Liberalism

The Sterility of Liberal Thought

|

Over in Liberal Land, this great debate is unfolding: Whether maternity leave is a good or a bad idea, not because of its impact on business at a time when the economy is moribund and the unemployment rate is stubbornly stuck at 9.1 percent. Liberals are worried about the leave's environmental impact.

Really!

A reader of Matt Yglesias' blog questioned Yglesias' support for the leave, pointing out just how environmentally incorrect it was. "Not having a child is arguably the single best thing a person can do for the environment," he proclaimed.

Yglesias responded sensibly enough:

Radical population reduction would sharply reduce the quantity of anthropogenic ecological impacts, but to what end? The goal needs to be to reconfigure human activity in order to make it sustainable over a longer time horizon. But sustained human flourishing requires both acceptable levels of ecological impact and also the continued production of new human beings.

This corroborates the point of my previous post that the problem with the modern environmental movement is that, in contrast to the original conservationists, it wants to protect the environment from humans rather than for humans. Yet without humans as a standard, the movement has no rational basis for determining tradeoffs between conflicting environmental ends, and is doomed to collapse into incoherence.

Indeed, the fact that the morality of having children is subject to debate in respectable liberal circles speaks volumes about just how unhinged modern progressives have become from the ordinary aspirations of ordinary people.

This is, to say the least, mulish—in more ways than one.

NEXT: Almost Everything We're Taught Is Wrong

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I wish my wife and I had more than three kids, just to piss off these kinds of fucksticks even more.

    And so we had more to drive and get us booze.

    1. I have more than three.

      1. But Al…you’re a beautiful man…..

  2. “Indeed, the fact that the morality of having children is subject to debate in respectable liberal circles speaks volumes about just how unhinged modern progressives have become from the ordinary aspirations of ordinary people.”

    Plus they have no problem with letting babies who survive late term abortions die.

  3. Future generations may be far less gullible because of environmentalists who don’t have kids.

    1. An excellent point, PIRS

    2. Don’t misunderstand their hypocrisy. They will have children, but they rail at those that don’t share their views having children.

      1. Liberal… Hypocrite… Same diff.

    3. Taranto coined the term “Roe-effect” in how abortion views are shifting, pro-abortion people have more abortions than anti-abortion people. We just have to suffer through the enviro-inanity about population until they all die off and cannot pass their stupidity to the next generation.

    4. Don’t bet on it. Sure, “Anybody who believes in my philosophy shouldn’t have any children” tends to be an inescapable memetic death-trap (see: the Shakers), but “the few very most zealous believers in my philosophy shouldn’t have any children” produces gradual philosophical moderation over the course of centuries, at best (see: the Catholics).

  4. At the same time, there is a strain of liberal thought that wants continued population growth, because the demographics of their redistribution schemes require large pools of young people to be slaves to the old.

    So it kind of cuts both ways.

    Personally, I would be delighted if the population of the US was 175 million and the world population 2.5 billion. I’d just rather see it get there organically – as it will, in time, if we just let development play itself out – than by fiat.

    1. Only if there’s another 4 billion scattered through the solar system.

      1. as it will, in time

    2. Shakers vs. Mormons.

  5. it wants to protect the environment from humans rather than for humans.

    That is one thing that I cannot understand about some environmentalists.

    1. Religion is hard to understand. It requires faith.

  6. Should be quite interesting to see how that all turns out. WOw.

    http://www.anon-stuff.at.tc

    1. Ain’t that the truth, Frak! LOL!

    2. Are you one of the Cleveland Morans, Frak?

  7. At the same time, there is a strain of liberal thought that wants continued population growth,

    Well, they should want it, but I can’t recall any one from the entitlement side of the street actually pointing out that their wealth transfer programs actually require a constantly growing workforce/population to be viable.

    1. Probably because that would involve acknowledging that social safety net entitlements are all ponzi schemes.

      1. Hence the need to import massive numbers of poor young foriegners to prop up their upside down ponzi schemes.

    2. If they did that, the proles may figure out that “because you have paid in your benefits are guaranteed” is a big steaming pile and not support that stuff.

    3. Well first they would have to accept that choices involve trade-offs.

  8. It’s all just a bunch of tree-huging hippie crap!

  9. hugging

  10. RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!

  11. I say fuck these liberals, on the chance that one of them will get pregnant.

    1. Have you seen a representative cross section of “liberal” women. It’s no wonder they’re not reproducing.

      1. You don’t have a large state U with a big College of Education in your town. I was on campus yesterday. God Bless College.

        1. the Ed school is where you typically find the least intelligent part of the student body. Perhaps it is also the most morally relaxed part, too. But, is that who you want to breed with?

          1. But, is that who you want to breed with?

            Nahh! Just practice with!

            1. This. 10k hours are needed to become an expert, and I’d like to get an additional 10k just in case I’m a slow learner.

              1. Slow is gooooood.

        2. No I don’t! It would seem that I’m missing something!

  12. Is there any reasonable person out there still suggesting the continuance of humanity is in any way good for the environment? All people should stop having kids, period. This generation, no further. And to that end, cease the state subsidies you people get for having children… and divert those funds to green energy development that no human should be around to use.

    1. “Children of Men” was a dark place

      1. I can’t believe ***SPOILERS*** they killed Julliane Moore ***SPOILERS***.

        1. Re: Art-P.O.G.

          That was the best part of the movie. I was actually rooting for the bad guys.

          1. dat Animals reference…

          2. I don’t think that was all one continuous shot toward the end there. The CGI newborn seemed pretty realistic, though. It’s better than having women give birth to 3-month-old infants like they usually do.

    2. fist is from the Chinese delegation. In addition to no more kids, maybe we could start weeding out the sickly, the weak, the retarded, and anyone who does not think like you.
      Out of curiosity, what is the value of green energy is there is no around to use it? On the other hand, you could jump-start the depopulation movement. Are you near a high-rise? A pharmacy? Got a gun?

      1. Out of curiosity, what is the value of green energy is there is no around to use it?

        Meditation upon that point may enlighten you regarding the spirit in which FOE’s comment was made.

        1. Must have just been a low flying plane.

      2. He’s like an airport, everything goes over his head.

  13. Not having a child is arguably the single best thing a person can do for the environment.

    False. Feeding yourself to a bear is.

    1. What if the bear becomes flatulent while digesting me and releases deadly global warming gases?

      1. As if you weren’t already.

      2. You wouldn’t actually feed yourself to a bear before encrusting yourself with a few crushed up jars of beano, would you? You monster!!

    2. Eliminates your carbon production and feeds the bears! It’s a win-win!

  14. It’s utterly irrelevant what they want. Procreation is one of the strongest drives that a biological organism can have. They can never, ever stop it, so this is just another manifestation of leftist fantasy where they want to counter basic human nature to create their sterile utopia. And they will fail, as they always do, but of course, not without making people’s quality of life lesser.

    1. They can never, ever stop it….

      We’re working on it.

      How’s the boot feel?

      1. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon this now.

        1. They need to study my wife.

          1. In such cases, I believe it is customary to study the partner, not the wife?

            1. To study it properly, both the husband and the wife need to be, err, tested with a control group.

              1. From what I’ve seen in the intertubes, Montreal is the best place to do that kind of testing.

                1. It’s a great place to get crabs.

              2. GROUP SEX IS EVIL!

            2. Ah, you’ve been talking to my wife I see.

        2. We shall abolish the orgasm sexual intercourse between men and women. Our neurologists collegial indoctrination teams are at work upon this now. Presumption of guilt for a man accused of sexual assault is merely the first step!

          1. “We shall abolish sexual intercourse between men and women.”

            So in other words, promote abstinence.

            Funny how Progressive ideas ultimately turn on themselves.

      2. A law requiring the forced sterilizing of all babies at birth would be a start.

        1. We like your ideas, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

          1. A burlap sack, some rocks, and a river works too. It also has the advantage of economic stimulus by creating jobs for sack makers and rock diggers via the broken babies….errr….windows parable.

    2. That’s the biggest problem with leftist failure, it often leaves millions of dead and broken bodies in it’s wake…

      1. Your Bug, my Feature.

      2. Yeah but the trains run on time…

    3. It’s not necessary to stop procreation.

      If each woman simply has less than 2.2 children on average, time will take care of the rest.

      That’s why I’m confident that the total human population will ultimately crash on its own, if these dumbasses will just stay out of the way.

      1. The only thing that causes any population to crash is reaching the limit of resources.

        1. Odd, then, that a number of societies have already passed their demographic peak, including one of the wealthiest on the planet (the Japanese).

        2. Or becoming really rich, ala the West.

      2. We don’t have time… global warming will destroy us all in a few decades… Algore says so.

        1. And he’s super serial, you guys.

          1. ManBearPig is real!

    4. Well, to counteract that procreative drive, they could just start killing off massive amounts of people.

      1. Nahh….Broken Window Fallacy is wrong.

        1. Broken Window Fallacy is right, but we’re not advocating that, because it’s wrong, except we are because it would work….

    5. What’s interesting is the contention that abstinence programs do not work because you cannot stop people from having sex, but you can stop people from reproducing without acknowledging the two activities are related.

      1. …abortion, solves this dilema for liberals.

        1. That and the condoms, or birth control pills, or IUDs, or only fucking grandmas.

          My wife and I are pretty happy at 2.2 kids, and abortion has not been necessary yet.

          1. Not even a partial birth one?

            1. I guess there was one, hence 0.2 kid.

          2. Abortion is the only absolute.

  15. The Chinese have some interesting ideas in this regard.

  16. I have some very Berkeley liberal friends who expressed the same concerns. I told them, if you raise your children poorly then I might agree with you. But raising intelligent, conscientious kids is one of the greatest gifts you can make to the world.

    Their daughter just turned three and is just a joy.

    1. Raise your child to be better than you are in other words…

      1. Low bar in my case.

        It’s really a cost-benefit analysis. If they perceive such a tremendous cost simply due to existing, then you better provide at least as much benefit back to the world. The problem with the extreme wackos is that they can’t imagine a benefit that large… In which case, why are you still here? Get thee to an incinerator, why would thou be a breeder of sinners?

      2. They shoot better at least (started earlier).

      3. Leave your campsite better than you found it.

  17. Modern humans are an invasive species

    1. We’re the animal version of Kudzu.

    2. “Invasive Species” is a made-up, environmentalist’s term used to describe a species that is particularly successful. Environmentalists absolutely worship species that tenuously cling to existence, and they will spare no expense (well, no expense coming out of your pocket) to prop up a mal-adapted species.

      1. +90

        I wholeheartedly agree. I live in Florida and the Norfolk Island Pine** can grow outdoors here. As an adult tree it is quite beautiful. Of course there are enviro-wakos who want to wipe it off of our peninsula.

        ** For those who don’t know, the little live Christmas Pines that you find in grocery stores up North are usually Norfolk Island Pines. They are not true pines either, they are called that because they look like pines.

  18. Yet without humans as a standard, the movement has no rational basis for determining tradeoffs between conflicting environmental ends, and is doomed to collapse into incoherence.

    From “Man is the measure of all things” to “Cacti and spotted owls are the measure for all men”

    Sounds coherent enough to me… *snicker, snicker*

  19. Also, on a side note, I feel kind of sorry for Yglesias. Half of his readership is composed of the dumbest fuckers on the planet, and the other half is just there to troll him. Someone needs to get that man a real echo chamber.

    1. Half of his readership is composed of the dumbest fuckers on the planet, and the other half is just there to troll him.

      Except for Tyler Cowen, who pays a lot of attention to him for some reason.

  20. Seems like self-hate in people who are too cowardly to properly express it fully through self-destruction, so they project it onto the desire for the destruction of humanity.

  21. Whether maternity leave is a good or a bad idea, not because of its impact on business at a time when the economy is moribund and the unemployment rate is stubbornly stuck at 9.1 percent. Liberals are worried about the leave’s environmental impact.

    Sounds like one of those “Angels dancing on top of the head of a pin” kind of discussion, doesn’t it?

    By the way, compulsory maternity leave is what kept many productive married women from being able to work in many big industries in Mexico for DECADES, until the 1990s. Companies would simply not hire married women, because BY LAW you had to give women 1 month previous-to-due-date and 1 month after birth of PAID maternity leave. One of those great unintended consequences created by the do-gooders – or maybe that was the goal all along, as the old Institutional Revolutionary Party was controlled by the Unions, which were populated by the most misogynist bunch one could ever find.

    1. the most misogynist bunch one could ever find

      No offense, but doesn’t that describe the vast majority of Mexican men?

      I mean, isn’t that a bit redundant?

      1. Re: sarcasmic,

        No offense, but doesn’t that describe the vast majority of Mexican men?

        It’s a question of degree, sarcasmic, not of category 😉

    2. This is actually a huge barrier to women’s employment in the higher corporate levels in every country that mandates this policy.

  22. Morning links are getting stale, so I thought I’d throw this in here:
    The Next Debate’s Convenient Qualifications Threshold

    Arbitrary threshold is arbitrary.

    1. Couldn’t have someone in there agreeing with Ron Paul. It might lend credibility to the old coot. Nope. Johnson must be excluded at all cost.

  23. Really? Random comments on blogs? What’s next, critizing Youtube comments?

    1. Yea, it seems like a silly hyper-technical debate, but that kind of thing has been known to happen on political blogs.

    2. Forget Jake, it’s Dalmia.

      Anyone bought one of those green-mobile Hummers lately? *sniggers*

  24. As to the substance complusory maternity leave is one of many areas where we simply decide that we are not going to let economic concerns always outweigh other societal values and concerns. We think whatever losses may result economically and “in liberty” by making this compulsory are outweighed by the positive results (women not having to choose between careers and motherhood and strengthening of families).

    1. Then employers are faced with the choice of hiring a woman who may cost two months of paid leave, or a man who will not.
      As an (presumably) unintended consequence of your “society values”, women are denied career opportunities.

      This is what happens when stupid emotional pieces of shit otherwise known as liberals ignore results and focus only on intentions.

      1. Surely labor laws would be more rational if they were written by the nearly 100% male libertarian contingent.

        1. Re: sockpuppet,

          There would be no labor laws, you imbecile.

          1. Sounds like a wonderful world. Why don’t you realize that you’re not for freedom of the individual, you’re for tyranny of employers?

            1. Kochtopus doesn’t like us to make such realizations.

            2. No you are completely free to seek employment in a firm where these policies are offered.

            3. How can you possibly equate a relationship that any partner can walk away from at any time as tyrannical? Why shouldn’t an employer be able to dictate what they want out of potential employees, and if an employee doesn’t like it they don’t have to accept the contract? You’re such a dumbass. But don’t worry, you’re still my favorite commie flamer.

              1. But at least he is a “serious” commie flamer! …and isn’t that the important thing?

              2. How can you possibly equate a relationship that any partner can walk away from at any time as tyrannical?

                Because all he understands is force.
                Voluntary cooperation does not compute in his wee liberal brain.
                So in his feeble mind any relationship must entail some coercion.
                He wants the government to coerce on his behalf and force the employer to do things for him.
                As he sees it, without government coercion those things will never happen.
                Never.
                Without government coercion it would be employer coercion, since there must be coercion.

              3. There is an asymmetry of power in the workplace. There are large costs associated with changing workplaces. I also understand that the employer has to pay for additional training and HR overhead, but in the balance it is harder to get a new job than to get a new employee. At one point in the past the employees unionized to address these concerns (but they have drifted since then)

                1. I also understand that the employer has to pay for additional training and HR overhead,

                  Don’t worry, we’re going to form an employer’s union to take care of this.

            4. tony,
              freedom for the individual does not equate to a mandate for the employer.

              1. freedom for the individual does not equate to a mandate for the employer.

                Why not? Employers can be mandated not to murder and consume their employees. Presumably you’re OK with that. Why not minimum wage and maternity leave too? What’s the difference?

            5. Re: sockpuppet,

              Why don’t you realize that you’re not for freedom of the individual, you’re for tyranny of employers?

              May this serve as a reminder to you all, of something I sometimes forget and end up being reminded the squishy way: Don’t feed the sockpuppet, because he tends to fling shit like the above against passerbys.

              It’s their money, you dumbshit – the employers’. Not yours, not the government’s, not the expecting mothers’. It’s THEIR money.

              1. Follow your own advice OM, DO. NOT. FEED. THE. SOCKPUPPET.

          2. What would corporations do without laws to protect them????

        2. Libertarian policy would be to allow employers and employees the freedom to enter into whatever agreement they decided upon without men with guns dictating the terms.

          1. Presumably with a significant advantage to the employers, since most of you are in favor of “men with guns” preventing people from entering into unions.

            1. since most of you are in favor of “men with guns” preventing people from entering into unions.

              It’s amazing how often your misunderstanding of libertarianism creeps into your posts.

              1. Perhaps libertarians just arbitrarily chose to be in favor of getting government support of unionization out of the way before they go after government goodies that come with incorporation and running a business?

                1. ….before they go after government goodies that come with incorporation and running a business?

                  You’re on firmer ground here….keep going.

              2. It’s amazing how often your misunderstanding of libertarianism creeps into your posts.

                When you view everything through the prism of force, the concept of liberty is impossible to grasp.

              3. Almost like he’s arguing against a man…made of straw…

            2. Nope private unions are fine. We would like to prevent the “incestuous” relationship of public employee unions.

            3. I’m not in favor of anybody preventing people from entering into unions. Employers should simply be able to ignore the union and hire non-union employees, and fire any employee that joins a union. Fucking freedom, how does it work?

            4. “Presumably with a significant advantage to the employers, since most of you are in favor of “men with guns” preventing people from entering into unions.”

              Really? Please link where that was proposed. Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. Libertarians are for the freedom of association. In other words, you are free to form whatever groupings you wish (unions, clubs, religious organizations, whatever), but those groups don’t get special dispensations from the government. If you want to have a union at work and everybody decides to walk off the job one Monday morning, fine. But the employer shouldn’t be obligated to sit there and negotiate with you by law. You are free to leave the job at any time. The employer is free to fire you at any time. That’s how a free society works.

        3. Why the love of self-flagellation young man?

    2. Cite needed.

    3. Compulsary by whom? The state or the employer? If it is the latter they probably feel that a woman taking a known period of time off after having a child is preferable to not knowing how many days and half days she is taking off for medical issues for herself and her child.

    4. Re: MNG,
      As to the substance complusory maternity leave is one of many areas where we simply decide that we are not going to let economic concerns always outweigh other societal values and concerns.
      Translation: “We steal, and have an excuse for it.”

    5. I see many references to “we” in MNG’s post, but no indication of who “we” is.

      1. We are us. They are us too.

      2. All good people agree,
        And all good people say,
        All nice people, like Us, are We
        And every one else is They:
        But if you cross over the sea,
        Instead of over the way,
        You may end by (think of it!) looking on We
        As only a sort of They!

      3. The Borg. Isn’t that the ultimate goal?

    6. That’s one of the stupidest thing you’ve said.

      *We* don’t choose shit, a small group of people try to enforce their preference upon the majority, who amazingly enough are able to find workarounds to reach their prefered outcomes.

      Women, like men, *still* have to choose between work and home-life. The only change here is that now a lot of women are just flat-out denied entrance into the executive class simply because they might choose to have children.

      Fucking Public Choice Theory, how does it work?

  25. I suspect the new CAFE standards are an attempt at population control. When no car can hold more than 4 passengers, the population will decrease or stay home.

    1. We take two (or more) cars.

      Kind of defeats the purpose of CAFE.

  26. Not having a child is arguably the single best thing a person can do for the environment.

    Following this line of “thinking,” isn’t the second best thing a person can do for the environment to commit suicide?

    1. The decomposition of human flesh releases lots of carbon into the ecosystem, so no.

      And don’t even think about cremation.

      1. What about feeding yourself to an endangered species? Surely this is the best approach.

        1. I like the cut of your jib.

    2. Truly, all progressives and environmentalists should follow their own logic down the rabbit hole. Become an hero.

  27. Well, honestly, here’s the problem for… well, I’m not sure I feel comfortable with liberals, so I’ll go with the Democratic Party: That party has a contingent which is wedded to the environment, to the point that many of them would like to see the human population reduced to lessen our impact on it. However, overall, the party’s identity is also based on the welfare state, which requires an ever expanding population of new workers to pay for the current beneficiaries. While I understand that many environmentalists aren’t that radical on the population thing, many still do favor policies that limit growth and therefore would require cuts to beneficiaries in the long term.

    I mean, the Republican big tent may be collapsing somewhat (corporatists v. neocons v. small government) but if the environmental movement in the Democratic Party gains more strength, watch out.

    1. Liberals engaging in doublethink?

      No!

  28. Oh look more beating up on liberals you made up in your head. I’m pretty sure that even talk about overpopulation has human well-being as the motivation.

    It’s a finite planet; without the artificial cheapness of fossil fuel energy it’s definitely a question whether the planet can sustain unchecked population growth. It’s a question that serious people can talk about.

    What’s not serious is assuming, sans evidence, that nature will provide in abundance for eternity no matter how little attention we pay to what we’re doing to it. It’s also a bit strange to care more about people who haven’t even been conceived yet than those currently living, but you guys aren’t shy about sharing the bizarre priorities of the religious right.

    1. Re: sockpuppet,

      It’s a finite planet

      That’s what the price system is for: To inform us about how finite the planet is. It is the government that thinks it can give away free stuff – your beef is with government, not the productive folk.

      1. OM–Have you considered using a patch to ween you off your troll cravings?

        1. The problem is that people who visit this site only once in a great while are likely to misinterpret our not responding to trolls because we want them to go away, as not responding because we don’t have an answer.

          1. What kind of insecure cultist only wants to talk to people he agrees with?

            1. There’s a difference between disagreeing and arguing honestly, and disagreeing while spouting the same talking points over and over and over again.

              1. I’ve always figured Tony was a Reason employee who does it to stir debates.

                And he’s not the only poster on here throwing out softball arguments. It’s like they carefully word them so the counter is too easy, like setting up a joke.

            2. My kind!

              Seriously though…and we do know how much you prize your “seriousness”….you aren’t changing any minds and we aren’t changing yours. Explain to me how this isn’t a complete waste of everybodies time?

              1. I’m pretty sure everything ever written here is a waste of time.

            3. What kind of insecure cultist only wants to talk to people he agrees with?

              The sockpuppet telling lies – will wonders never cease…

              I stopped talking to sockpuppets, I only mock them, as their arguments are a mockery to discourse.

      2. How does the price system factor in environmental harm? Seems to me it mostly doesn’t. Markets seem happy to socialize those costs.

        1. Re: sockpuppet,

          How does the price system factor in environmental harm? Seems to me it mostly doesn’t.

          Your lack of insight and intelligence is not everybody elze’s problem, sockpuppet.

          1. Does Tony really qualify as a sockpuppet? I don’t doubt he actually believes this crap. It seems like he is more of just a garden-variety incredibly persistent liberal troll.

            1. If you don’t doubt he believes his own crap, you haven’t followed him very closely. He admits to having no principles, no ideology, to frequently playing “devil’s advocate,” etc. He willfully operates at a subhuman level of thought.

        2. The price system factors in scarcity and finite resources, which was the objection you initially voiced.

          As fossil fuels run out, their price will rise.

          Those rising prices will enable less-efficient technologies to become competitive on price with fossil fuels.

          Those rising prices will incentivize the more efficient use of remaining fossil fuel stocks (i.e. conservation).

          Those rising prices will incentivize the development of fossil fuel alternatives above and beyond the ones we already know about.

          That’s why the price system is a response to your trembling about it being a finite planet.

          1. But the only reason fossil fuels are cheap is because a large bulk of their costs are socialized.

            1. Then why do you complain when libertarian think all such subsidies should be ended?

              1. That wasn’t Tony, it was one of the many trolls who spoof Tony.

              2. His version of “socialized” is that the negative externalities associated with burning fossil fuels are not priced into their use. Ergo, society has to bear the cost of burning fossil fuels rather than the suppliers/consumers of fossil fuels.

                Because it rests on AGW being a “social cost”, though, it is total shit argument.

    2. “without the artificial cheapness of fossil fuel energy.

      Coal is cheap and not artificially so.

    3. You and White Indian should get together and compare notes.

      1. “Compare notes”? Is that what kids are calling it these days?

  29. Ms Dalmia is reduced to citing an anonymous blog commenter as evidence of her “civil war” hypothesis.

    This is like a liberal site citing MNG’s posts on H&R in favor of public sector unions as evidence of a civil war among libertarians.

    1. I do not see any mention of civil war in the article.

      1. Her previous post that she links to is titled “Get ready for the ‘green’ civil war” and has a theme of environmentalists with different pet issues turning on each other.

        1. ….and has a theme of environmentalists with different pet issues turning on each other.

          I think a green internecine struggle would benefit the environment!

    2. Damn good analogy!

  30. It is all very well for liberals to argue that societal concerns come before profit. Just don’t come and act surprised when companies don’t profit and need to outsource to places where profit can be made.

    1. But that’s not their intention when they create this policy!

      It’s not their intention!

      Intentions!

      Something about the road to Hell…

      1. Arguing against maternity leave is one of those indefensible things for many. But it can be incredibly disruptive to have somebody being gone for over two months and then give them back the job they left behind.

        1. Arguing against the government forcing employers to give paid maternity leave is not an argument against maternity leave.
          Employers are free to offer it on their own.
          Some do.

      2. “Something about the road to Hell…”

        It’s the road I will be marching those god damn Tea Partiers down.

  31. The thing that pisses me off about maternity leave is that popping out a baby gets you a six month vacation as a reward. Where are the rewards for my life choices (and for men, teh gays, the infertile, etc), fuckers?

    1. Perhaps the sad thing here is that the opposite mainstream political opinion isn’t that having children is something people should be free to do, but rather is something that should be subsidized by everyone who chooses otherwise.

  32. Yet without humans as a standard, the movement has no rational basis for determining tradeoffs between conflicting environmental ends, and is doomed to collapse into incoherence.

    Lack of rational basis to settle tradeoffs isn’t a unique problem to environmentalism. Heck, on Milt Rosenberg’s show the other night, after spending half an hour talking about how choice should be restored to individuals, rather than controlled by govt, Mr Welch and Mr Gillespie began arguing in favor of a government welfare program, presumably financed by taxes taken at gunpoint, because they want to prevent malnutrition.

  33. lefties who believe this crap should put their money where their mouth is by putting a gun where their mouth is.

    1. Immunity and stuff?

    1. ..It’s easy if you try.

  34. We really need to address the “environmentalist problem”.

    1. Well what final solution do you have in mind?

  35. As to the substance complusory maternity leave is one of many areas where we simply decide that we are not going to let economic concerns always outweigh other societal values and concerns. We think whatever losses may result economically and “in liberty” by making this compulsory are outweighed by the positive results (women not having to choose between careers and motherhood and strengthening of families).

    You know why the people who advocate this and argue this way are hypocritical scum?

    Because if I proposed a law that said that all the self-employed people and all manufacturers and sellers of products and services they deal with could also take two months’ off, and they would be forced to still send them the same amount of money they did before, only now they could get no products or services for their money, they would find it intolerable and literally insane.

    1. Then again, you don’t have to push a watermelon out a hole in your body.

      1. Nobody ever has to do such a thing. Having a child is a choice

  36. You know who else didn’t have children, right?

    1. Ah, someone did not watch The Boys From Brazil.

      1. 2nd mention today for that classic. 😀

  37. Given that they’ve more or less reached “ZPG” (zero population growth)in Western Europe, scandinavia, Russia (negative), etc.,… and that the US and Canada are eventually headed that way… what Envirotards really ultimately believe in is the Sterilization of the Poor, and the restriction of growth of emerging markets. When they start talking about the ‘unsustainability’ of population growth, I always point out, “you mean like China and India & Africa and Latin America….”

    Normally these are the same people who think they are the champions of ‘the poor’; but it really doesn’t take much to get them to say things like, “they’re happier when they live in self-sustaining (read: subsistence) *communities*”; what they mean is, “stay in your filthy hovel – just please stop having babies”.

    I’ve gotten a few “Environmentalists” to say things like, ‘controlled sterilization isnt the worst idea’, or express admiration for China’s One Baby Policy. Others speak knowingly of an eventual super-bug created by our ‘foolish experiementation’ with GMOs, which wipes out 1/3 of the human race… which they note, *would ultimately be a good thing*.

    Its not so much that they “collapse into incoherance” – its that their logical conclusion of “people are the *problem*” that is something they’re disturbingly comfortable with. If there’s an incoherance, its a moral one. They think they’ve got the moral high ground depite yearning for a mass die-off of the World’s Poor.

    1. Others speak knowingly of an eventual super-bug created by our ‘foolish experiementation’ with GMOs, which wipes out 1/3 of the human race… which they note, *would ultimately be a good thing*.

      You rang?

  38. One way to encourage more children is to lower taxes on families, including abolishing school taxes for parents who provide their kids with a private or home school education.

    At a time when companies are desperately trying to me more woman-friendly, I am skeptical about taking a gun to employers and forcing them to adopt policies which many of them are willing to adopt, anyway.

    1. That’s because you are not an elected official. If somebody does something without government coercion, how is a politician supposed to claim credit for it on the campaign trail? It becomes nothing more than a wasted opportunity.

  39. the problem with the modern environmental movement is that, in contrast to the original conservationists, it wants to protect the environment from humans rather than for humans.

    ummm really?

    The goal needs to be to reconfigure human activity in order to make it sustainable over a longer time horizon.

    I think even the ‘sensible” version as you describe it is pretty damn aberrant.

    Who the fuck wants to “reconfigure human activity” to meet some arbitrary hypothetical “goal”?!?!

    Both seem pretty damn scary to me the only thing going for the “sensible” moon bat over moon bat b is it is plausible that the body count would be smaller….though there is no guarantee.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.