From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:27:01 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1asd4kINNe4e@agate.berkeley.edu>, jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.154153.27836@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux
> (Daniel Brown) writes:
> 
>> Why was this crossposted to alt.individualism?  Greenpeace,
>> being an environmentalist group, is not noted for its concern
>> for individuals (at least not human ones).
> 
> =o= I don't know why it was cross-posted to alt.individualism.
> I take exception with your claim, however.
> 
> =o= Environmentalism is not anti-individualist.  I can see how
> somebody bearing a message about ecological interconnections
> could be misrepresented -- and thus misconstrued -- as such,
> but that's just a case of blaming the messenger.

	The individualist difficulty with at least past environmentalism 
is that it was in favor of using government to force individuals to stop 
actions that were not harming actual individuals (in which category I 
include chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins, and whales, but not such 
amorphous concepts as "the environment").
> 
> =o= Indeed, I find a strong streak of individualism within
> the movement, at least in my country (and, nominally, in the
> "Green" movements abroad).  Environmentalists are doing more
> real work to effect individual autonomy and the decentralization
> of power than anybody else.
> 
> =o= In the case of Greenpeace, one of the guiding principles
> of the organizations is the Quaker imperative of "speaking truth
> to power."  The "speaker" is understood to be somebody without
> power, i.e., a common individual.  "Power" is typically some
> sort of powerful institution, either public or private.

	Environmentalits today do indeed have many positive aspects. 
However, in the case of organizations such as Earth First, they have gone 
too far. Trees are not sentient beings, and do not have rights; attempting 
to kill lumberjacks (by tree spiking) is not within what I, at least, 
would call permissible behavior. On the other hand, the activities of the 
Sea Sheperds (sp?) seems perfectly fine given the premise that whales, 
dolphins, etc., are individuals with individual rights.
> 
> =o= I'm not sure what the comment about a lack of concern
> for individuals (at least not human ones) is supposed to be
> in reference to.  A lot of what Greenpeace does involves
> opposition to things that have a direct an negative impact
> on human individuals.

	And those activities are ones that individualists should fully 
support, since they are that of reducing harm to individuals.
> 
> =o= I realize that a good portion of alt.individualism's
> readership subscribes to a libertarian, objectivist, or some
> variety of conservative ideology, and that these ideologies
> have a tendency to conflate private institutions (no matter
> how powerful) with individuals.  Nothing I say will satisfy
> these people.  I just ask that they bear in mind that their
> dogma is not the alpha and omega of individualism.

	First of all, Libertarianism is not conservative. How many 
conservatives (with some rare, sensible exceptions) do you know who are in 
favor of removing vice laws? of removing drug laws? of removing sodomy 
laws? Libertarianism is not properly placeable on the liberal/conservative 
axis. I can sympathize with your apparant desire to limit institutions; 
that is one reason I am a Libertarian, since that party is the only one in 
favor of removing limited liability, thus placing responsibility for the 
actions of a corporation squarely in the hands of the stockholders who 
control that corporation.
	Libertarianism may have different means of controlling abuse of 
the commons (a preference for privatizing the commons as opposed to 
regulating usage of the commons), but this does not neccessarily conflict 
with the goals of environmentalism. The Nature Conservatacy (sp?), for 
instance, follows methods that no Libertarian would disagree with- 
individuals getting together to accomplish a goal they agree on, without 
forcing their beliefs on others.
	-Allen
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:30:50 GMT
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA