference between you doing some stupid
and worthless recycling because you think it is a good idea and the
government mandating that everyone does it? The whole point is that
people are free to do what they want. If you want to recycle, have
fun. The problem arises when you use the coercive force of
government to make everyone live your lifestyle. That is when it
become totalitarian. I think it is the government coercion that
Goldberg is objecting to, not people voluntarily doing things. Why
is that so hard to understand.
dhex|6.27.07 @ 2:21PM|#
somehow i don't think mr. goldberg really objects to government coercion so much as who is doing the coercing.
SPD|6.27.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Question for John: Why is recycling "stupid and worthless," other than the fact that you say it is?
Gilbert Martin|6.27.07 @ 2:23PM|#
"I didn't say that they were functioning in a non-market manner;
I said that they were changing the market."
What you said was that they were changing the way markets function.
They aren't doing that. They are merely providing more of some
specific products such as "organic" foods than was being provided
by others before. The "organic" part is what is used to
differentiate it as a separate product from non-organic food.
"And however many times you use the word "image" to describe
people's desire to see less pollution and animal cruelty, it will
still be an inaccurate word choice. The word you're looking for is
"values.""
No, "values" is merely the word you prefer. I'll stick with "image"
as the latter is no more "inaccurate" than the former.
|6.27.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Of course, Friedman is not a libertarian...he's an objectivist.
Ayn Rand kind of disagreed with Adam Smith on that point.
So, I guess Mackey is best described as a "liberaltarian"
anyway.
Not sure how that's an aspect of totalitarianisnm, though.
|6.27.07 @ 2:29PM|#
So to summarize, John believes that it's totalitarian to mandate that cars get a certain gas milage but to not allow a person into this country just because he was born elsewhere is not.
|6.27.07 @ 2:29PM|#
John,
We've all read what you write on every. single. environmental
thread - that the whole of the environmental movement is a cover
for "watermelons," an excuse to impose their true agenda, the
control of the population for its own sake.
You argue exactly the same point whether there is a government
action involved or not - you simply assume that the very existence
of the argument or concern is proof of the desire for government
control. Hell, do I need to find some of the dumb shit you're
written about global warming research being a conspiracy to justify
government control?
And, once again, you don't ever - ever - need to worry about my
ability to understand your dull-normal eigth-grader-level
arguments, so you can just drop the "why is that so hard to
understand" pose. I understand your statement about the distinction
you allegedly draw between environmentalist values and government
policy. I just don't agree with it, because I've read what you have
written, and ditto for Goldberg.
|6.27.07 @ 2:31PM|#
This is a typo. The next edition will contain the correct subtitle:'From Bagels to Whole Foods'.
|6.27.07 @ 2:34PM|#
"Question for John: Why is recycling "stupid and worthless,"
other than the fact that you say it is?"
Recycling is fabulous in some cases. Scrap metal for example. In
places where recycling really is efficient there is inevitably a
market to do it. The government doesn't need to mandate recycling
of scrap iron because the market does it already. The government
only has to mandate things when doing so is inefficient. It is
simply not efficient to recycle household wastes. If it were,
someone would be offering you money for your garbage or if landfill
space were really that short, you would be recycling to avoid the
disposal fees.. It is not "recycling" in general I object to. It is
government mandated recycling.
|6.27.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Gilbert Martin,
I already cleared up your misunderstanding of my use of the phrase
"change the way markets function." I think that even you grasp my
point by now, and don't intend to waste any more time on you if you
do not.
I don't give a crap how you, or anyone else, feels about my desire
to reduce the suffering and pollution caused by my food purchases.
That's what makes it a value, and not an image, that I am paying
extra for.
|6.27.07 @ 2:38PM|#
"I understand your statement about the distinction you allegedly
draw between environmentalist values and government policy. I just
don't agree with it, because I've read what you have written, and
ditto for Goldberg."
What don't you agree with? Do you agree that you should be able to
enforce your lifestyle on everyone else through government coercion
or don't you? It is not a trick question. I don't care how you live
Joe, it is a free country. The question is, do you care how I live
and would you support government coercion to change the way I do
live. Why is that issue so hard for you to resolve or
understand?
|6.27.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Recycling is fabulous in some cases. Scrap metal for
example. In places where recycling really is efficient there is
inevitably a market to do it. The government doesn't need to
mandate recycling of scrap iron because the market does it already.
The government only has to mandate things when doing so is
inefficient. It is simply not efficient to recycle household
wastes. If it were, someone would be offering you money for your
garbage or if landfill space were really that short, you would be
recycling to avoid the disposal fees.. It is not "recycling" in
general I object to. It is government mandated
recycling.
I admit that this is a point worth pondering...if you could take a
used aluminum can and produce a new one using less energy than it
takes to make a new one from scratch, it does seem that people
would be going around offering to purchase our cans from us.
At the same time, can't you redeem cans somewhere for five cents
apiece?
VM|6.27.07 @ 2:41PM|#
I don't give a crap how you, or anyone else, feels about my desire to reduce the suffering and pollution caused by my food purchases. That's what makes it a value, and not an image, that I am paying extra for.
That pretty much sums up how many feel hier on this board - one
makes purchase decisions based on a set of preferences or values.
Those decisions are based on the individual's use of information
and free of coercion.
Sounds great. What's with the "harass joe" for that? He's
completely in our camp in this issue. If you don't like his
purchases, shove it. That's that tricky market thang goin' on
there.
you gotta give him his due hier.
Also note that there are other reasons for shopping at Whole
Paycheck - variety, perceptions of quality, store atmosphere, etc.
So other consumers aren't necessarily expressing the same sentiment
as joe is when they shop there. But they're all operating in this
magical "market" that's out there and apparently can do
anything!
In this case it is.
|6.27.07 @ 2:42PM|#
Recycling companies make good money off of the scrap metal they
collect from your bin. It does not follow from that that it is
profitable (at least to a meaningful degree) for individual
homeowners to collect and sell their scrap. The waste management
companies are able to make money off of tuna cans specifically
because of the economy of scale that mandatory recycling produces.
So much for the "recycling isn't efficient" argument.
The country is not short on landfill space. I guess that
depends on how you define "landfill space." If you are willing to
see more woodlands, fields, and plains turned into landfills, well,
we've got plenty of them. If you are not, if you value the benefits
provided by these lands, then the cost of recycling is buying the
continuing existence of these benefits.
|6.27.07 @ 2:46PM|#
If you are willing to see more woodlands, fields, and plains turned into landfills, well, we've got plenty of them.
Dude.
New Jersey.
Plenty of room.
Srsly.
Gilbert Martin|6.27.07 @ 2:47PM|#
"I already cleared up your misunderstanding of my use of the
phrase "change the way markets function." I think that even you
grasp my point by now, and don't intend to waste any more time on
you if you do not."
I didn't misundstand anything. You mispoke what you subsequently
claimed you intended to mean and I pointed it out.
"I don't give a crap how you, or anyone else, feels about my desire
to reduce the suffering and pollution caused by my food purchases.
That's what makes it a value, and not an image, that I am paying
extra for."
And I don't give a crap about your desire to spin Whole Foods'
playing you for a sucker by stroking your ego as being some kind of
exercise in virtue on your part. You are the quintessential
demographic for them.
LOL
SPD|6.27.07 @ 2:48PM|#
It is not "recycling" in general I object to. It is
government mandated recycling.
OK, I'm with you on that principle, that people shouldn't be forced
to do anything, apart than not stealing and not killing.
BENEFITS (lifted from Wikipedia):
Recycling is beneficial in two ways: it reduces the inputs (energy
and raw materials) to a production system and reduces the amount of
waste produced for disposal.
DRAWBACKS (same):
All recycling techniques consume energy for transportation and
processing, and some also use considerable amounts of water.
There may also be drawbacks with the collection methods associated
with recycling. Increasing collections of separated wastes adds to
vehicle movements and the production of carbon dioxide.
|6.27.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Nothing you write is remotely hard to understand, John. You are
a very simplistic thinker, but a relatively clear writer, so there
is never a reason for you to question whether your point has been
understood.
I disagree with your assertion that your characterization of
environmentalism as "totalitarian" is limited to situations when a
government policy is explicity endorsed. You hurl about the
"watermelon," "these people just want to control us" arguments at
the merest mention of concern about an environmental problem, and
accuse those who express concern about that problem of
totalitarianism on every environmental thread.
To answer your question, I do not believe in enforcing "my
lifestyle" on anyone. I think it would be wholly inappropriate to
compel anyone to play the bass guitar and comment on libertarian
blog threads. On the other hand, I do believe that it is
appropriate for the government to restrain people from harming or
endangering others, which is the root of environmental law.
I guess you could argue that not harming other people is a
"lifestyle," but you'd be in Jonah Goldberg territory in terms of
your relationship to the English language.
|6.27.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Joe,
If it was efferent to recycle tuna cans from household garbage, you
wouldn't need to government to mandate it. Further, you obviously
don't know much about a modern landfill. When properly constructed
and lined, a modern landfill becomes a large hill covered with
grass, trees or whatever. That is another myth the media likes to
propagate, that all landfills look like fresh kills in NYC.
Dan T.
Since it is profitable to recycle aluminum cans, people do it. Ever
seen a dumpster diver? I would guess that at least a majority of
aluminum cans get recycled in this country, all without government
mandates.
Episiarch|6.27.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Gilbert pwnes joe on this one, I'm afraid. Know when you're beaten, joe, and let it go.
Dave W.|6.27.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Sure, McDonalds doesn't make the best hamburgers or the
healthiest food but they have a consistent product at a pretty low
price. Why this is evil incarnate to some people I will never
understand.
Because they imagine that if you took away some of the McDonald's
outlets, some of the Starbuck's or some of Wal*Marts, then better
business would spring up to take up the slack. Better might mean
better products, or more variety, or better customer service,
whatever.
I don't fully agree with this, btw. My own personal feeling is
that:
1. I don't mind all the McDonald's because I think there is good
competition in restaurants.
2. The only time I minded Starbuck's was when there was one in the
lobby of my building, and I felt pretty sure that a better coffee
shop would have moved in if it had not been a Starbuck's. It wasn't
a big deal, though. I never got angry at Starbuck's about it.
3. If we got rid of about half the WAL*MART's, then something
better would probably take their place. WAL*MART really does have
market power and have sapped a lot of the competitive juice out of
retail. I understand that WAL*MART has some competition, but for
the scope of stuff they sell, and the sheer size of their sales, it
is far too little competition. Things could be a lot better.
|6.27.07 @ 2:53PM|#
Gilbert,
Good thing no one ever uses reverse-snobbism as a marketing tool to
manipulate people like you.
Do you know what the difference is between buying free range
chicken to reduce suffering, and voting for George Bush to put a
"regular guy" in the White House?
Buying free range chicken instead of Perdue actually does reduce
suffering.
Now the Bush thing, that really is selling an image while
accomplishing nothing.
SPD|6.27.07 @ 2:54PM|#
This delves a bit further into the pros and cons of recycling:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn252.pdf
Interestingly enough, in this article by a government commission,
it actually says: "consumers should be persuaded to act sustainably
by incentive schemes rather than 'finger-waggling'." What a novel
concept!
|6.27.07 @ 2:55PM|#
"On the other hand, I do believe that it is appropriate for the
government to restrain people from harming or endangering others,
which is the root of environmental law."
Joe, I don't object to any environmentalist unless they start
advocating bad government policy. Further, in my former life I was
an environmental lawyer and am very familiar with the various
environmental issues and am a great believer in preserving the
environment. I draw the line at bad policy and policy that limits
people's freedom for little or no benefit to the environment. I
really don't see what your problem with my position is. I object to
mandatory recycling because it is authoritarian and does little if
anything to help the environment. I object to mandated energy
efficiency in things like cars and homes because such policies
unfairly penalize poor people by raising the prices of housing and
the like and because often times energy efficient building are
downright unhealthy due to lack of ventilation. Look it up
sometime, it is called sick building syndrome. I really don't see
what you are so angry about.
|6.27.07 @ 2:56PM|#
John,
I already explained how mandatory recycling produces a market that
people profit from. You can respond to that point, or not. I'm just
pointing out that you completely ignored it, and posted a statement
of faith instead.
BTW, I have a capped landfill a half mile from my house. It spent
several decades as an uncapped landfill, and even now, you can
neither build on it, nor even plant trees. At this point, it really
should start to sink in that assuming ignorance on my part explains
our differences of opinion is not a good idea.
Dave W. (further to prev)|6.27.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Better might mean better products, or more variety, or
better customer service, whatever.
or more favorable terms for the retail employees, or less reliance
on sweatshop or economically coerced labor for production . . .
"better products" or "better customer service" can mean a lot of
things to a lot of different people.
|6.27.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Sure, John. You're all about the wise policies to address
environmental problems.
You just don't ever find them, as hard as you look, you poor
guy.
You are perhaps the least self-aware person I have ever
encountered.
|6.27.07 @ 3:03PM|#
"It spent several decades as an uncapped landfill, and even now,
you can neither build on it, nor even plant trees. "
I thought you wanted open space, what is wrong with not building on
it? In addition, I would imagine the reason you can't build on it
is because the land is unstable. It can be difficult to build on
fill. Also, since it is capped the last thing you want to do is
build on top of it and break the cap. That is what happened at Love
Cannel. The land fill wasn't badly constructed, it was just that
some moron broke the cap and built houses over it. If that landfill
was properly lined, it is posing a threat to no one and will slowly
go back to wilderness over the decades. I don't see what your
problem with it is. Granted, you probably wouldn't want to build a
pre-school on top of it, but otherwise, what is it hurting? I would
imagine the local flora and fauna are slowly taking it over as we
speak. Give it a few years and it will be just another hill.
|6.27.07 @ 3:05PM|#
"Farming by the Foot: How Site-Specific Agriculture Can Reduce
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution, 23 COLUM. J. ENVTL. L. 89, 94
(1998)"
There is a good environmental policy for you Joe. Look it up
sometime. It is my master's thesis. It has some very interesting
policy ideas for dealing with agricultural pollution.
Gilbert Martin|6.27.07 @ 3:08PM|#
"Good thing no one ever uses reverse-snobbism as a marketing
tool to manipulate people like you.
Do you know what the difference is between buying free range
chicken to reduce suffering, and voting for George Bush to put a
"regular guy" in the White House?
Buying free range chicken instead of Perdue actually does reduce
suffering.
Now the Bush thing, that really is selling an image while
accomplishing nothing."
That's real funny joe.
I'm not manipulated by snobism in forward or reverse mode.
I'm motived by what I calcuate is best for my own personal self
interest and I make no apologies for it - nor do I need to.
And George Bush has been better for that than Kerry would have been
because he cut the tax rates on my investment income and saved me a
bundle of cash. Whether he is a "regular guy" or not isn't part of
the equation.
Alex|6.27.07 @ 3:12PM|#
"Do you know what the difference is between buying free range
chicken to reduce suffering, and voting for George Bush to put a
"regular guy" in the White House?
Buying free range chicken instead of Perdue actually does reduce
suffering."
That's my favorite joke since "What's the difference between Rush
Limbaugh and a blimp? One's a huge, gas-filled airbag and the
other's an aircraft."
But seriously, folks...
Far be it for me, as a liberal on a libertarian blog, to actually
encourage you people to think more selfishly, but if
you're buying free range chickens only to reduce their suffering
(which, actually, because of places like Whole Foods -- and, sorry
to say it, a lack of government regulation as to what the term free
range actually means -- doesn't really mean anything anymore other
than the fact that cooped chickens have access to a small patch of
concrete outside that they'll never actually go out to) then you're
missing the much larger point: battery chickens are bad for you.
They're pumped full of antibiotics and fed on things that are not
natural. They're much more likely to give you, for instance,
salmonella. Also, and probably more important to this crowd and to
me, they taste like crap in comparison with a properly raised
chicken.
|6.27.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Good Lord, John, how about you try to think instead of just
jerking your knee?
I thought you wanted open space, what is wrong with not
building on it?
|6.27.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Hm, tag problem, I guess.
John, what I wrote was, "and even now, you can neither build on it,
nor even plant trees" because doing so would break the cap. The
necessary management plan requires that trees be prevented from
growing there.
And regardless, the decades it spent as an open landfill, added to
the decades it would spend recovering to a "natural" state, and
we're still talking about second growth, probably dominated by the
most aggressive pioneer species for quite some time rather than the
ecosystem that evolved there over the milennia. You can't see why
people who value open space would rather see this happen less,
rather than more?
|6.27.07 @ 3:20PM|#
I was going to use the following quote to slam Goldberg but,
according to PublicEye.org, which professes to be a progressive
outfit, this is Benito Mussolini's invented the internet.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is
the merger of state and corporate power."
Although it leaves me frustrated I thought people should know. Fake
or real, it's a honey of a quote.
Seitz|6.27.07 @ 3:25PM|#
You are right that Trader Joe's is vastly superior to Whole
Foods. Whole Foods is expensive as hell and just full of a lot of
wierd crap.
Yeah, who needs all that weird crap like a butcher and a produce
section?
I love Trader Joe's, but the two aren't particularly all that
comparable. One of the reasons Whole Foods is more expensive is
because they get people into the store with the things they do that
are vastly superior to other grocery stores (meat, fish, and
produce), and then sell them all they same junk they could get
TJ's, or Ralph's, or Dominick's while they're there.
|6.27.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Uh, a corporatist economic system is part of every definition of
fascism.
Look it up on wikipedia.
Did you think that commenter just made up the term
"corporatism?"
|6.27.07 @ 3:29PM|#
I'm sitting here eating my yankee potroast from Whole Foods. This stuff is awesome. I did feel a little guilty when I walked by all the peasants the store was repressing but that's the price one pays for good totalitarian food!
SugarFree|6.27.07 @ 3:40PM|#
If a private company or the city wants to pick through my trash
to find "recyclables," then more power to them. But I have to
(under threat of fine) separate them out myself into a different
bin (and into smaller bins inside that bin.) Is it economies of
scales that make "tuna can" recycling profitable or is it my slave
labor?
By the way, I had been a macrolibertarian for a long time, but it
took living in a town with private garbage and recycling collection
to make me a local-level libertarian. It cost 20 dollars a month,
they picked up twice a week, would haul off anything you could drag
to the curb either of those days, and would even come around the
side of the house to empty the cans. Recycling went into a single
bin with no sorting. They knocked two bucks off the monthly fee if
I used the recycling bin. It was like trash paradise.
Where I live know, they recently had a newspaper expose on the fact
that the city garbagemen only work four hours a day but get paid
for ten. At the same time, we dropped from two days of collection
to one. Why aren't more people libertarian? Oh, that's right, we
like guns and dope...
|6.27.07 @ 3:56PM|#
I already explained how mandatory recycling produces a
market that people profit from.
I'm sorry, but are you referring to this sorry argument?
The waste management companies are able to make money off of
tuna cans specifically because of the economy of scale that
mandatory recycling produces. So much for the "recycling isn't
efficient" argument.
I think this warrants an "ECONOMIEZ of SKALE!"
DRINK!
|6.27.07 @ 3:57PM|#
"By the way, I had been a macrolibertarian for a long time, but
it took living in a town with private garbage and recycling
collection to make me a local-level libertarian. It cost 20 dollars
a month, they picked up twice a week, would haul off anything you
could drag to the curb either of those days, and would even come
around the side of the house to empty the cans. Recycling went into
a single bin with no sorting. They knocked two bucks off the
monthly fee if I used the recycling bin. It was like trash
paradise."
The service is so good because those guys found a way to make a
living off of your trash. That is vastly superior to some
government mandated recyling system like they have in Europe. In
Germany at least, they really do monitor the contents of your trash
and fine the hell out of you if you don't recycle. Look at it this
way, if tommorow the FBI found some algorythm ant would allow them
to determine with 100% certainty who was a terrorist and a child
molester by the contents of their garbage and thus wanted to start
monitoring the contents of everyone's trash in order to catch
terrorists and child molesters, the people on here, Joe included
would have kittens and rightfully so. Yet, somehow the government
doing the same thing in the name of recycling is okay?
Gilbert Martin|6.27.07 @ 4:00PM|#
"Why aren't more people libertarian? Oh, that's right, we like
guns and dope..."
I'd say it has more to do with:
(A) - A lot of people think they're "owed"
stuff to be paid for by somebody
else.
(B) - There a lot of busybodies in the
world who think everyone else's
business is actually their business.
|6.27.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Joe,
If the alternative to having a landfill that perhaps is repopulated
by pioneer species is not have trash pick up or having some grossly
expensive and intrusive government recycling scheme, the pioneer
species don't look so bad. My point is that landfill are not nearly
as bad as they are made out to be and are at least right now the
best alternative we have. If we spent all the effort we do on
recycling making sure that landfills were properly built and that
the waste disposal industry was not filled with Tony Soprano types,
both us an the environment would be a lot better off.
|6.27.07 @ 4:03PM|#
The best recycling system I've seen is "pay-as-you-throw," which
charges homeowners for a special type of bag, based on the cost of
landfilling one bag. The collectors then only take trash that is in
the special bags.
Recycling is picked up from free, meaning each resident has a
direct incentive to achieve the central goal, the reduction of
trash volume. Recycling, reducing, reusing, composting, even
compacting - all things that reduce the need for landfill space -
it leaves it up to the resident to figure out how he can best
reduce his trash volume.
|6.27.07 @ 4:03PM|#
I love Trader Joe's, but the two aren't particularly all
that comparable.
Agreed. Trader Joe's has some fantastic pre-cooked, heat and server
entrees, but is severely lacking in ingredients for people who like
to cook. Their produce selection leaves much to be desired at
times. (When compared to Whole Foods)
TJ's have no butcher, no baker and a shitty mostly frozen seafood
selection. In those categories Whole Foods mops the floor with
them
|6.27.07 @ 4:06PM|#
John,
"grossly expensive and intrusive government recycling scheme"
Um, we're talking about people having two trash containers instead
of one here, right? Let's not get all shrieking hysterical about
this.
As far as expense, recycling pays for itself. The cost of the less
efficient materials, like glass, is covered by the profitability of
the metals.
Robert Waldmann|6.27.07 @ 4:06PM|#
commenters we are supposed to help Jonah with his
subtitle.
How about
Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Thomas Jefferson
to the ACLU ?
or
Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from John Stuart Mill
to Friday Cat Blogging ?
|6.27.07 @ 4:06PM|#
Joe,
I wouldn't object to that program. That way I can pay my money and
not care if I want or I can save my money and recycle to my heart's
content. As long as the price to dispose actually represents the
cost of disposal and not some artificially high price, I would
totally support that idea.
|6.27.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Sure, John, as long as "the cost of disposal" includes the environmental externalities of landfilling waste and extracting new raw materials that could have been replaced with recycling.
SugarFree|6.27.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Gilbert Martin,
Well, all that too... I was just being glib.
John,
Rumor has it that an elderly lady got those guys to take a
brokedown car to a junk yard for her. We can't even get the city
guys to not pick up our trash at 5 fucking am.
joe,
As far as expense, recycling pays for itself.
Once again I ask... is it profitable (or break-evan-able) because
they compel me to work for them? If my labor is not a component of
their profitability, then why do I have to do it under threat of
fine?
(The cruder way to ask this question is: Why do I have to have
three fucking trash cans in the kitchen?)
|6.27.07 @ 4:22PM|#
SugarFree,
Cry me a river about your "slave labor."
We're talking about using the right trash can here.
You know, they don't actually come into your kitchen and take the
bag out of your trash can, either. Like the poor unfortunates
working on plantations in the ante-bellum South, you are foreced to
carry the bag to the curb.
What color ribbon should I wear on my lapel for the benighted souls
forced to put their newspapers in a grocery bag instead of the
kitchen trash?
You are not forgotten!
|6.27.07 @ 4:24PM|#
How is someone who associates fascism with liberalism with totalitariansm and libertarianism given a book deal?
|6.27.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Does recycling pay for itself? The worst day of my working life
was spent at a recycling plant during summer break back in the
college days. Unreal. The manual processing required to separate
recyclables was enormous back in 1993 or so.
If they've made progress since then, that's great, but I became a
recycling cynic after about five minutes of watching what the
process looked like.
SugarFree|6.27.07 @ 4:34PM|#
joe,
The laws already enforce your lifestyle choice on the rest of us,
but you won't happy until you have our minds as well as our tuna
cans.
Liberal Fascism is a joke, but it is a sick sort of
totalitarian who has compliance and demands agreement as
well.
And you still didn't answer my question in your blizzard of
sarcasm. Or maybe I already have it.
|6.27.07 @ 4:36PM|#
So wait, let me see if I understand.
When a township instigates a recycling program into their garbage
management, with each regulation on how it is to be managed there
is a decrease in cost to the person whose trash/recycling is being
collected?
Fancy that.
|6.27.07 @ 4:39PM|#
Ironically, and I'm surprised no one's mentioned this, at least in the People's Republic of Cambridge "Whole Foods" is synonymous with big corporate. The leftists hate it because WF bought out "Bread & Circus" which was a local organic chain with better prices and "local values." "Whole Foods" has also hurt the organic food co-ops which were a leftist staple since the 1970s. If anything Whole Foods is usually seen on the left as a symbol of the way corporate America coopts the counterculture and turns it mainstream - maybe Jonah's gone leftist on us and is righting a book about "facist corporations."
|6.27.07 @ 5:07PM|#
I've posted before about Whole Foods' misleading and deceptive
marketing of organic food, by telling customers that conventionally
grown food is less healthy, is filled with toxic chemicals, etc.
Also they campaign against genetically-engineered food and
irradiation by raising unscientific fears about those technologies.
In the last few years, they have gotten rid of the most egregious
stuff on their website, but their "market" success was mainly built
on deceiving consumers.
Don't think that's a libertarian value myself.
Check out its website under "Issues."
Randolph Carter|6.27.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Whole food fucking rocks. They have those "field harvest" fake
meat products like delicious sausages and mushroom cold cuts. The
crunchy-ass local health food stores have half the inventory at
double the price.
Also, unless the business model includes enslaving children and
skinning puppies, screw objecting to a business for its
"morals."
Because who needs morals when you can buy morels! buh huh huh
huh.
|6.27.07 @ 5:15PM|#
The problem for Jonah Goldberg is that Whole Foods is one of the most honest companies in America. Like any true neo-con, his sympathies lie with companies that depend mostly on corporate welfare, such as Halliburton, American Airlines, and Cabela's. Goldberg is worse than Ann Coulter.
|6.27.07 @ 5:38PM|#
To me this is just a continuation of an increasing pattern by right wingers to throw out the word "fascism" in relation to liberals. As the right becomes more and more reactionary and loving of all things authoratarian they see the danger to themselves of being labeled as what they are, fascist. One can call it neo-fascism, authoritarianism, big brother government, totalitarianism or anything else but the right is very clever and is attempting to co-opt the language here and head off the real debate that America needs to be having. Frank Luntz must be proud.
Daniel Barnes|6.27.07 @ 6:52PM|#
Someone should point out that Captain Doofus H Pantload's whole thesis - German Idealism's totalitarian implications - has been done multiple times, and by people with A Brain too. Why would anyone read his book when you can get Karl Popper's "The Open Society And Its Enemies Vol 2:Hegel and Marx" for a just a buck more?
Daniel Barnes|6.27.07 @ 7:31PM|#
Actually, I take that back. Goldberg's thesis is whatever he can extract a tortured subtitle from.
libertreee|6.27.07 @ 7:32PM|#
And regardless, the decades it spent as an open landfill,
added to the decades it would spend recovering to a "natural"
state, and we're still talking about second growth, probably
dominated by the most aggressive pioneer species for quite some
time rather than the ecosystem that evolved there over the
milennia. You can't see why people who value open space would
rather see this happen less, rather than more?-Joe
All I see in Joe's argument is that his aesthetic, subjective
values regarding open space and landfills can and should be imposed
on communities by a majority vote. He also attributes economic
efficiencies, but is unwilling to let the market verify them.
Despite the facts that only 6% of America is developed, and that
man made ecological damage is rarely if ever permanent, he believes
that his aesthetic values trumps the individual choices of up to
49% of a local population (assuming that the electoral dynamics are
open and no special interest welfare is involved, which is
unlikely).
This is the liberal way, but not the libertarian way.
|6.27.07 @ 7:58PM|#
John in one post: ". . . some people do not want 500 million
people in this country, whether they be Russians, Africans or
Mexicans. Some people like the open spaces and think it is too
crowded now. Further, some people like American culture as it is.
That is foreign concept to a lot of people, but no[t] everyone
wants Mexico City in their backyard. In same way I don't blame the
French or the rest of the world when they complain about American
culture running roughshod over their own, I don't blame Americans
for wanting to keep their own culture."
John in another post: "Do you agree that you should be able to
enforce your lifestyle on everyone else through government coercion
or don't you? It is not a trick question."
Apparently, it is a trick question, at least when it comes to
immigration law.
Bee|6.27.07 @ 8:03PM|#
Hear, hear, SugarFree. Of course my time and effort are being
exploited to satisfy someone else's recycling wet dream.
And adding insult to injury is that the plastic flip-top
municipal-issued trash cans we are now required to use, as well as
the open-top recycling boxes, are not even remotely wildlife safe.
Dogs, raccoons, rodents, deer and bears can all go to town on these
worthless plastic pieces of crap. They're gnawable, they crack when
dropped, shatter with age and exposure, and we are charged for
their replacement. My old metal trash cans now hold the precious
recyclable crap - which I tote out from the house - until I dump it
into the worthless plastic boxes right before collection, so that
it does not become a buffet line during the week.
Oh, and we pay more now, too. I ponder going off-grid and just
hauling stuff to the dump myself. Except that's probably illegal
now.
|6.27.07 @ 9:47PM|#
libertree,
I have no doubt that "all you see" in my observation about second
growth and aggressive invasives is an aesthetic statement.
It isn't actually an aesthetic statement at all - it's a statement
about ecological function and habitat suitability - but I don't
doubt for a second that all you see is an aesthetic
statement.
Your problem. Not mine.
|6.27.07 @ 10:01PM|#
"Aesthetic" is one of those terms, like "lifestyle," that people
without an argument throw out to make deride positions they can't
actually argue against.
For example, "Stop using force to impose your anti-trespass
lifestyle on me. You have no right to use the government to enforce
your aesthetic preference for well-defended property rights."
Paul|6.27.07 @ 11:14PM|#
Hey, I love Whole Foods. It's a great example of capitalism.
Now, I don't shop there much because I don't live in the overly
coiffed, volvo-driving community where the one in my area exists,
but I do go in when I'm in the neighborhood. My only complaint: I
got some lunch at their deli-counter the other day and tried to buy
a magazine to read while I ate. My choices were:
Vegetarian Times
Vegetarian Living
Gluten Free (what the hell is a gluten, and where can I get
one?)
Ad Busters
Mother Earth News
The list went on, and on, and on. But what can you expect, the
entire community surrouding the Whole Foods is pretty much
preoccupied with Shakra's and Aura's.
Randolph Carter|6.27.07 @ 11:35PM|#
gluten is wheat/cereal protein. Some people (especially we
viking-blooded northern Europeans) have an allergic reaction to
it.
It's also a fad right now to be "gluten-free," even though the best
damn textured vegan protein, Seitan, is all gluten all the
time.
As far as I can tell, the gluten-free crap for those who aren't
allergic is just another corn product subsidy.
roger|6.27.07 @ 11:57PM|#
Please, the relationship between vegetarianism and Naziism is the dumbest cliche ever! You could as easily make the connection between agri-business, dependent on Fritz Haber's ammonia nitrate process, and Mustard gas, another Haber invention, and the gas used in the concentration camps. Gee, Agri-business is the equivalent of Auschwitz! Truly, the right is in a trough, and Jonah Goldberg has to be the dumbest righwinger to come along in a generation.
|6.28.07 @ 12:45AM|#
John Mackey, a hugely successful businessperson, once bragged that Whole Foods employees had much higher IQs than employees of an area rival called Central Market, which has unique, amazing stores in Texas. It turns out the opposite is true, but Mackey wasn't interested in facts. He is supremely arrogant and his opinion is the only one worth having - in his opinion! His supersized holier-than-thou ego is what brought him success. He may be a nice person, but he is only a modern version of the late 1800s robber baron blowhards who know what's best for everyone else - and what's best for everyone else is what he says is best for everyone else. I don't envy him his wealth but instead pity him for his closed mind. Mainly, though, he's just a rich control freak.
dhex|6.28.07 @ 12:47AM|#
hail seitan!
(i never get tired of that gag)
i don't believe in segregation for any of god's creatures or their
works, so i can't in good conscience recycle.
dhex|6.28.07 @ 12:48AM|#
also the lighting in whole foods sucks. i've never figured out why that is. you can still read the prices.
Righteous Bubba|6.28.07 @ 12:50AM|#
Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from That Lady in Line in Front of Me Counting Pennies from Her Change Purse to the Way Gilbert Gottfried's Voice Sounds
|6.28.07 @ 6:58AM|#
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it
is the merger of state and corporate power."
Often quoted, but rarely understood. Corporate in this sense
doesn't mean "corporation" in the modern sense of a limited
liability company. It means any collective organisation, such as a
cartel. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Think of, say, Krupp and all the German industrialists meeting the
Nazi bosses to decide what's going to happen.
But a corporation in this sense could also be a trade union (think
of the "official" unions of the USSR), a church, a university or
whatever.
Gilbert Martin: "I'm not manipulated by snobism in forward or
reverse mode.
"I'm motived by what I calcuate is best for my own personal self
interest and I make no apologies for it - nor do I need to."
Gil, that means you're a psychopath. Seek help now.
|6.28.07 @ 9:05AM|#
From Update 2:
...but maybe the German obsession with organic food and
environmentalism...
Goldberg apparently believes that foodies who recycle will
eventually don the Toten Kopf and go all Auchwitz on the rest of
us. It's inevitable really. Be afraid of the foodies. Be very ,
very afraid.
|6.28.07 @ 9:12AM|#
Wait... I'm a vegetarian. I recycle! OMG! I must be a Fascist! Please, nobody tell my mom...
dhex|6.28.07 @ 10:02AM|#
wait so goldberg is, like, just doing guilt by association
here?
germans LOVED highways jonah!
|6.28.07 @ 11:59AM|#
John
"Further, in many cases, especially with glass products, it takes
more energy to recycle a product than it does to make a new
one."
Basic info on glass recycling
http://www.gpi.org/recycling/faq/
|6.28.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Recycling glass reduces environmental impacts
Saves energy
Using cullet allows the glass container industry to reduce energy
input to its furnaces. Energy costs drop about 2-3% for every 10%
cullet used in the manufacturing process.
Decreases processing by-products
The glass recycling process is a closed-loop system, creating no
additional waste or by-products.
Lessens greenhouse gas emissions
For container glass, a relative 10% increase in cullet reduces
particulates by 8%, nitrogen oxide by 4%, and sulfur oxides by 10%.
And, for every six tons of recycled container glass used, one ton
of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is reduced (Source: Glass
Recycling, "Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology" 4th
edition, 1999).
http://www.gpi.org/recycling/environment/
SugarFree|6.28.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Neu Mejican,
All better arguments for recycling than suggesting an industry
based on unpaid labor is profitable on it's own.
|6.28.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Next subtitle, after Whole Foods threatens to sue...
Liberal Fascism: Stuff John Podhoretz told me during the breaks of
Battlestar Galactica.
|6.29.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Let me get this straight...Goldberg's magazine explicitly and repeatedly defends state torture in the name of an an orwellian "war on terror" as necessary, but the organic grocery store(!) is fascist. Our republic is in serious trouble.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245