Green New Deal

The New Green Serfdom

The Green New Deal is a path to a more militarized and authoritarian society.

|

"Until you do it, I'm the boss," said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist congresswoman from the Bronx, responding to critics of her Green New Deal in February. Later that night, the freshman congresswoman doubled down on her comment, tweeting that people who "don't like the #GreenNewDeal" should "come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we're in charge—and you're just shouting from the cheap seats."

Much has rightly been made of the Green New Deal's fuzzy-headed utopianism and its impossible goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero in 10 years. But we should also pay close attention to the plan's authoritarian impulses, particularly in light of its historical inspirations: Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and the command economy he established during the Second World War.

If proponents of the Green New Deal are serious—and there's no reason to doubt them—then they're proposing a return to a militaristic America where Uncle Sam's heavy hand intervenes in all aspects of life, curtailing individual freedom in pursuit of their collectivist goals. And like the planners of the Roosevelt years, their intentions are clear and grandiose: They want the power to regiment a society of nearly 330 million people in pursuit of a pipe dream they liken to a war for survival.

'The New Deal and the Analogue of War'

After FDR defeated Herbert Hoover in 1932, the new president rolled out his first New Deal to confront the Great Depression. Roosevelt saw the economic collapse as directly analogous to war. In his first inaugural address, he said that Americans "must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective."

Like President Woodrow Wilson during World War I, President Roosevelt and his New Dealers moved to cartelize the economy with the enthusiastic support of business executives such as Gerard Swope, president of General Electric. "There was scarcely a New Deal act or agency that did not owe something to the experience of World War I," according to FDR scholar William E. Leuchtenburg in an excellent paper published in 1964, "The New Deal and the Analogue of War."

The best example of this was the creation of the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which was essentially a peacetime version of Wilson's War Industries Board (WIB). Headed by the Wall Street financier Bernard Baruch, the WIB coordinated purchases, allocated commodities, and fixed "prices and priorities in production" while guaranteeing a profit to the big business that helped fuel the war machine.

If the WIB could coordinate an economic mobilization during wartime, the Roosevelt administration thought, then a peacetime equivalent could defeat the Great Depression by mobilizing America's productive powers. The NRA held industries to "codes of fair competition," which set wages, working hours, and prices. By doing so, Roosevelt and his New Dealers believed they were overthrowing the cut-throat and chaotic competition they blamed for the Depression.

Companies that didn't cooperate with the NRA were ostracized. Under the NRA's Blue Eagle Campaign, businesses that played ball were given a blue eagle symbol for their windows and packages to advertise their adherence to the administration's rules and regulations. Those that didn't faced boycotts. As General Hugh Johnson, head of the NRA, put it, "Those who are not with us are against us." Some businessmen who violated NRA regulations were arrested.

Socialist leader Norman Thomas called this "a scheme which in essence is fascist." The NRA itself issued a report that stated, "The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America." In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled the NRA's "codes of fair competition" unconstitutional, saying they violating the Constitution's separation of powers as well as the Commerce Clause. Small wonder that New Left historians accused the agency of championing a corporatist economy.

The Green New Dealers should also be wary of using the original New Deal's Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which sent young unemployed and unmarried men onto federal, state, and local government lands for conservation purposes, as a model. In her defense of the Green New Deal at The Intercept—aptly titled "The Battle Lines Have Been Drawn on the Green New Deal"—Naomi Klein cites the CCC as an inspiration, noting that it began with 200,000 volunteers but then expanded dramatically due to its popularity. She doesn't mention that the CCC was really an Army program with a titular civilian head.

Leuchtenburg points out that the CCC was "consciously devised to provide the moral equivalent to war" and that it "aimed to install martial virtues in the nation's youth." When the men woke up in their army tents in camp, they heard "Reveille." During lights out, they heard "Taps." It shouldn't be surprising that when the draft returned in 1940, as Charles E. Heller writes, CCC alumni "provided the pretrained manpower to fill the U.S. Army's ranks upon mobilization with men who readily assumed the role of Non-Commissioned Officers."

The World War II Homefront

But then, the Green New Dealers seem to see that war as a model for domestic policy. In a widely lampooned FAQ document that an Ocasio-Cortez advisor erroneously claimed was a hoax, the Green New Deal is called a "10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all."

Americans should pay attention to what the country was like on the homefront during World War II. Prosperity it was not.

Unemployment did come down—to less than 2 percent—though that's largely because more than a fifth of the U.S. workforce was conscripted and sent overseas to sacrifice life and limb. The workers who remained were focused on producing military goods, such as guns and ammunition, while consumer goods were either underproduced or not produced at all. Other goods—such as gasoline, tires, nylon, shoes, bicycles, sugar, meat, canned fish, cheese, and canned milk—were strictly rationed. Income tax rates applied to more and more people, including lower-income earners; hit confiscatory levels, with the highest marginal tax rate rising to 94 percent; and were rigorously enforced by the IRS through a new system of automatic payroll deductions.

American people did extraordinary things to win World War II, but it took an authoritarian society to achieve it—one that nobody should want to return to.

When the United States goes abroad to do widescale social engineering, that's rightly called imperialism by libertarians and socialists alike. But when widespread social engineering is done at home through the federal government, people like Ocasio-Cortez call it progressivism and point to the New Deal and World War II to sell the plan.

When she says "I'm the boss," pay attention. She's describing America under a Green New Deal: a place where you'll do as you're told.

NEXT: Race and Partnership Rates at Large Law Firms

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. Comrade Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez:

    Are you biking from NYC to DC to support Great Leader’s Green New Deal for a Progressive Future?

    1. Bike? Are you kidding? She’s not even taking the train.

      1. Trains are for people heading for labor camps.

        1. No, trains are THE mode of transportation in a socialist society. The government knows exactly who is going when and where and travelers are surround by other “citizens”. It also makes traveling painfully slow so people are not interested in going anywhere.

          In my ex-socialist country where I live in a large city of about a million people, it took me a one hour and 20 minute bus ride to get to the marshrutka (shared taxi) so we could go another 40 minutes to the train station where we caught a 12 hour train to Odesa where we caught a plane (90 minute flight) to Turkey to meet up with my daughters in Istanbul. They took a plane from half a world away and made it to Istanbul in less time.

          1. And sarcasm is THE mode of communication on this site.

            1. But that wasn’t sarcasm.

        2. Or people heading to gas chambers if they will not bow to those self appointed “in charge.”

    2. That bike seat will be equipped with a gas meter to make sure to don’t overproduce methane on the trek.

    3. Has anyone compared CO2 emissions between bicycling 250 miles to a fuel efficient car?

      How about comparing CO2 emissions between bicycling 250 miles and NOT going on a gratuitous trip?

      1. I wonder how much CO2 would be expended by rounding up and eliminating all the progressives?

        1. Let’s find out.

    4. Core is nothing less than a Communist. God help the DEMS as they don’t stand a chance of keeping the House if they let this idiotic, unknowledable fool of a woman (Cortez) keep opening her mouth like the ignoramus she so clearly is.

    5. “Until you do it, I’m the boss”

      Amazing how quickly and naturally socialists become authoritarians.

    6. “I also fly ✈️ & use A/C. Living in the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future. The Green New Deal is about putting a LOT of people to work in developing new technologies, building new infrastructure, and getting us to 100% renewable energy.” – AOC

      See? She really is sensible after all.

  2. people who “don’t like the #GreenNewDeal” should “come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we’re in charge—and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats.”

    “People who don’t like Fuhrer Hitler’s #FinalSolution should come with their own ambition proposal to address the problem of Jews in Europe and restore Aryan supremacy. Until then we’re in charge.”

    1. I was going to say something like this, but with less Nazis.

      AOC really does think like this. If a plan doesn’t require totalitarian control over all things, it’s not worthwhile to her.

      1. “This is Congressional Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and I’m in charge of the situation.”
        “Oh, you’re in charge? Well, I got some bad news for you, *Alexandria.* From where I’m sitting, it don’t look like you’re in charge of jack shit.”
        “Listen, you fascist…”
        “Fascist? I’m not the one who just got buttfucked by Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell on national TV, *Alexandria*.

      2. Well, of course. Anybody who hasn’t figured out by now that the whole point of the exercise is totalitarian rule is probably hopelessly naive.

        1. You sound like my idiot conspiratorial uncle talking about the Jews.

          Read a real fucking book you morons.

          1. AOC thinks she can fix problems through force. That is not a conspiracy. That is a political philosophy. Harris felt the same way about kids missing school. Left-wingers are in denial about the link between them writing laws and people getting put in hand cuffs.

          2. Read a fucking history book. Maybe one that wasn’t published in the last decade, they’ve started whitewashing certain things.

            The left aren’t well meaning idiots, because they aren’t well meaning, any more than that guy trying to sell you a bridge wants you to have a bridge.

            They’re con men trying to con you out of your liberty, to get you to lie down so they can position their boot on your face.

      3. I feel like she is getting more aggressive as time goes on as well. I’m guessing being repeatedly embarrassed on a national scale is causing her to double down, rather than reflect.

        I will not go so far to say she is stupid, but I do believe she is self-assured of her own righteousness and is unwilling to take a hard look at her own views or methods.

        1. Considering she got her place in the nomination line thanks to a political casting call, she appears to be more focused on building her brand than in representing her constituents or learning how to build influence from within as a junior rep. I can’t see her staying in this long because she’ll eventually get bored, or get her district eliminated at the next census.

          1. I remember reading an article, maybe a month ago, about the fact that she still doesn’t have an office in her district yet

            1. She’s never going back.

          2. I can’t decide if I would watch her casting couch video.

          3. She’s trying to leverage that win to higher office. Accordingly, she’s treating the office she’s currently occupying as a sort of political version of an expendable rocket booster.

            She’s probably aiming for Senate seat, followed by the Presidency.

            Yeah, sure, she’s an idiot, but she figures that Obama pulled it off, why can’t she? And House of Representatives is probably a better stepping stone to US Senator than state Senator.

            The fact that Obama was considerably brighter than her probably hasn’t penetrated; She’s the poster girl for Dunning Kruger.

        2. Quite an ego coming from a scripted puppet of the Justice Democrats. A group that should be thoroughly investigated by the DOJ. Let THEM get a taste of the power of the federal govt., on the receiving end.

        3. hasn’t been smacked in the face yet figuratively or literally.

        4. stupid = self-assured of her own righteousness and unwilling to take a hard look at her own views or methods.

          FTFY

        5. Not everyone can be the paragon of leadership that is Donald Trump.

          You cunts have no credibility about anything. You’re being afraid of a waiflike first-term congresswoman does not improve that situation.

          1. Don’t confuse mockery with fear. All of her “power” thus far is basically just her exceptionalism getting amplified by the MSM.

            1. The only place she’s being amplified is in right-wing media. And the big tough farmers or whoever who watch that crap are pissing their pants over her. You people are pathetic and should probably retire to the bottom of the ocean. It should be getting nice and warm.

              1. Keep the hate alive, Tony.

              2. How was her Netflix special, Tony? I assume you don’t have that bastion of conservative film distribution.

                How about the Time magazine article featuring her on the cover?

                I could go on, but you’ll just parrot the notion that it is only Fox talking about her.

              3. The only place she’s being amplified is in right-wing media

                Stop watching Fox obsessively and you’ll see that’s not true.

              4. Tony, Any time you want to throw down let us know. It will be fun, and we can thin the herd.

                1. You might have less indigestion if you tried a cuisine that couldn’t be described as “varmint.”

              5. Like Vanity Fair, 60 Minutes, Colbert, The View, Chris Hayes, Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, Rolling Stone, Chuck Todd, …..

              6. Huh? Yahoo loves her, and Yahoo is certainly not right-wing. The MSM pays far more attention to her than right-wing media.

          2. Criticism = phobia?

            “Cunt” is an insult?

            That logic is flawed.

          3. The only fear that reasonable people might have regarding this moron is that she might convince enough similar morons to believe her tripe.

          4. “…but Trump.”

            Once in a while you offer something of value and act like a decent human being; more often you’re just a deflecting troll.

        6. I’m becoming more convinced by the day she has mental issues. I wonder what meds she’s on?

          1. It may be more a question of what meds she should be one.

            I think she is just a self righteous bitch with authoritarian tendencies that are justified to achieve her noble ends.

            Pretty much like any tinpot dictator, bureaucrat, or politician. Only more obvious.

    2. Anthropogenic global warming is true. It is dangerous. And yet you worry about your idealism of small government. So much so that the damage of AGW is less important than your sense of freedom. Come up with a way that gets everyone behind you on solving this issue.

      1. Well, when you put it like that I’m completely willing to change every single aspect of my life while China does nothing.

        If you want to fix it them build modern nuclear or shut the fuck up.

      2. “Come up with a way that gets everyone behind you on solving this issue.”

        Declare war on India and China. I mean, we have to sacrifice all principles in the name of this scourge, right?

      3. Anthropogenic global warming is true.

        So was Eugenics at one time and then it wasn’t. You’re still an idiot.

      4. Anthropogenic global warming is true

        Cite please. Or did you just pull that statement out of your ass?

      5. Anthropogenic global warming is a theory, nothing more. It is unproven and based upon correlations and computer models using manipulated temperature data. It is not based upon proper scientific techniques and is primarily a political tool to frighten the public into replacing capitalism with globalist socialism. That’s the real reason socialist AOC is behind it.

        UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer – “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

        Socialist author Naomi Klein: “…most leftists have yet to realize that climate science has handed them the most powerful argument against capitalism since William Blake’s ‘dark Satanic Mills’…”

        “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… ” UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres
        In other words, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World socialist government and economic control.

        So yes, giving up one’s liberty for an unproven, fallacious theory is as moronic as AOC. Only the gullible will fall for this fraudulent scheme.

      6. Ummmm…no. Your fable is no better than anyone else’s.

    3. Precisely. We will tell you what to think.

    4. Golf clap…kudos.

    5. You know, Hitler analogies are for people who don’t know how to argue.

  3. But we should also pay close attention to the plan’s authoritarian impulses, particularly in light of its historical inspirations: Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and the command economy he established during the Second World War.

    Sevo suggested Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 by Tony Judt; it was only $1.99 on Kindle when I bought it on Star Wars day, so I figured there wasn’t much to lose.
    Turns out quite interesting. Really IS a history of *Europe*, not the nations of Europe. And he discusses why Europe turned to planned economies so much after the war, not socialism itself (means of production and all) but safety nets — pensions, unemployment insurance, etc. A lot started before the war as a backlash to the Depression, and it all sounds pretty plausible. The aspect that stood out to me was the refusal to see the Depression as a result of government actions, instead blaming it on laissez-faire, even blaming the war itself on laissez-faire.

    Reinforced my particular belief that statists simply do not believe government can do anything wrong. If something goes wrong, like the Depression and WW II, it was because government was held back by evil capitalists.

    1. THX for the shout-out; are you far enough along to find where he admits the Euro economies are not capable of supporting their ‘free shit’?

      1. He’s just started describing agricultural reform.

        One thing I have always known, and which is important to keep in mind, is that almost all European countries at the beginning of WW II were still monarchies. It’s weird reading, say, Churchill’s six volume history of WW II and seeing all his references to kings. Even if they were powerless figureheads, they still show how backwards Europe was, and how much it influenced and exaggerated the backlash. I hadn’t know how much farm landlords didn’t care about making farms more efficient and refused to invest in improvements for their dirt-poor peasant tenants; makes it hard to blame peasants for wanting a government on their side for a change and taking advantage of the war’s upheaval to extract some revenge.

        Guess it shows how little I knew about European history other than the big events.

        1. Now tell us about Native Americans, their hereditary chiefs, and their collective ownership of both land and charity.

          1. That collective ownership bullshit is bullshit. Tribes certainly had the same territorial ownership as any government, but individuals within tribes knew damned well who had what part of that.

        2. You and just about every other American. Not our fault though because we weren’t taught and I’m just starting to learn. It started with my trip to Germany when we went to Charlottenburg palace and they were placing a wreath on the tomb of a queen of Berlin. I had no idea that the nation of Germany was younger than the US. Then I went to Hannover and saw the statue of Ernest Augustus who was the king of Hannover as well as the son of King George III of the United Kingdom.

          Now I’m living in eastern Europe and talk about a lot tangled, crazy history that helps put so much into perspective. I think Americans need to not only learn more about world history but travel a little more.

    2. Didn’t Hitler claim that he didn’t want war, but he was forced to do it because of evil capitalists?

      -jcr

      1. Absolutely like Kaiser Bill he hated capitalism

        Private property was fine but just for the right people

        Anglo-Saxon style capitalism or classical liberalism holds that anyone can own property regardless of class or station

        Monarchism holds that only those with family (“racial”) ties to the Monarch can own property and have the privileges that come from that

        1. Fascism sets the “State” as the monarch and says that all property and productive activity must serve the State

          So, is fascism a subset of monarchism or is it a subset of socialism or is it something else?

          1. Something else. Hayek said it was failed socialism. The Crown owns all but lets you use it for fees and taxes. The socialist state owns all and directs you to your place in the machinery. The fascist state lets you own your property as long as you use it as directed.

            On that basis the US in 2019 is more fascist than socialist…

            1. Yes, the ACA, for instance, is textbook fascism: Let the health insurance companies continue to be nominally private sector, while dictating to them what they may sell, at what price, and to whom. And at the same time dictating the the public that they must buy the product.

          2. Fascism – like democratic socialism, social democracy, and communism – is a type of progressivism.
            Progressivism is socialism.
            Socialism is progressivism.

  4. “Until you do it, I’m the boss,” said Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist congresswoman from the Bronx, responding to critics of her Green New Deal in February. Later that night, the freshman congresswoman doubled down on her comment, tweeting that people who “don’t like the #GreenNewDeal” should “come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we’re in charge—and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats.”

    Who is this Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez you speak of?

  5. “Until you do it, I’m the boss,” said Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez,

    Getting elected to the House does not mean you are the Boss.

    Fuck off, slaver.

    1. Well, she has a twitter and a phone.

  6. “people who “don’t like the #GreenNewDeal” should “come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis”
    Here’s my plan.
    1. Declare that there is no global climate crisis as man and the planet are capable of evolutionary change to adapt to any climate that occurs. See people living in the desert, people living in Siberia, people living in cities, people living in the countryside.
    2. Leave citizens the hell alone.
    3. Sip iced tea on the back porch.

    1. 1a. Carefully amend the Constitution to prevent court packing schemes (limit it to 9, each justice gets a single 18 yr term, each four year administration gets to pick two new justices and replace -for the remainder of a early departure’s terms only- those that die or step down, come up with a mechanism to force the senate to act on these nominations in a reasonable [45 days?] time, require a 60% supermajority for consent. )
      1b. Enforce the Constitution as written .

      1. Much like the constitution, require that all spending bills be written out with a quill pen on parchment. That ought to keep the earmarks down.

        1. Works for me.

        2. Talmudic legislators were only allowed to mention as many laws as the could remember. If no one remembered the law, is was sunsetted.

          1. My idea for testing constitutionality is a trial by jury of the people who are expected to obey it, and if they say it is unclear, vague, confusing, internally inconsistent, inconsistent with other similar laws, enforced inconsistently, or in any other way not clear enough to understand or obey, unanimously, beyond a reasonable doubt, it is void. No appeal, because the very act of appealing it shows uncertainty.

            1. Not a bad idea. Mine is that all new laws must state timed, targeted, measurable, success criteria. Failure to achieve at least 80% of stated goals results in immediate revocation.

              1. Ooh, I like that.

        3. How green can you get? (Parchment being the recycled skin of sheep or goats)

        4. Idea I wish I came up with: require a super majority (by population) of state legislatures to approve any increase in federal spending limits.

        5. Quills made from bald eagles. That’ll limit the quills.

          1. First thing Congress will do is create a breeding program for bald eagles.

    2. Problem with your first idea is that while planets evolve there is nothing that requires the survival of man or other living things. There are nine planets in our solar system and only one supports life. Nothing requires life to continue. As for man adapting, yes but that can difficult and unpleasant. Past adaptation have taken long periods. Inuits and desert dweller did not move in one day. Adaption took many generations. As climate changes progresses people are very likely to see a lot more authoritarianism. Better to begin working now to minimize the need to restrictive government action.

      Sorry but AOC is right.

      1. It takes multiple generations to move to Orange County, NY? Have you tried hiring someone other than Colonial Movers?

      2. Better to begin working now to minimize the need to restrictive government action.

        Sorry but AOC is right.

        Jesus.

        You’re saying we need to implement a worldwide totalitarian society now to prevent the need for implementing a worldwide totalitarian society later.

        Because this is as good as the communists insisting that ever more government control of all aspects of life and the economy, control increasing asymptotically toward total, will inevitably hit a tipping point and just plummet to zero and the state will wither away.

        1. No. What I am saying is that we are in a period when we have the opportunity to make changes to reduce the speed of climate change and to adapt in anticipation of changes. We can do this now by changing incentive and with minimal restrictions. Much of what we need is increased efficiency. Waiting until effects are large will likely require more authoritative action. Think resettling large populations from flooded low land areas or from areas no longer able to grow food due to arid conditions.

          1. What I am saying is that we are in a period when we have the opportunity to make changes to reduce the speed of climate change and to adapt in anticipation of changes.

            Spit garbage out of a supercomputer and people will believe anything.

          2. Who gets to be in charge of other people’s property? What are you prepared to do with dissenters?

          3. Do you really think that Walmart or Amazon don’t want efficiency? If either could cut out their electricity through solar and get a return on investment, wouldn’t they jump at it? It is asinine to think that only government can produce such efficiency. There is no reason to believe that such innovation would happen just because you throw government money at it. Many studies show that such subsidization has slowed innovation because efficiency was no longer the requirement that it was prior to subsidies being applied.

          4. “Much of what we need is increased efficiency.”

            Like high speed rail? That’s your model for efficiency?

            1. Government is the opposite of efficiency and the prove is in the rail system of ex-communist countries. Nothing high speed about them despite the fact that the government had everything it needed at its disposal to create and update them. I do have to say that having one outlet in each car that carries 60 people for phone charging is quite the upgrade.

          5. There’s nothing in this word salad that deals with reality in any way whatsoever.

            No wonder you’re on the same train with this nitwit.

          6. So you are calling for a totalitarian state. Its right there in your post and confirmed in your response.

            ‘changing incentives’ is just a dog-whistle for ‘tell them to do something, threaten them if they don’t, kill them if they continue to refuse’. That’s all it ever has been.

          7. Which country has met and exceeded CO2 reductions set by the Kyoto protocol and is one of the few on Pace to meet the targets of the Paris Accord, but doesn’t belong to either (anymore)? The USA. How have we do e it without massive government intervention? The private sector has been the driving force in US CO2 reduction. People demand both better fuel milage and power. Half ton trucks now have similar towing power to three quarter ton diesel trucks at the beginning of the century and far better gas mileage. Natural gas has replaced coal as the power source of choice, drastically reducing CO2 production and air pollution, overall. People now expect builders to use energy efficient windows, doors and insulation. It goes on and on. Government can best further reduce GHG emissions by getting the fuck out of the way. Stop the overregulations of diesel, which lowers efficiency while also doing little to nothing to decrease pollution. Stop the NIMBY overregulations of nuclear, especially of power plants that don’t utilize uranium or plutonium. Stop overinvesting in dubious technologies such as electric vehicles (their batteries, both production and disposal of are major environmental pollutants), inefficient wind power (I live in Montana, one of the leading wind power generating states, and they are broken almost as often as they work), biofuels (these almost all are boondoggles, which actually often increase overall GHG production) etc. Also, telling the truth that organic is not better, and often worse, for the environment, that organic usually produces more GHG emissions per pound of food produced than conventional, while relying on manure and compost (both which produce methane, a GHG more potent than CO2) for fertilizer. Organic also requires far more land to produce the same amount of food, while the main form of pest control is fallow and tillage (often times multiple times per year). This destroys soul structure and microbes while burning more fossil fuels than conventional agriculture using synthetic (and safer) pesticides. Also, grass fed beef and milk also uses more inputs of water, land and feed per pound of production while increasing GHG emissions per pound of production. So basically everything that AOC has asked for would make things worse, not better.

            1. This is precisely why most environmentalists are actually authoritarians masquerading as caring people. There’s always been people who incorrectly believe that regulation is the solution, but the environment vs. market dichotomy is completely false and disingenuous.

          8. “Think resettling large populations from flooded low land areas ”

            * Cancel all federal flood insurance (only considering USA here).

            * Do NOT allow federal money to bail out (pun intended?) the next flood victims.

            * Pass zoning that will not allow new construction within any 100 year flood plain except “at own risk”.

            Yes, some people who cannot afford to recoup a flood loss will get screwed, but why are the rest of us paying for them to live in a flood zone?

      3. There are nine planets in our solar system and only one supports life.

        You’re factually incorrect on your first assertion and are making an unsupported anthropogenic assumption in your second.

        As for your implicit threat, you can fuck right off.

        I guess “Idiots for AOC” is a real thing…

        1. If he were serious then he should be clamoring for interstellar travel that”only government can do.”

      4. We need restrictive government action to prevent restrictive government action.

    3. Babylon, Cairo, Athens, Rome, Paris, and Jerusalem are near the shore, not on the shore, because back when people built those cities, leaders were bright enough to know that costal flooding happens. I know Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem had roads connecting them to smaller nearby costal cities so they could be cosmopolitan and safe. The Greeks built Alexandria and made it the capital of the provence of Egypt.

      Rising see levels are an easily solvable local problem. However, most congress reps in American costal cities would rather watch their constituants drown then give up the safe seats that took 3 generations of staying put to win.

    4. “See people living in the desert, people living in Siberia,”

      Wow what an idiotic comment haha. You’re right, no problem at all if middle America turns into the Sahara, I mean people deal with it right?

  7. I hope the Democrats make this front-and-center policy for 2020.
    They’ll win overwhelmingly again on the coasts. And get annihilated everywhere else.

    1. I actually agree with you on this.

      1. Yeah, it kind of surprised me to. Is it a sock?

  8. AOC agrees with us Koch / Reason libertarians on #AbolishICE. As long as she’s correct on the most important issue, I’m willing to tolerate minor disagreements over things like the Green New Deal or the minimum wage or tax rates for billionaires.

    Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    #LibertariansForAOC

    1. Were will immigrants live if we try to save the planet by outlawing home construction?

      1. Well keep them in the airplanes we are no longer allowed to fly.

  9. Re the CCC, the Draft is not going to be reinstated; it wasn’t likely to have then. As for ‘ready-made’ troops, grievance culture sops are capable of focus, see antifa, but lack intefrity, courage, and strength. See also antifa, the majority of black lives matter supporters, internet outrage mobs. Ocasio-Cortez would crumble in anything but the cushiest administrative position in uniform. But, that’s the eont of the statist, some animals being more equal.

    1. “Ocasio-Cortez would crumble in anything but the cushiest administrative position in uniform. ”
      Is there any other kind, for the command structure?

    2. Socialism is great for those in charge.

      1. Until someone decides that they should go to the gulag or firing squad. The most dangerous place to be in a socialist country is “in charge”.

    3. I disagree. I think she would rise to the challenge and though her shooting arm will be tired and sore and cramped, she’ll power through the executions list because its ‘for the greater good’.

    4. My Grandfather, who was born and raised in a logging camp in North Idaho, and was an experienced Sawyer, told me about the CCC. He joined and worked for it for about three weeks. Despite the fact that his Dad ran a logging company (that he inherited from his dad) and that my Grandpa had been foreman of his own crew since his early 20s (he started out at the bottom and worked his way up despite it being his Dad’s company), they started him out at the same level as a unskilled recruit. His foreman was from the city and had never worked in the woods in his life. My Grandfather soon became disillusioned, said he got tired of the stupid Army Bullshit and the bosses who didn’t know shit and put everyone’s life in danger because of their lack of knowledge. And they didn’t want to listen to people like my Grandpa who had the knowledge they needed. He quit after two weeks and went back to work for his father. He also changed from a Democrat to a Republican as a result. And despite voting for FDR in 1932 he despised him after that. I think, listening to my Grandpa’s take on the CCC, that that is a perfect metaphor for AOC’s stupidity.

  10. Not everything is like GoT, but AOC would definitely burn King’s Landing to the ground–with all of us in it–in order to make the future safe for . . . average people.

    AOC is Daenerys Stormborn. She wants us to give her a dragon to ride around on so she can burn us up to save us.

  11. AOC actually amazes me. She reminds me of the rantings of a naive fourteen-year-old. Unless, of course, she believes that there are tens of millions of naive fourteen-year-olds out there, in which case she is simply talking to her “base.”

    Either way, it’s hilarious.

    1. Hilarious, until you realize how much she appeals to the average woman who has been indoctrinated to love women who “take charge” regardless of message or need.

      1. I would not be so sure about a bunch of women accepting this #TopWomen bullshit.

        I hear quite a few women give this fake women empowerment a “ppsssshhh” in dismissal.

        1. Well, as to her popularity among women, all I can say is that while my wife finds her humorous, most of her friends find AOC ridiculous. But hey, none of the aforementioned women are naive teenagers 🙂

          1. You should see the memes my wife shares in regards to her. Down right brutal, sometimes I even think they go to far.

      2. >>>how much she appeals to the average woman who has been indoctrinated

        the average woman who has been indoctrinated, yes … the average woman likely notsomuch … mho

        1. I consider myself fairly average and she doesn’t appeal to me at all including that dowdy socialist look she likes to sport that I guarantee will get dowdier and dowdier as she become the caricature she’s created.

    2. It’s why the democrats are trying to lower the voting age to 16. Teen-agers believe this crap without thinking about it.

      1. The democrats especially the teacher’s union were behind lowering it to 18 for exactly that reason.

    3. She went from college to bar tending to education to congress. For most of her work life, she rellied on the communication style one uses with drinkers and kids.

        1. A drunk who never grew up.

  12. “The Green New Deal is a path to a more militarized and authoritarian society.”

    A feature, not a bug.

    1. True, and both looter parties have destructive fanatical planks. What’s changed is that now Ecological nationalsocialists get votes from girls who fear being forced to reproduce. God’s Own Prohibitionist fascists meanwhile get votes from folks who want to keep the lights on. The LP could gain a lot more law-changing spoiler votes by not being moronic or fanatical on these issues.

  13. It is VITAL to remember; A Progressive is a Socialist is a Communist is a Fascist is a Nazi. The only differences are slight matters of branding; as in there were cosmetic differences between the French Royalist government and the Spanish Royalist government, but it sucked to be a peasant under either.

    OF COURSE the Green New Deal is a return to serfdom. That has been the (carefully never stated goal) of all Progressives, Leftists, and Radicals since the administration of Woodrow (damn him) Wilson. They want to reduce most of us to the status of peasants barely literate enough to read their propaganda with a few raised slightly higher to keep the rest down.

    Frankly, Cortez is almost certainly part pf the letter; a stooge taught to repeat the narrative of its betters. If they were in a more secure place she would doubtless be spending her days in the knee-hole of some more important person’s desk.

    1. I just like to call them all murderous oppressors.

  14. >>>The Green New Deal is a path to a more militarized and authoritarian society.

    government is a path to a more militarized and authoritarian society.

    1. True, but the US system was designed with key features to at least slow the descent from freedom to a republic to an empire to a flatout dictatorship.

  15. The future looks dim, but a future that includes nuclear power would be even more authoritarian and militaristic that the one envisioned by the Green New Deal. Aside from the fact that nuclear power plants provide nations with the perfect pretext to develop military capabilities, like India and Pakistan, the technology allows those at the top to control the production and distribution of power in a way that de-centralized ‘renewal’ sources do not.

    1. Nuclear power is no more likely to be taken over by “authoritarians” than any other type of power. If the government controlling “the commons” is authoritarian, then it will control all things in the common, including the electrical power, whatever its origin.

      1. “Nuclear power is no more likely to be taken over by “authoritarians” than any other type of power.”

        Nuclear power plants are surrounded by armed guards and high fences much like a prison, a military base or other government institution. The sun is not surrounded by armed guards, and neither are the places where the sun shines. When government decides to ration electricity consumption, nuclear will give them everything they need. Solar is decentralized, and rationing would be more difficult as the power can be consumed where it is produced, without the jack-booted army of government licensed technocrats you put so much faith in.

        1. Yes, what you say is true. They also have armed security at many, hydroelectric facilities. And it doesn’t take much to knock out high-tension power lines (PGE keeps proving that). I appreciate what you are saying, but to think that individual solar-electric generation is going to make off-the-grid living much more than bare survival, for anyone of modest means, isn’t very realistic. And, even if you are okay with that, well, someday, you will probably need a modern hospital, and I assure you that won’t be running on batteries.

          Even with solar going down in cost, there are places where it will likely never be practical. I live on the Oregon coast, and I assure you, there will never be enough “sun-days” to justify a solar installation.

          And, why would the government arbitrarily shut off the electrical power to a well-armed citizenry? I mean, are they going to also bribe the local police and national guard to just sit by while their children go without?

          1. “I appreciate what you are saying, but to think that individual solar-electric generation is going to make off-the-grid living much more than bare survival, for anyone of modest means, isn’t very realistic. ”

            I understand. But it may be our best chance,

            “And, why would the government arbitrarily shut off the electrical power to a well-armed citizenry?”

            Shutting down the power to a city in revolt is standard practice. Petrograd 1917 for example. The more authoritarian and militaristic the government is, the more likely they are to do it, I figure.

        2. I think you may be interested in the latest research concerning smaller reactors, some even mobile and/or modular, particularly the Integral Molten Salt Reactor design which utilizes thorium for fuel instead of U-238. I find it very encouraging.

    2. . . . allows those at the top to control the production and distribution of power in a way that de-centralized ‘renewal’ sources do not.

      You mean like coal, oil, gas, hydro, solar? Its not how the power is generated that ‘centralizes’ anything, its *where* its distributed. You can have locally controlled generation from any of those sources – including nuclear. But having solar panels on your roof doesn’t ‘take you off the grid’ anyway – those panels have to come from somewhere so you’re still at the mercy of whoever controls the distribution network (roadz!).

      Aside from the fact that nuclear power plants provide nations with the perfect pretext to develop military capabilities,

      What military capabilities? Better rifles? Bionic supersoldiers? Aircraft carriers? Biological warfare agents? What military capabilities does having a nuclear reactor allow you to develop?

      If you mean nuclear weapons then say nuclear weapons. No other military capability is specifically dependent on nuclear power – not submarines, not aircraft carriers, none.

      1. “You mean like coal, oil, gas, hydro, solar?”

        I mean like coal, oil, gas and hydro, but solar needn’t be produced in at a central point like the other examples. Sunlight can be converted to electricity in one’s own backyard or rooftop and fed to the grid. Not so with the others. The government has the power to switch off the juice on their whim and leave the rest of us to freeze in the dark.

        ” those panels have to come from somewhere so you’re still at the mercy of whoever controls the distribution network (roadz!).”

        You don’t need roads to generate electricity from panels. Once they are up and running, they are completely under the control of the owner with help from the sun. You will never be able to say that with nuclear which relies on jack-booted armies of government trained and licensed technocrats to operate it.

        “If you mean nuclear weapons then say nuclear weapons. ”

        I do mean nuclear weapons. Clever of you to spot that.

        1. None of those, as I pointed out, need to be ‘centrally produced’.

          All of them – including solar – can be more efficiently produced from a large-scale centralized power plant but none of them, including nuclear, need to be produced that way. Its just cheaper.

          You need roads to get those panels to you. You need roads to get the wiring to you. You need roads to get the power-regulation components to you. Once they are up and running they are under your power until they fail – through age or damage.

          You’re never ‘off the grid’. At best you’ve just removed dependence on one grid for increased dependence on another.

          And you haven’t noticed the army of jack-booted government trained and licensed technocrats (and thugs) that are involved with designing, building, and operating roads?

          1. “You need roads to get those panels to you.”

            This is true but a network of roads, trails and paths is a lot harder for government thugs to control than a nuclear plant or coal plant etc. The brave Vietnamese showed us that with resolve, and willingness to undergo great hardship they could maintain their supply routes even in the face of a government with all the resources at its command and a determination to stop the flow of goods. it’s in the history books, learn for history or ignore it.

            “You’re never ‘off the grid’. At best you’ve just removed dependence on one grid for increased dependence on another. ”

            It’s a question of who controls the power source. You or the jack-booted thugs. Authoritarians seem more comfortable with the thugs in control.

            1. You seem to be under the impression that the electric grid isn’t interconnected *across national borders* and that whatever power plant is nearest you is the one that provides all your electrical power.

              That isn’t the case. Its not ‘one’ plant that would need to be shut down to isolate an area. Its multiple plants. And the electrical interconnects that connect people in Arizona to power generated in British Columbia.

              Its no harder than putting up armed roadblocks and blowing up a few freeway interchanges.

              1. “You seem to be under the impression that the electric grid isn’t interconnected *across national borders* and that whatever power plant is nearest you is the one that provides all your electrical power.”

                Solar power generation doesn’t need a grid. It can be generated and consumed in the same place. That’s what makes it decentralized.

                ” Its multiple plants. ”

                If anyone’s capable of shutting down multiple plants, it’s the thugs in government. They’ve already got armed guards in place, ready to do their thuggish bidding.

                1. Serious question. How long before a sufficiently militaristic government would tell you that solar generation isn’t available individually? There are plenty of laws already that say you can’t collect your own water. Restrictions on solar only seem ridiculous now because it isn’t widespread and isn’t currently controlled in a generation sense by some conglomerate that would be a cohort of some powerful politicians.

                  1. I think a decentralized system is more robust that the highly centralized systems that the authoritarian commenters here seem to prefer.

                    1. Authoritarian. That’s rich. Given much of what you are preaching is to force other forms of generation to be ended by government, I don’t see how you can claim anyone here is authoritarian. How is anything Agammamon is saying authoritarian?

                  2. ” How long before a sufficiently militaristic government would tell you that solar generation isn’t available individually?”

                    The question is, “how long ago”, not “how long before”. My brother in Ventura looked into it: The law actually required that, if he have a solar power system, it shut off power to the house if the grid connection went down!

                    1. I hate being right sometimes.

                2. My understanding is you don’t need to worry about the plants. You would go after the grid itself. Because it is all connected you could have a point of failure which would cause a ripple effect across the system.

                  That is what happened in the northeast and parts of Canada in 2003. A generator in Ohio shut down causing a surge to the line. Normally the operators would shift the power to control the surge. Because of a faulty computer program they were not alerted and lines and generators through the whole region started shutting down.

                3. Solar cells on your house still need a grid – a transportation grid.

                  Where do you get the idea that shutting down roads is something the government can’t do?

                  1. “Where do you get the idea that shutting down roads is something the government can’t do?”

                    They can certainly try. It’s much easier to shut down a centrally located power station a few acres in size than to shut down a network of roads, trails and paths that sprawl over 1000s of square miles. But you already know that, don’t you? I just thought I’d remind you.

                    1. How is that *effective* when the grid is distributed and includes power inputs not only from across the country but from completely different countries?

                      You’re not shutting down ‘a few acres’. You’re shutting down a system that is about as redundant as the internet – with even less centralized control.

        2. mtrueman has not a clue how the grid operates.

          1. He appears to have taken the plot devices from “Live Free or Die Hard” a bit too literally.

            1. Is that about computer security? I haven’t mentioned the hacking of power stations, none of which have been solar, by the way.

              1. Is that about computer security?

                No. It’s about the fact you are totally ignorant on how electricity is generated and distributed.

                1. My personal failings have nothing to do with the discussion. If you want authoritarian, militaristic power generation, take the nuclear road. Follow the lead of our despotic friends in China and North Korea.

                  1. My personal failings have nothing to do with the discussion.

                    They have everything to do with it due to the fact that your so called solution is based in ignorance on how the grid works.

                    1. I’m not offering any solution. I’m stating my opinion that nuclear power is the gp to electricity source for authoritarians, militarists and other despots. If your opinion differs, you’ve yet to make that clear.

                    2. Then why are the authoritarians, militarists, and other despots pushing the very energy sources you prefer?

                  2. So now you’re saying it’s authoritarian if I don’t purchase my own solar panels? Besides the extreme inefficiency on individual purchase and lack of production for some areas, just what do you do if you can’t afford them?

                    1. “So now you’re saying it’s authoritarian if I don’t purchase my own solar panels?”

                      No, I’m saying that a centralized nuclear power plant is more authoritarian than a decentralized solar source of electricity. Because decentralized networks are more robust and resistant to the central control that authoritarians try to exert. Don’t overthink this. It’s really not as difficult a concept to grasp as others here might lead you to believe.

    3. You do realize that you can produce nuclear power without producing weapons grade plutonium or uranium. Hell there are even plants that burns old rods and plants that don’t utilize uranium or plutonium.

  16. You know what would be hilarious? All this attention paid to this commie for 2 years straight and she’s voted out after one measly term.

    1. laugh while you can, monkey person

      1. Actually, ape. We are part of the ape family not monkey. But based upon your post above, I am surprised by your lack of basic scientific knowledge.

    2. That’s what the ‘more aggressive tone’ is for.

      a) its to ‘energize her base’.

      and

      b) to provide an excuse for why she got voted out – white male patriarchy can’t stand strong Latinx womyn.

      1. Just say Latina.

        1. How sexist of you. How patriarchal. How *colonialist*!

          1. Just for clarification, weren’t the Latin countries, i.e. Spain and Portugal (with France to a lesser degree) the first colonial powers? Just asking for a friend.

          2. Lol. I get it. I just don’t know what to call my dog. Is he a perro? Or perrx? If I want to drink a beer I guess I’ll have to ask for a cervezx.

            1. Look at you go, cishet scum. Gender is a social construct. Obviously your dog doesn’t have a gender. If its male then its a rapist.

  17. AOC is the pretty girl who won the student council election. She thinks she’s smart, and she thinks she’s in charge.

    Sooner or later, Pelosi will pass her in the hallway and knock the books out of her hand.

    1. She also thinks the Student Council a) has power, b) has relevance to anyone who isn’t in the Student Council.

    2. Never have been and never will be a Pelosi fan, but I do appreciate her comments about AOC.

  18. come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis.

    Done. Part of my campaign for freeholder is legalizing home construction so the private sector can build more homes uphill.

    1. Until you do it, I’m the boss

      We have the option of quiting. If nominated to run for congress in 2019, I will advocate for New Jersey to leave the USA.

    2. What I like about that article is that it opens up with the author complaining about the negative consequences of planning on home affordability and how planners can’t get their priorities right and then moves straight into presenting his own plan to replace their plan.

      Its basically one long paper saying ‘replace those planners with this planner’.

      1. Upzoning loosens restrictions on development. A county freeholder in a built up area does not have the option of opening undeveloped land to developing. If I was running for a state level possition, I could suggest opening up the Highlands and the Pinelands to development.

        1. His plan still is ‘don’t do that plan, do my plan’. It might be a better plan – for a given set of assumptions. Its still better to scrap the planning for other people altogether.

          He can’t, any more than the current planners, know what the priorities and needs of the current and future population are/will be.

  19. Yeah – the Koch money is heavy in this one.

    Reason’s most reliably unhinged pieces always seem to have to do with green energy, mass transit, basically anything that challenges the hegemony of oil and the private car. Here, Matthew fashions a whole scare piece out of… a common term and a quotation pulled out of context. Throw on a few dollops from some history book on the New Deal, and you’re done!

    1. You don’t think something as impractical, authoritarian and interventionist – and quite frankly dangerous – as the idiotic Green Deal deserves constant attention and refuting?

      The New Green Deal IS the scare and as such deserves to be scorned.

      1. Rufus, Simon does NOT think. He’s a complete progtarded moron. A total drooling idiot.

    2. Why is it you, “This is all the fault of the Koch Bros, Big Oil, Big Car, Big Phrama, Wall Street Greed, Big Bizz, Blah, Blah, Blah Fucks” never seem to worry about….Big Green..????

      1. They love government. They worship it, masturbate to it, etc. etc. It is not possible for these idiots to think negatively of government action to regulate business, even if the regulators were, just yesterday, members of that business community.

    3. Anyone who is complaining about the ‘hegemony of the private car’ – quite possibly the item that would come second on a list of ‘technologies that promote individual freedom’ – is not someone to listen to.

      1. It’s also someone who belongs on a blacklist for sommunist subversives.

    4. Here, Matthew fashions a whole scare piece out of… a common term and a quotation pulled out of context. Throw on a few dollops from some history book on the New Deal, and you’re done!

      Funny how urbanite shitlibs like to bend the knee to Democrats they consider to be “students of history,” while being deliberately ignorant of actual history.

    5. “Reason’s most reliably unhinged pieces always seem to have to do with green energy, mass transit, basically anything that challenges the hegemony of oil and the private car.”

      You may have missed their impassioned plea to save plastic straws. Apparently certain ‘handicapped’ persons cannot live a fulfilling, rewarding life without them.

      1. Mock it but you missed the bigger argument of the plastic straw ban. That is, it’s rooted in a faulty premise and fake science.

        “…Apparently certain ‘handicapped’ persons cannot live a fulfilling, rewarding life without them.”

        There you have it folks. The compassion of the modern progressive left. Fuck those handicaps!

        1. “Fuck those handicaps!”

          Far from it. If I were king of everyone, I’d give each handicap a straw of gold which they can treasure for life.

          1. Oh, what, they can’t buy their own fucking straw? They can only have what you gift them is quite an odd take. Its as if you believe someone with a handicap isn’t able to provide for themself.

            1. “Oh, what, they can’t buy their own fucking straw?”

              What’s the point of being king of everyone if you can’t ride roughshod over the handicaps god given disposable straw rights.

              1. If you’re queen I guess you can give them cake.

          2. Silver would be a better choice because of its antimicrobial properties. But you run a risk of heavy metal poisoning with both.

    6. You do know that the “oil” companies actually are some of the biggest investors in solar and wind?

  20. Wanna know what’s frightening?

    People will keep voting for her and she’ll keep getting more powerful.

    I have zero faith the people will fire her.

    Buckle up buckaroos. This illiberal ignoramus is here to stay.

    1. The people of her district will keep voting for her. Until she says publicly what she probably say privately about them.

      If she sticks around the House or Representatives she’ll eventually join the long list of loons that nobody pays attention to (Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee). If she wanders outside her district to run for senate or governor, she’ll be obliterated.

      1. If she was just some old-ass Puerto Rican grandma instead of a 29-year-old ex-bartender and failed book publisher, no one would give a shit about her.

        You really owe it to yourself to watch the Netflix doc on her campaign. Besides the hilarity of her limp-wristed boyfriend, there’s an interesting bit of propaganda with the splash page for it. It shows her looking up in a type of beatific pose, as if she’s “breaking barriers” or some other SJW cliché. Turns out the shot from that was just her standing in an elevator, looking up at the fucking floor numbers. It’s such an awesome parallel of the media hype over her versus the reality.

        1. I used up my weekly eyeroll quota watching W. Kamau Bell interview an antifa member last night. But I’ll catch it if I get a chance.

    2. “I have zero faith the people will fire her.”

      What about just shooting her? Did you know that those guns you love to fondle can also be fired?

      1. BIG PREET IS WATCHING YOU

        well, whoever replaced preet.

        1. Believe me Preet knows all about the danger of political assassinations. Left wing movements can be very damaged by them. (Rosa Luxembourg) Right wing movements seem immune to them. (American industrialists, Tsarist functionaries)

          1. Very likely because right wing movements are not dependent upon the cult of personality.

            1. Maybe it’s the targets, the Tsarist toadies and the American industrialists who were killed were hardly charismatic figures. And they really provided their movement with no leadership functions and their passing didn’t weaken or damage capitalism or monarchism.

              1. I would say the millions who died under Bolshevik and Soviet control, and the millions who still suffer under Russian oligarchy, would argue that capitalism suffered greatly as a result of the Bolshevik victory and their cult of personality.

                1. But it wasn’t the assassinations that took down the monarchy and put the Bolsheviks in power. Neither did the assassinations of American industrialists bring down capitalism in America.

                  The millions who died in USSR and overseas like Leon Trotsky were overwhelmingly socialist or communist. They were not likely to wring their hands over suffering capitalism.

                2. But the killing of any particular capitalist – no matter how prominent – would not have had the long-reaching damage that killing Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc would have had on the Leftists revolutions.

              2. And they really provided their movement with no leadership functions and their passing didn’t weaken or damage capitalism or monarchism.

                Precisely – no cult of personality. Distributed control, not centralized power.

                1. Regimes can easily survive the death or assassination of a charismatic leader. We have the deaths of Lenin, Castro, Stalin and Mao to prove it. Assassination is particularly devastating to opposition, robbing them of essential leadership. Martin Luther King and Rosa Luxembourg were hardly cult figures, at least while they were still alive.

      2. Only a left-winger would take that statement and twist into what you wrote.

        Jesus Murphy it’s epic in its presumptuousness and vapidity.

        1. It wasn’t meant as a reframing of your ideas, just as a warning against your defeatist attitude and how it leads to desperate people doing desperate things. Do you think hopelessness and despair lead to good things?

          1. I don’t know. How about we implement the GND, and all the destruction of the economy, standard of living, relaible electricity, cheap and abundant food etc that would result, as well as the loss of personal liberty, and see what hopelessness and despair of a whole population leads to?

            1. “How about we implement the GND, and all the destruction of the economy, standard of living, relaible electricity, ”

              Wouldn’t it be easier to simply propose a better alternative to the green thing that is more to your liking? Defeatism and cheap jack cynicism will only take you so far.

              1. I listed several alternatives above. Alternatives that have been proposed, and are real world and proven, however, people like you reject them out of hand. Nuclear is by far the best choice at this juncture. As is improving transportation efficiency by doing away with regulations and laws that harm engine efficiency. We have offered solutions,they just weren’t the ones that you like, so you dismiss them and support a plan that not only takes away personal liberty but will fail and make things far worse.

                1. “Nuclear is by far the best choice at this juncture.”

                  It doesn’t make sense. We’re replacing a CO2 producing fuel source with another that produces far more deadly waste products. And I don’t think you can persuade the public to accept nuclear once they understand that in order for the industry to be viable, we have to strip environmental and safety regulations, and allow builders to cut corners as they see fit. I don’t think the public will swallow it. You want a country like China or North Korea if you want to impose nuclear on an unwilling and skittish public. It doesn’t work well in a democracy.

  21. “The Green New Deal is a path to a more militarized and authoritarian society.”

    Yeah, well, that’s what the proggies want for America.

  22. I think you spelled her name wrong every time. It’s Alexandria.

    1. An editorial error? On Reason.com???

    2. And it’s always ragtime with her.

      1. *golf clap*

  23. The irony with these freaks is amazing. Or maybe not.

  24. You people’s obnoxious hysteria about trying to clean up our energy production (i.e., practically the holocaust) may buy you some time, but it will only cost more the longer we wait, and you’ll only look more ridiculous and anti-human.

    1. I agree. I propose we clean up our energy production by building 100 nuclear plants a year until such time that we don’t need fossil fuels.

      1. Whatever gets everyone on board.

        I’m under no illusion that the solution to the problem will not require giving sops to special interests. And frankly I’m proud of libertarians for owning their hypocrisy so fully on this issue.

        1. You don’t have to give anyone anything for that. Just get out of the way.

          1. You people are such sheep it’s painful.

            You build a nuclear plant and make a profit. Go on. Do it.

            1. Tony
              May.13.2019 at 11:23 pm
              “You people are such sheep it’s painful.”

              You are such a fucking ignoramus, it’s laughable.
              Make the world a better and smarter place: Go off far away and die so the stink of your pathetic carcass will only attract scavengers.
              Please. You can do this. The world deserves to be better and you deserve to be dead.

              1. Be careful not to suffocate on your own tits in your drunken stupor tonight, toothless redneck.

                1. Tony
                  May.14.2019 at 12:18 am
                  “Be careful not to suffocate on your own tits in your drunken stupor tonight, toothless redneck.”

                  Your fantasies are laughable, you pathetic slimy piece of shit.
                  Make the world a better and smarter place: Go off far away and die so the stink of your pathetic carcass will only attract scavengers.
                  Please. You can do this. The world deserves to be better and you deserve to be dead.
                  Really, please do this. The world deserves to be smarter for the loss of such a slimy piece of shit.
                  A gun to the head, perhaps a drunken drowning or car accident (please don’t harm anyone else). Maybe a drug OD.
                  Doesn’t matter; any of those will do. The world asks you to make it better.

            2. Can we remove unnecessary regulations (most of which were lobbied for by the evil oil and coal industry, look it up)? And do away with nuisance lawsuits so that nuclear can compete fairly? If so, I would be willing to take that bet.

              1. Why do libertarians want to restrict people’s freedom to sue?

                Oh yeah, because you care only about the freedom of the special interests your overlords instruct you to mindlessly support.

                Nuclear is not insurable in a private market. It’s ludicrous that you guys pimp it out so much while trashing technologies that actually could compete in a more or less free market. You people seriously play culture wars with windmills. It’s just… so sad.

                1. Tony
                  May.14.2019 at 6:19 pm
                  “Why do libertarians want to restrict people’s freedom to sue?”

                  Shitbag here is confused regarding limitations on nuisance lawsuits, but the shitbag is pretty much confused about everything.
                  Shitbag should go off someplace and die making the world a smarter and better place.

                  1. Freedom does not come without its nuisances.

                    The problem isn’t that you’re shills for corporate interests. It’s that you’re too fucking dumb to realize that you are.

                2. Here is a hint, wind and solar cannot compete in a free market. Wind requires huge subsidies as does solar. They have never been competitive. Nuclear is not insurable? Hmmmm. Is it because people have an irrational fear that is not supported by science and that overregulations has driven up liability costs? Is it that well funded environmental groups, often using tax payer funds, sue any and all new nuclear projects, resulting in huge liability costs? Why yes it is!

    2. See? Tony’s devout dedication to Millerite Warmunism illustrates the reason technically educated people who know data tampering when they see it vote against the Dems. Econazi spoiler votes are the best thing that ever happened to the Republicans. Every vote for electric power the GOP soft machine parlays into a vote against birth control and marijuana and for bombing the bejeesus out of primitive countries. The LP could be more pro-energy and less about importing Saracen terrorists.

  25. “If proponents of the Green New Deal are serious—and there’s no reason to doubt them—then they’re proposing a return to a militaristic America where Uncle Sam’s heavy hand intervenes in all aspects of life…”

    Said AOC Biscuit, “And do you have a problem with that? What’s your name? Where do you live? Maybe you need to be re-educated—in a camp somewhere.”

  26. You can either understand Newton or believe Gore & Hansen and the rest of the anti-science totalitarian mafia .

    1. Indeed.

  27. Thank you. Authoritarian and fascist is exactly what it is. I would certainly not call myself right, but the right in the US doesn’t concern me nearly as much as the left. I sometimes think that Pol Pot and Che Guevara could win a seat in Congress in some deep blue districts. They could advocate for reeducation for the non-compliers and would probably get support from their colleagues.

  28. AGW is dangerous and deadly over time. And yet this minor little worry of something that looks like authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is dictator loving Donald Trump. Desperation is doing nothing about the changing our energy system quickly to no pollution.

    1. AGW is dangerous and deadly over time.

      So is authoritarianism.

      Get off of your knees.

      1. Fake authoritarianism placed on AOC really is a non issue. AGW will bring on authoritarianism with people looking to get out of AGW that we didn’t handle well. Fear just does that.

        1. “Until you do it, I’m the boss”

          It’s not authoritariansim when your side does it, huh?

          You want the government to run every facet of your life? Fine, just don’t include me in it. As far as the Trump nonsense goes, this isn’t The Federalist or Breitbart. Have your handlers educate you a little bit.

        2. renewableguy
          May.13.2019 at 8:47 pm.

          Doesn’t matter what the post is; this piece of shit is a true fucking lefty ignoramus.
          Fuck off and die; the world will thank you.

          1. It *would* help the environment

    2. Just put of curiosity, what exactly authoritarian has Trump done? Just for arguments sake. And, to further the discussion, how do you define authoritarian? And how do you not see the GND as authoritarian?

    3. A warming planet is a good thing whether or not it’s caused by humans. 20 times as many people die from cold as from heat. CO2 is partially responsible for the improved crop yields. Hurricanes and tornadoes have not increased in frequency or strength. Floods and droughts have not increased either.

      95% of “climate change” isn’t happening but that doesn’t stop its advocates because they don’t want to fix the climate, they want to “fix” humanity.

      Thanks to cheap, abundant and reliable energy humans do not fear the dark, the cold, the wind or the heat. People no longer need work from dawn til dusk to feed themselves.

      Fossil fuels are one of mankind’s greatest assets and anyone who wants to shut them down is working towards the greatest mass extinction in the history of the earth, comparable to the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs.

  29. Alexandria Maduro-Castro is a true believer of the most dangerous sort. She has “megalomania” written all over her personality.

    1. Nobody is a match for Trump. Nobody.

      1. Sure she is. Trump is bad, but when you’ve got a fawning media licking your boots, megalomania is easier to get away with.

      2. “Nobody is a match for Trump. Nobody.”, he said, kneeling before his shrine of AOC’s picture above a pair of jackboots.

      3. renewableguy
        May.13.2019 at 8:49 pm

        Doesn’t matter what the post is; this piece of shit is a true fucking lefty ignoramus.
        Fuck off and die; the world will thank you.

  30. The revolution has no cost.

  31. Careful with articles like this, Reason, you might inadvertently induce folks to vote Trump.

    Mind you, it’ll hardly offset those millions of new Democrat votes streaming across the border daily, no doubt all clutching their well-thumbed copies of Reason as if in possession of a talisman leading them to the Promised Land…

    1. Shut the fuck up, rube.

      1. Rube? Rube? I’ve never rubed in my life.

        I have however done a lot of rubbing.

    2. Nuwanda my ass. More like Cameron.

      1. I understand: you’re exercising your right not to think.

        1. Are you now posting here to show how stupid you can be? Looks like it.

        2. I’d ask if that was the best you could come up with, but let’s face it – that’s the best you could come up with.

          Go back to The Federalist.

          1. I always cater to the intelligence of my audience.

            Want me to read you The Very Hungry Caterpillar next?

            1. Nuwanda
              May.14.2019 at 12:08 am
              “I always cater to the intelligence of my audience.”

              Nope. You’re too stupid to figure it out. Your stupidity beats most all of the audience.
              Your momma lied when she said you were smart; you ain’t.
              Fuck off and make this a better place.

              1. Don’t be mean, Sevo. His momma died before he was born.

                1. It is possible Nuwanda is some pathetic offspring of a dead human, and that might explain such stupidity.
                  But humanity is not constrained to support such vermin; like Tony, this asshole can make the world a better and smarter place by going off and dying where the stench of the corpse doesn’t bother decent humans.

            2. How about Darkness at Noon instead?

              1. In the light
                of the moon
                a little egg
                lay on a leaf

  32. There are lefty ignoramus scumbags who imagine that my desire to see them dead is some sort of internet jostling. It is nothing of the sort.
    Those lefties, given the power to do so would gladly have their minions hold a gun to my head (while they claim to abhor the use of force) to enforce their failed lefty fantasies but once again.
    No, I am not joking at all. I seriously hope Tony and the lot of you die an early and really painful death.
    Is that clear? Do you understand how much I hate you?

    1. You’re a hysterical bitch, but you make it sound so tempting.

      1. I seriously hope Tony dies an early and really painful death.
        Is that clear? Do you understand how much I hate you?

  33. I don’t know. How about we implement the GND, and all the destruction of the economy, standard of living, relaible electricity, cheap and abundant food etc that would result, as well as the loss of personal liberty, and see what hopelessness and despair of a whole population leads to?

    1. I see the squirrels have found the updated comment section.

  34. Catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 global warming is a theory, nothing more. It is unproven and based upon correlations and computer models using manipulated temperature data. It is not based upon proper scientific techniques and is primarily a political tool to frighten the public into replacing capitalism with globalist socialism. That’s the real reason socialist AOC is behind it.

    But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what socialists have to say:

    UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer – “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

    Socialist author Naomi Klein: “…most leftists have yet to realize that climate science has handed them the most powerful argument against capitalism since William Blake’s ‘dark Satanic Mills’…”

    “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… ” UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres
    In other words, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World socialist government and economic control.

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

    Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment, speaking before editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald in 1998, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” (i.e., utopian socialism)

    Giving up one’s liberty for an unproven, fallacious theory is as moronic as AOC. Only the gullible will fall for this fraudulent scheme.

  35. AOC is like other true socialist. They believe the are an elite, that should have privilege and rule over the common masses.

  36. Due to political casting calls, he has found his place in the nomination line, he is more focused on building his brand rather than learning how to represent his representatives or influencing his junior representative. I can not see him in this long time because he will eventually get bored, or his district will be excluded from the next population

  37. Given the ever expanding size and scope of government, I think it’s much more ambitious to promote the free market. 100% renewable by 2030 is so much easier than eliminating just once unnecessary office of government.

  38. The Green New Deal does not propose a return to a militaristic America where Uncle Sam’s heavy hand intervenes in all aspects of life, curtailing individual freedom in pursuit of their collectivist goals. It is a plan that is arguably too aggressive, but it says nothing about imposing some sort of tyranny. The National Recovery Administration is not coming back.

    Resistance like to this in the name of freedom from the evil of government to attempts to deal with climate change are never accompanied with any mention of the possible costs of doing nothing. At it is now, carbon energy imposes various costs. An International Monetary Fund study fund that global fossil fuel subsidies for 1027 are estimated at $5.2 trillion, which is about 6.5% of global GDP: “China leads all countries in the level of subsidies provided to fossil fuels, which the IMF report estimated to total $1.4 trillion in 2015. The United States followed with $649 billion in subsidies, Russia with $551 billion and the EU with $289 billion. . . . The under-pricing of fossil fuels, particularly coal, was found to be the largest source of effective subsidy.”

    The cost of damage from sea level rise could be in the hundreds of billions or maybe even trillions if coastal infrastructure is damaged or destroyed. Flooding of a few major coastal cities will do the trick. A Forbes article a few weeks ago stated that renewable energy could save $160 trillion In climate change costs by 2050: “The Global Energy Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050 outlines how the world can successfully implement large-scale renewable programs that will not only help reduce carbon emissions but improve global socioeconomic development. The analysis provided by IRENA shows that global energy demands are expected to double by 2050, and that 86% of global electrical needs could be met by renewable energy within that same timeframe.”

    If the New Green Deal tries to impose some form of tyranny, it will be opposed. That concern is simply overblown. Ignoring possible climate change costs to avoid collective action does a disservice to the truth. It is a fact that climate change could turn out worse and sooner than current estimates hold because climate is unpredictable (it is a complex adaptive system and unpredictability is inherent and unavoidable).

    The potential costs cannot be ignored, nor can the absolute need for action at the government level. People alone cannot do what is needed. If government action is blocked due to antipathy toward government, that risks a great deal. If civilization is damaged enough, billions of people could die. Keeping the stakes in mind helps keep the issue in context.

    1. You are assuming that The Green New Deal will do anything to prevent things like sea level rise.

    2. So what do the following, all part of AOC’s green new deal, have to do with rising sea levels? And if those don’t satisfy the requirements of a bigger, and more intrusive, government, what does? It would seem that AOC is simply using the environment as an excuse for a total restructuring of the nation’s economy. And then there is that ridiculous time-line…

      From Reason “‘Apparently, for example, tackling climate change will require “guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”
      … The Job Opportunities for All Act, introduced last July by Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.), would provide federally subsidized employment for any individuals who happens to be unemployed or underemployed… In February 2017, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) introduced the Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act, which aimed to provide workers with a “reasonable level of wage replacement” when they take time off work to care for a family member who is ill.”‘ https://reason.com/video/green-new-deal-wont-work/

    3. Germaine
      May.14.2019 at 10:19 am
      “The Green New Deal does not propose a return to a militaristic America where Uncle Sam’s heavy hand intervenes in all aspects of life, curtailing individual freedom in pursuit of their collectivist goals. It is a plan that is arguably too aggressive, but it says nothing about imposing some sort of tyranny….”

      Bull
      .
      .
      .
      .
      shit.

    4. Well, that was a very well-written piece of gas-lighting and question-begging.

  39. There are 2 separate claims to Climate change.
    Firstly, is it real. We know that much of the evidence for climate change has been fudged or manipulated. There are numerous records on this.
    Secondly, if indeed climate change is actually real, can it be proven that humans are primarily responsible. I personally doubt it. Solar flare activity alone can have far effect on our climate than humans possibly could in over 100 years. That is not to say that we should do what we can to reduce pollution, but humanity is nowhere near capable of moving away from an energy production generated from fossil fuels. Nuclear energy production would be a really good start but many governments have ruled this out over safety concerns which are dramatically overblown. Nuclear energy still remains to this day the safest method of producing electricity. The French have been expanding it’s nuclear power production over the past 10 years and has never come close to a meltdown. We need to revisit this method and pour research into other cleaner methods of production. We have many land masses on the planet such as desert5s which would be ideal for renewable energy production using solar panels. Desert land is uninhabitable, but can still be utilised. It’s time to thing smart.

  40. When neo-communist People’s partisans got 9% spoiler votes, the Dems went loony over the income tax, wrecked the economy, and lost until TR progressives split the GOP. Bert Hoover’s asset forfeiture enforcement of prohibition caused a similar depression and the GOP lost until after the Korean War. Nader’s Greens bled spoiler votes in Y2k and angry Dems went loony over Ecological National Socialism until G. Waffen Bush revived asset-forfeiture prohibitionism. The looter kleptocracy calls this socialist alternation “the pendulum.”

  41. What a strange article..

    Are we supposed to act surprised that Congress has authority over citizens? What’s with this odd obsession with AOC?

    Furthermore, not really sure what the point of lambasting the New Deal (which was incredibly popular) policies as “socialism” is..

    Did this author forget that we won the war by basically becoming a fascist country? (Government took over nearly all industry, full employment, etc..)

  42. Are we supposed to act surprised that Congress has authority over citizens?
    You’re implying this massive takeover of the economy is somehow within the framework of the Constitution. Which means you’re either ignorant or disingenuous.

    What’s with this odd obsession with AOC?
    Dunno. Why don’t you ask the media? *They’re* the ones making her into a rock star — Reason’s just trying to rebut some of the neverending nonsense she spouts.

    Furthermore, not really sure what the point of lambasting the New Deal (which was incredibly popular) policies as “socialism” is..
    Re: “incredibly popular”, cite please. Also, it’s interesting that you appear aware of the negative connotation surrounding the socialist label, yet you’re obviously still a fan. I guess those 100 million dead were just the eggs that needed broken to make your socialist omelette.

    Did this author forget that we won the war by basically becoming a fascist country?
    Your point is, what? That fascism is useful? That the US should be fascist in order to get stuff done?

    Also, you are apparently ignorant of the term “correlation != causation”.

    1. F-ing commenting. The above was in reply to PubliusBK.

  43. I believe it will come to leadership, with the skill FDR had to unify the country. The same is required for our current crisis with even higher stakes than the Great Depression and Hitler’s aggression. Education will be important on this too, like what Leonard DiCaprio is doing with WeLoveOurPlanet.org, coordinated with Lil Dicky and directed to those 30 and younger. It is time for us to all get creative on this, and build community. Then it won’t feel like a dictatorship, because we will know we all have a stake in it.

  44. Imagine a world where AOC is making decisions for all of us on banking, healthcare, energy, food, the cars we drive and the homes we live in. Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There has never been a nightmare so frightening.

  45. Despite my libertarian sympathies, I really only see two alternatives; either live with the consequences of what climate scientists are predicting (including resource wars), or play an enlightened and constructive role in what we would normally disdain as “collectivist” endeavors in order to minimize likely harm. Insisting that the normal progress of technology and economics is going to deal with the problem amounts to leaving the field to characters like AOC and will not be looked upon kindly by history I’m afraid.

  46. […] and calls for action would have been considered ignorant, foolish, insane, outrageous, outlandish, stupid, and downright […]

  47. There are big ideas and then there are good ideas. A few are both. CO2 mitigation is neither.
    The uncontested facts are:
    1. CO2 is not in control of climate. It as, as you will repeatedly hear, a feedback, but there is no time in the past 550 million years when CO2 change has preceded a temperature reversal.
    2. We are not in control of CO2. The natural experiment was run in 1929-1931 when human CO2 production went down by 30% and global CO2 levels did not decrease and temperature kept rising to 1942. Temp then declined slightly but measurably during WWII and postwar reconstruction despite our CO2 production. Declined enough to raise alarms about the oncoming Ice Age (see the covers of Time and Newsweek in the early 70’s)
    3. 30% of the agriculture increase since 1950 has been attributed to CO2 increase. Satellite photos show the greening of the world over time.
    4. CO2 is virtually the only GHG in the stratosphere capable of radiating IR out to space

    In sum, CO2 warms us and cools us and feeds us.
    Climate change is a given, not a problem.
    CO2 mitigation is a problem, not a solution.

  48. […] in order to advance its own moral agenda. Socialists seek to command people’s behavior in the economic sphere, while social justice warriors try to impose rightthink on matters of culture. It’s not […]

  49. […] in order to advance its own moral agenda. Socialists seek to command people’s behavior in the economic sphere, while social justice warriors try to impose rightthink on matters of culture. […]

  50. […] Utilities renewables mandates have been gaining popularity with legislatures, but they are more socially costly than many other ways of reducing carbon emissions [Timothy Taylor, Conversable Economist via Arnold Kling] Related: Mark P. Mills, Manhattan Institute; Matthew Harwood, Reason. […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.