Climate Change Politics and the Anti-Industrial Revolution

On August 10, 2007, Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever was a panelist on the Crossroads Television (CTS) program "On the Line" with Christine Williams.

In this segment, the panel discusses then recent comments by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, including his statement that "The fight against climate change has become perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today." The issue: science vs. politics in the "climate change" debate.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• science
• climate
• change
• global
• warming
• stephen
• harper
• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivist
• Objectivism
• anti-industrial
• revolution

[newcode2001]

"Taking care of our children and grandchildren" will be a result of the ingenuity of populations of individuals being released from the rule of man, and living in a world governed by the rule of objective law. Then they will be free to develop the technologies that will contribute to an ever-increasing standard of living: health, wealth and peace will be the RESULT of objective laws, the principle of forbidding the initiation of force being the base of this rule of law-period.

[nikkyo34]

Global warming in the same bullshit about CFCs causing a hole in the ozone layer.

[356pla]

@newcode2001 Consent.

[windigo433]

Currently doing a lab on global warming for University, University!! I swear the prof. looked like he was lying through his teeth unsure.

[Johnnydmb23]

But again indirect harm as well as direct harm is still harm. Therefore ruining OUR air and YOUR property (water, etc) is inexcusable, and must be controlled not for the sake of our environment, but for the sake of rights in regard to your health.

PS. Most of the green movement's "logic" is flawed. I would be careful of what they say.

[Johnnydmb23]

I am not an "objectivist" as Ayn Rand would coin the term. However I believe in maximum freedom for the individual given that individual or group of individuals are not infringing on someone elses freedom. Given that I do believe there should be restrictions on corporations when it comes to pollution of the water supply, air, and soil. Unfortuantly big government has used "climate change" as an issue to bully companies to pay large sums of revenue in regards to ridiculous regulations.

[jdcremin]

Even if you don't care about having natural areas, I can imagine a scenario of water issues - who is to stop the corps from polluting the people's water? It seems that the law of the commons necessitates outside control.

[Mrmikeshelton]

"To get people to change, you have to scare them into it." ? Oooooooooooook, buddy

[jdcremin]

What is the objectivist stance on national parks? It seems that if this ideology was put into play, there would be no constraints on corporations. The parks would be drilled, developed, and forested. Even if you don't care about having natural areas, I can imagine a scenario of water issues - who is to stop the corps from polluting the people's water? It seems that the law of the commons necessitates outside control.