Is democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet?

Question

Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, says carbon rationing is the only way to ensure that the world avoids the worst effects of climate change. And he says that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people.

"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzY1ZTQ4OWU0ZmY4ZjBkODZiOTc1OGY4ODRkNGM3NjM=

Do you agree with Mr. Hillman's position that democracy needs to be limited for the good of all?

And/or do you believe that Mr. Hillman's statements are the goal of the UN and other government bodies?

Answer 1

Actually this is the goal of the man-made global warming crowd. They want get rid of Democracy and capitalism.
Since there only a hand full of U.N. member States that are true Democracies, we are out numbered.....big time.

Answer 2

Why do we need a bloated UN?

Traditionally the UN prevented wars and saved starving children. Lately they've just been sanctioning wars and they're aren't as many starving children as there once was, so how do they justify an ever increasing budget? Well according to them, we need them to save us from ourselves.

Taking over the world isn't part of the UN's charter as such, but there's probably a few career delegates who would jump at the chance of ruling the world if the opportunity presented itself.

I think Hillman has a few agendas on the go. Sure he'd like to save the planet, but developing a global government that didn't answer to voters would be sweet.

Answer 3

This is a very good question.
The problem is that there is no immediate incentive for anyone to vote for measures which will restrict them in what they can do or force them to make choices. Under these circumstances it is hard for political leaders to make the case and harder still if there is a viable opposition saying that it isn't necessary.
However I believe the case that has to be made is a good one and that politicians should have a go.
So I don't think at this stage than we should forsake the democratic tradition.
I don't think there is any hidden agenda here. The UN has proceeded properly and spent some 15 years or more letting scientists who have all been nominated by their country debate the issue. They represent a spread of opinion and have worked very hard. Although their expenses have been paid, their remuneration has come from their academic instuitutions not the UN The fourth report has just been issued. You may not like the conclusions but I don't think you have to look for reds under the beds or any conspiracy theory.

Answer 4

Hold a referendum and ask: "Being a nation of freedoms, should paying of taxes by citizens of this country be optional and at an amount they choose"? What would be the outcome of that vote and would you be willing to hold a referendum risking the nation on something a government imposes on its people?
Many people would know that paying taxes is necessary for any nation to operate and would vote no on that question. There would however be a certain number of people who would vote yes on such a subject. Considering the logic of US electing Bush a second term, the outcome may even be 51% in favour of optional taxes. So is it democratic for a nation to tell its citizen how much they will pay, rather than holding a referendum asking how much they would like to pay?

Answer 5

This is indeed the goal of some global warming activists.

Answer 6

if we want to get people to do what they can the best method is a p.s.a. campaign. it has been proven to work time and time again, from reducing drug use to teen pregnancy, even bringing awareness to energy conservation. no i strongly dissagree with Hillman's p.o.v.,(as national review paraphrased it) it is not the American way !

Answer 7

In any democracy, your rights are limited by other people's right.

I can't kill you (and won't) because you have a right to live and vice versa.

Any right implies duties and respect of a certain set of laws.

Shifting to the 100% side of individual freedom and accept 0% duties responsibility in the society is a shift to a "jungle-law society".

Individual independence doesn't exist since it is always within a certain frame. As such it is an autonomy.


BTW: MR HILLMAN DID NOT STATE THAT DEMOCRACY NEEDS TO BE LIMITED (such intellectual shortcuts like you are making are not correct for a "top contributer").

He just stated a priority. He did not even mention reduce the wealth growth and it will be left to our intelligence and creativity to find ways to generate more wealth and well-being while emitting less greenhouse gases.

Instead of "fantasizing" the goal of the UN, you can read them in clear text:
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

Answer 8

Democracy is not important to global socialists.
Democracy is very important to the rest of us.

Answer 9

Extinction is a non-partisan event. We only have this one little wet rock spinning through space. Anything that threatens our existence has to be dealt with. The only part of 'Democracy' that is supposedly challenged, is the ability to freely use fossil fuels.Limiting the use of fossil fuels is not anti-democratic. Damaging the air we breath and destroying life on Earth is not democracy. Am I exercising my rights if I create enough pollution that causes you to become ill and die? Or if you fight back,is that anti-democratic? We have hit the end of the road for fossil fuels,get over it! Planetary survival is the most important thing! The 'privilege' of driving a car that burns oil ,is not a democratic right. Life ,Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are! That includes planetary survival!

Answer 10

We do not have the power to end or reverse the cyclical global warming.

We do, on the other hand, have control over our democracy and freedoms.

.