How about banning tanks, jet fighters and submarines?
The Australian government has decided to fight against energy consumption: by banning "most plasma and LCD HDTVs by the year 2011."
However, rather than punishing consumers and ultimately future innovators, if the goal of a government is to crack down on all "wasted" energy consumption, why not start with the highly unproductive and inefficient construction of military vehicles.
For instance, there are very few alternative uses for tanks during peace time, as tractors and bulldozers adequately satisfy consumer demand. Similarly, submarines are comparatively less-than-optimal at crab and shrimp fishing than their non-military counterparts (e.g., trawlers). And unless you plan on stowing away in the bomb bays, fighter jets are hardly the most effective mass transportation service.
Aircraft carriers and destroyers perhaps underscore this waste the best, as their designs consume vast swaths of natural resources that could have otherwise been used cultivating agriculture or constructing high-rise apartments.
In addition to consuming and diverting tremendous amounts of productive land, labor, and capital, the pollution caused by battles and wars can create long-lasting environmental hazards (e.g., lead poisoning, radioactive decay, unexploded munitions, land mines).
Therefore, why not criminalize the activities leading to environmental pollution... which are directly caused by government intervention?
See also: Why Does Socialism Cause Pollution?
Comments (40)
On the other hand it was hearing about a war in Ancient Roman times where after a battle with many deaths there were bumper crops on that land for the next ten years . . .
Published: October 12, 2007 9:15 AM
Great argument to throw into the debate over Nobel prize winner gore. Just like cheap credits produce a lot of wasted energy.
Published: October 12, 2007 9:16 AM
Graah... Every time I decide it might be best to escape, er, emigrate somewhere down under, I read something about idiotic like this.
As bad as things look to get here, I'm still hard pressed to find a place that will be better. Any suggestions?
Published: October 12, 2007 10:09 AM
Taiwan?
Published: October 12, 2007 11:13 AM
Is this a joke? Wow, and I was thinking of moving to Australia. Bloody hell. Forget it. At least I can still watch Plasma TV screens if I move to Sweden.
Published: October 12, 2007 11:13 AM
Isn't Sweden the one being overrun by muslims? I can never keep those scandinavian countries straight.
Published: October 12, 2007 11:32 AM
Well yes, it has its fair share of them, but that is true of Europe in general. Even Norway has problems. Compared to France, say, it isn't that bad. Australia also has its own problems with radical Muslims nowadays.
Published: October 12, 2007 11:38 AM
Did anyone see the story yesterday where a UK judge ruled that schools can't show Al Gore's horror flik to grade school children because of it's numerous innacuracies?
Published: October 12, 2007 12:35 PM
Not that I agree with the HDTV ban, but tractors and trawlers make poor substitues for tanks and submarines in times of war.
If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war. - George Washington
Published: October 12, 2007 3:41 PM
Washington was right of course.
War is Peace.
Published: October 12, 2007 4:14 PM
I think the complete severance of the military from peaceful use, unlike almost never seen before, is worth decision itself.
At one time naval power was built around a trading fleet, today its irrelevant.
I think it has a double cause.
Peaceful people have no obligation, or right, to defend themselves.
And state militarism is today all-consuming. Rarely in history has military technology been created before a peaceful use for it, due to the uneven demand for peaceful and warsome technologies. The atomic bomb is a dramatic examples of the supremacy of the Warfare State.
Of course, tractors and trawlers still have usefulness in war. Dunkurk for example.
Published: October 12, 2007 9:29 PM
Discussion! Discussion! Not decision.
Published: October 12, 2007 9:31 PM
Of course, I'd be rather disappointed in by 2011 OLED TVs weren't easily afforable and accessible. Then again SED and OLED TVs are supposed to out and about now (according to a couple of years). Then again CRT TVs are actually easier to find than a couple of years as everyone ranted and raved about LCDs and Plasma TVs until they had to start using their warranties (and quite usually it's the most expensive LCDs and Plasmas have comparable image quality to a CRT TV). Personally if I had to go HD now it's fun to note there are the odd 1080HD CRT TV for about a quarter of the price of the equivalent LCD TV. :P
Published: October 12, 2007 10:51 PM
I'd like to challenge "Robert M" and "Anthony" to reconsider their comments above. It seems that both are equating "muslims" with "Radical muslims", which is presumably shorthand for "terrorists".
You may be ignorant of European geography and Muslim theology, but please realise that such opinions strike the impartial observer as being bigoted and regrettable
Published: October 13, 2007 6:55 AM
Last year one of Japan's premium TV components manufacturers (Hitachi) closed its last cathodic tube assembly line. The future lies with LCD and plasma TV sets, said the press release.
I may add that Hitachi, which traditionally built very high quality but also very expensive components, may have found that it's more cost-effective to concentrate on high-end products and leave the bottom end of the market to the other manufacturers.
I am sure Hitachi executives and advisors carefully planned this move and backed the decision with sensible arguments. Moreover if I want to buy a conventional TV all I have to do is pick another brand: nobody forces me buying Hitachi's products.
On the contrary the Australian government arbitrarily decided that LCD and Plasma TV sets are "bad" and therefore should be banned.
Swanson is right: why just TV sets? Why not large-capacity refrigerators or neon signs?
The Central Planners are surely rolling out many studies to show how they came to this decision, but there's little doubt it's just a whim. In the former Soviet Bloc central planners in Moscow decided what each country was supposed to manufacture, just out of a whim. For example Eastern Germany was instructed to build two-stroke engines because "we already have enough four stroke engine manufacturers".
After the Soviet Bloc disappeared the Central Planners simply moved shop: instead of Moscow, Beijing or Berlin they now reside in Bruxelles, Washington, Canberra or Milan.
Instead of planning how many helicopters should Poland build each year they concentrate on which light bulb should Europeans buy. Instead of planning how much steel production should be increased over the next five years they concentrate on how much "biofuel" should find its way in the Americans' fuel tanks.
It's the same old story all over again.
Published: October 13, 2007 7:32 AM
Thinking about it twice... wasn't Gore opposed to the Irak war? So after all, why not give him the prize for that reason. Not that I care very much but... if he quits politics, that's already two reasons to honor him. Better have him than Michel Moore.
Published: October 13, 2007 8:52 AM
"I'd like to challenge "Robert M" and "Anthony" to reconsider their comments above. It seems that both are equating "muslims" with "Radical muslims", which is presumably shorthand for "terrorists".
You may be ignorant of European geography and Muslim theology, but please realise that such opinions strike the impartial observer as being bigoted and regrettable"
I am European, so no, I am not ignorant of the continent's geography. And I did mean _radical_ elements within Islamic society, which is not confined to terrorists alone.
Published: October 13, 2007 10:09 AM
I would like to comment on a few of the other comments above. First, I don't much care for the term "radical muslim", as it seems not to distinguish the groups properly. I understand what is generally meant by it, but still it is incorrect. A "true believer" in the Muslim faith and in the Koran may be differentiated from the casual or secular believer just as the same is true of Christian or Jewish believers. Those who really take the teachings of the Koran seriously will be haters of those who do not (of any religion) and are commanded to kill them violently. The casual believer will not (generally). It is a matter of their religion as to what they are to do, and there is no confusion within muslim circles as to this command of the "prophet".
Next, if one really wants to enjoy the blessings of freedom and maintain their libertarian status for himself and his posterity, military preparation is just not negotiable. One must be so strong that other societies will not attack. On the other hand, if you neglect this preparation, you are guaranteed to be attacked and dominated by a totalitarian force. sorry, that is just the way it is regardless of how one may wish that ohters will just leave us alone in peace. It has always been this way and is not going to change. Look a France just before WWII. They are responsible for allowing Germany to become strong enough to cause the deaths of 55 million people because they didn't want to end the peace first. It is a national disgrace that our polititions have taken defense to mean offense but it is their sin and ours for allowing this to happen, not the concept of defense.
Published: October 13, 2007 12:06 PM
Next, if one really wants to enjoy the blessings of freedom and maintain their libertarian status for himself and his posterity, military preparation is just not negotiable.
Militarism and libertarianism are totally opposed world views. This is very well known by libertarians. The argument that militarism is needed to protect freedom is a right-wing fallacy - A remnant of the old feudal order of knights, plunder and murder.
The people who advocate militarism in the name of freedom are not libertarians and do not grasp the basic concepts of libertarianism
Published: October 13, 2007 6:14 PM
Let me add : 'defense' is an euphemism for militarism.
Published: October 13, 2007 6:24 PM
Arm the peasants!
Published: October 13, 2007 6:40 PM
the universal right to bear arms (maybe even nuclear ones) is completely libertarian.
Such a universally armed society - not too much, not too little; just exactly as armed as each individual feels they need to be, based on how armed everyone else in the world is or isn't - would certainly be a risky bet for any central planner to attack.
That's why central planners don't attack; they infect and corrupt.
Published: October 13, 2007 7:40 PM
Yeah that's funny how you say that fundamentalists of every religion would try to kill others. Maybe the catholics in the past, but present Christians and Jews don't really go about killing people for their religion. Sure Pat Robertson thinks people should be killed, but he doesn't go about doing it. I certainly don't remember a Christian commandment to kill the infidels. Not even the various crazy cults kill other people, just usually themselves. To say Islamic fundamentalists are violent just like every other fundamentalist is quite incorrect.
Aje:
I wasn't referring to them being terrorists. I am referring to their move to suppress anyone else who isn't like them and their demand that everyone else change to accommodate their beliefs.
Published: October 13, 2007 8:16 PM
The right to own any kind of property, including arms, is indeed libertarian. However a universally armed society is not, in my opinion.
The ideal of classical liberalism is a world engaging in free-trade. In such a world war is a very bad idea. In a libertarian world defense would not be needed, so the point whether militias or standing armies should be prefered is moot.
Published: October 13, 2007 8:24 PM
Robert M,
How many defenceless civilians have the American military murdered in Iraq (and a lot of other places) ?
In case you don't notice, westerners including so called 'christians', jews and other fanatics and racists, are murdering people all the time, in the name of 'freedom' 'democracy' and other empty words.
Published: October 13, 2007 8:30 PM
Militarism and libertarianism are totally opposed world views.
Too much of either extreme isn't good. You want a mostly free people. But you don't want to be like Poland was to the Germans.
Published: October 13, 2007 9:21 PM
A generally armed society is a good thing.
Published: October 13, 2007 10:26 PM
If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war. - George Washington
qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum - Flavius Vegetius
Published: October 14, 2007 2:12 AM
Seems the original report was somewhat sensationalized to provoke a response from the minister, which was that "reports of the death of LCD and plasma TVs are grossly exaggerated - there is no plan to phase out or ban LCD or plasma TVs"
Published: October 14, 2007 3:57 AM
Nelson:
Too much of either extreme isn't good.
So too much freedom is bad ? We need a bit of slavery ?
Anthony:
A generally armed society is a good thing.
That's a collectivistic fallacy. For whom is it good ?
Peter:
qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum - Flavius Vegetius
So translating a fallacy from English to Latin renders it a truth ?
But thanks Peter, because this shows that war is pretty backwards and has nothing to do with libertarianism. War is part of the feudal order that libertarians opposed.
Published: October 14, 2007 12:53 PM
Wasn't Washington discussing _defensive_ war?
I can fully understand how being prepared, even over-prepared, for a defensive action can _not_ lead to offensive war.
The problem with offensive war is that being well prepared makes it seem that it could be won.
Published: October 14, 2007 1:24 PM
Juan:
So too much freedom is bad? We need a bit of slavery?
There's moral good and bad... and then there's effectual good and bad. You could make the case that a people that aren't compelled to work together in times of war (or to support a peacetime army) are more free. Until you see them in work camps or graves because they weren't as prepared or as strong as a force that did sacrifice some freedom for might.
Published: October 14, 2007 5:46 PM
Juan: "That's a collectivistic fallacy. For whom is it good ?"
You misunderstood me - I contend that a citizenry allowed to own guns is the best defence against an aggressive state or any other sort of oppressor. I do not mean having a huge defence budget or something of that sort.
Nelson, if a population is too stupid/cowardly to realize that it is in its member's self-interest to take up arms to defend themselves, I see no reason for coercing them to do so. They deserve what they get.
Published: October 14, 2007 6:17 PM
Juan- yes, you can have too much freedom. Inmates in Asylums are free from responsibility of all kinds.
Freedom to go back on your word, and not suffer any consequences, would be too much.
Published: October 14, 2007 8:06 PM
Nelson, if a population is too stupid/cowardly to realize that it is in its member's self-interest to take up arms to defend themselves, I see no reason for coercing them to do so. They deserve what they get.
If they were your neighbors you'd see a reason.
Published: October 14, 2007 8:17 PM
Don't be so sure.
Nick, I think Juan realizes that? After all, by freedom we mean the freedom also to create your own obligations - and then keep to them.
Published: October 14, 2007 8:45 PM
So translating a fallacy from English to Latin renders it a truth ?
Not at all; and I wasn't necessarily saying it's true. Just pointing out that the attribution to George Washington was at least 1500 years too late :)
Published: October 14, 2007 9:39 PM
Juan,
"Militarism and libertarianism are totally opposed world views."
I totally disagree in general context. There are always those out there who would like nothing more than to attack and destroy us. Most of the world disarees with the Libertarian viewpoint unfortunately, and many would like to kill us for almost no reason other than to do it. If all people thought like us, then we would be able to disarm, but only then.
As for Christianity being violent in nature, fundamental Christian believers are the opposite, as are every other religion in the world that I am aware of. We believe in loving our neighbor, enemy, etc, not in the killing of everyone who does not agree with us, as does Islam. They are unique in this teaching. The crusades were for looting the Middle East by the wealthy of Europe and the Catholic Church, and were not condoned by the teachings of the Scriptures. Money was the root cause, not religion.
Published: October 15, 2007 7:09 AM
Nelson:
"If they were your neighbors you'd see a reason."
Maybe YOU would. But that just makes you a criminal with an elaborate justification.
If you can justify socialized military, why not socialized medicine? Dying is dying, right?
Published: October 15, 2007 4:34 PM
Seems the original report was somewhat sensationalized to provoke a response from the minister, which was that "reports of the death of LCD and plasma TVs are grossly exaggerated - there is no plan to phase out or ban LCD or plasma TVs"
Published: November 4, 2007 11:35 AM