Thread by @clim8resistance

There's an entire chapter on "Libertarians" in the green demonology.

But there is no evidence anywhere that Moniot et al have understood, let alone read an argument from a 'libertarian'.

"Libertarianism" is a position that exists only in the green imagination.

So it's all the more ironic (or moronic) that Monbiot tries to claim that it is libertarianism that is the developmental disorder, not his own failure to develop any ability to negotiate his will against others, or a sense of proportion.

I.e., if you disagree with Monbiot, it's the end of the world.

*Exactly* the same reaction produced when a toddler fails to assert their will on the world.

There is no nuance to the green understanding. It is wholly narcissistic.

Here's a (long!) essay of mine from 2014, in which I point out that another green thinker -- XR's Rupert Read -- who, despite claiming to be an academic, demonstrated zero understanding of the 'libertarianism' he was railing against, nor even philosophy.

climate-resistance.org/2014/06/why-do…

The short version is that the notion of 'libertarianism' that existed in Read's head was debunked extremely easily: by merely typing "Ron Paul" and "banking crisis" into a search engine.

Greens are not capable of arguing with people that actually exist. So they have to invent their enemies.

And so it is with Monbiot.

Monbiot has never produced a claim from a libertarian that states, "I should do what I like, regardless of the impact on others".

That is the only dimension to Monbiot's understanding of "libertarianism", because he does not believe he needs to hear another's argument to counter it. He is right, no matter what.

"Freedom" is a selfish concept in Monbiot's moral universe, because he wants to tell people what to do.

It is that simple.

So he casts himself as the champion of the greater good, the collective, and as the master of the wider, broader, cosmological perspective.

In other words, his entire career is a desperate struggle for authority that he has no ability to negotiate for, but which he feels entitled to. Greens hate independence of mind. Thus they cannot make a distinction between moral autonomy and going shopping.

The main problem for greens is twofold:

They are quite thick.

They are entitled.

This is the pathology of the zealot.

This clashes with 'libertarianism', because moral autonomy credits humans with faculties that the eco-zealot denies.

No libertarian believes that there can be no such thing as an environmental problem. But the eco zealot wants the problem to be an encompassing moral framework.

The eco-zealot denies the possibility of solutions to the problem, because solutions to the problem deny the eco-zealot's ideology -- the encompassing framework.

Libertarians love solutions to problems. On the eco-zealot's ideological view, love of solutions is 'denial'.

The impossibility of solutions is what gives the eco-zealot his moral authority: you cannot do as you please because it will create a disaster; it is necessary for people to be stopped from doing as they please by government to avoid disaster.

It is a religion.