Opposing polemics cancel each other

[Mesogen]

There are two polemic articles I just read, one on each side of the political spectrum and both are dead wrong in my opinion.

They both set up straw men and totally mischaracterize the "other side" and IMO it should be obvious to anyone that this is not the way to make an argument.

The first is from The Project for the Old American Century's blog and it argues against capitalism.

Shouting at the Devil: “F*** You, Capitalism!”

One of the idiocies advanced as a logical argument to justify the continued existence of the abomination of capitalism is that while it may be flawed, it is still better than any alternative. If capitalism is the best humanity can do, it’s time to cash in our chips and leave Earth to our non-human animal counter-parts. They may not have opposable thumbs and formidably sized frontal lobes, but at least they don’t engage in the systematic destruction of themselves and the rest of the planet. However, before we act too hastily and engage in mass Seppuku, perhaps it would make more sense to implement a mass reorganization of our socioeconomic structure, basing the new paradigm on far more egalitarian, sustainable, democratic, just, and rational principles. Or we could just keep destroying each other and the fucking planet….

Sure, that makes sense. Animals never destroy each other. They are very egalitarian and democratic.

The whole article is so over the top that it doesn't merit a fisking.

The other one is from Lew Rockwell.

Land Socialism: Playing With Fire

The problem is in the theory of environmentalism. Under it, ownership is the enemy. Nature is an end in itself. So it must be owned publicly, that is, by the state. The state, in its management of this land, must not do anything to it. There must not be controlled burning, brush clearing, clear cutting, or even tourism. We can admire it from afar, but the work of human hands must never intervene.

Since when is this what mainstream environmentalists advocate? Good land management is what most environmentalists are all about. Look at the Sierra Club for instance.

Ridiculous! Are we under the impression that private markets can't handle risk management? Private markets specialize in protection of property, particularly against natural risks.

What's ridiculous is the unfounded assertion that any private interest would insure, say, homes in New Orleans for flooding. No insurance company would dare cover anyone in that area for flooding. That's why there was a federal flood insurance program. Without it, my relatives would have been SOL when they lost their houses.

I just want to share these two articles as examples of how NOT to make a case for or against private interest and government intervention.

 

[kylejack]

What's ridiculous is the unfounded assertion that any private interest would insure, say, homes in New Orleans for flooding. No insurance company would dare cover anyone in that area for flooding.

What does this tell you about the wisdom of building a city and houses where a swamp is supposed to be?

 

[freedominnumbers]

What does this tell you about the wisdom of building a city and houses where a swamp is supposed to be?

Indeed, which is crazier. Advocating that the government gets out of the flood insurance game or building your house in a place where it's almost certainly going to be flooded in it's useful lifetime and demanding the government replace it when it happens.

 

[Mesogen]

What does this tell you about the wisdom of building a city and houses where a swamp is supposed to be?

Sounds like you agree with Lew Rockwell's strawman environmentalists that believe we should get out of Nature's way.

And I guess it's not too wise to populate southern California what with the earthquakes and wildfires and all? Or the midwest because of tornados?

 

[Mesogen]

Indeed, which is crazier. Advocating that the government gets out of the flood insurance game or building your house in a place where it's almost certainly going to be flooded in it's useful lifetime and demanding the government replace it when it happens.

If you pay your premiums then of course you must demand that the people who issued the policy pay up.

 

[kylejack]

Sounds like you agree with Lew Rockwell's strawman environmentalists that believe we should get out of Nature's way.

And I guess it's not too wise to populate southern California what with the earthquakes and wildfires and all? Or the midwest because of tornados?

Hey, if you and your parents want to build your house in a place that's so prone to flooding that companies won't even insure, more power to you, but don't come picking my pocket to rebuild your house when it floods (OMG HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?! WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THIS?! Answer: Anyone.) Its a simple question of rights: What right do you have to take my money? None.

Read some Atlas Shrugged. Alternatively, the abridged version: http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

 

[Mesogen]

Hey, if you and your parents want to build your house in a place that's so prone to flooding that companies won't even insure, more power to you, but don't come picking my pocket to rebuild your house when it floods (OMG HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?! WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THIS?! Answer: Anyone.) Its a simple question of rights: What right do you have to take my money? None.

Read some Atlas Shrugged. Alternatively, the abridged version: http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Read it.

It sucked balls.

And you didn't pay the insurance premiums did you? No.

No one with the NFI took your money.

Let's repeal the income tax and then you'd have nothing to complain about anyway.