There was a post at NPR this morning that caught my eye and here was my reaction:
The depressing thing to me is that advocates of liberty -- and I don't necessarily include all Republicans in that group -- are even referencing science in this debate.
Not because science is unimportant, but because the nature, degree and causes of climate change don't affect the decision on whether humans have inalienable rights. We do, and they cannot be violated regardless of what is happening to the Earth, regardless of the outcome of scientific discussion. Yes, even if the fate of our planet is at stake. Every crisis always involves calls to enslave humanity as the only possible and moral solution, it never ends.
Statements like this: "But leaving climate change actions to individuals will not solve the problem" are morally reprehensible, because there is basically nothing being proposed for government that would not violate our rights. So this basically equates to: your rights must be violated, period. Thanks a lot.
And since advocates of liberty are not making the moral case for freedom, but instead are trying to become amateur scientists, they will lose the political battle, and we will lose freedom.
From a purely practical standpoint, humanity will be in a much better position to deal with whatever happens if we are free and prosperous. And this is no mistake: because liberty is designed after human nature, to allow us to act according to our nature will produce the best practical result.
One this is for sure: if governments crush the world economy, we're not going to have the resources to deal with any crises that come along.
Those who advocate freedom are often asked "How would you solve X?" but it is not always an individual's job to solve problems of the world or come up with solutions. It is not most peoples' job to change the climate, end inequality, or feed the third world. We can do small things that contribute, but the collectivization of responsibility for the world's problems is merely an instrument of guilt, the cultural and economic equivalent of Original Sin.
So my answer is: I don't have an answer, and morally, I don't need to.
This is not cruelty and uncaring, it is setting morality back on its feet: that the individual life is the standard of morality, not a collective. Even the earth does not have moral primacy over the individual. So, let's get to the task of solving our problems, individually and by choice. It is the only moral way.
