Ideas and words are funny things. They can neither harm nor help anyone unless put into action. Of course, the thought police, especially the hate-speech division, would disagree and challenge this "notion" but they are, of course, merely ideas in action.

The members of the baby-boom generation who were teenagers during the mid-1960's had an idea that ingesting psychedelic drugs was a grand experiment in self-ism that would harm no one except perhaps the persons who ingested, and that, of course, was "their business." It did not take long for them to find out that not only did "their business" interfere in the business of other persons, such as the deteriorating work ethic which stole and continues to steal from "demanding" employers, but also it became the "business" of government to get involved in "their business." The Drug Enforcement Agency has flourished under this concept, and the tactics of the police state we see burgeoning today are easily traced to "drug war" initiatives meant to catch Joe Burnout. It makes no difference whether the DEA nets a huge cache of cocaine in Florida, or some guy tripping while he plays X-Box, it is the same ongoing government leviathan exerting its will, using "drug epidemic" as an excuse. Is there a drug epidemic? You bet your crack pipe there is. Is general disintegration of our Constitutional rights the solution, or even the right response? No.

psychedelic-spiritSo it is that the "right" to ingest psychedelic drugs, which has its own advocacy groups, like NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), causes great harm to others, and is not only "your business." The question is, do we permit the ingestion of psychedelic drugs and stand down on the Nazi tactics, because the latter evil is greater than the former? Yes and no. We must remember that the same generation which invented the "psychopharmacoepia" also invented the drug test, and also invented Xanax. Even if we say ingestion of psychedelic drugs is basically a harmless entertainment when guided in a non-mobile environment, we cannot box up human nature the same way. There will be a response to such ingestion, whether it is to clamp down on it, or to further it in more socially-acceptable ways. Dropping LSD leads to an overreaching DEA, and leads to the "Prozac nation," and there is nothing you can do about it short of a fascist state.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

It is all a grand experiment; the hippies dropping acid, the "straights" creating a "drug czar," and the pharmaceutical companies inventing "happy pills" to straighten it all out. All part of the same idea, and of the same generation.

Now let's talk about carbon emissions.

The same baby-boom generation which brought you the idea that you have absolute right to abuse your body with drugs, and to inflict the effects of your drug-addled brain on a hapless society, also brought you the idea that you have no right to pollute the atmosphere by driving your car to Taco Bell to relieve a case of the munchies. The environmentalists of the baby-boom generation, the same generation who claimed that inhaling is a right, claimed now that exhaling is a danger to humanity. Of a sudden, the grand experiment in human freedom came to an end. You were permitted to work stoned, but, oh yes, where you work, they need to be shut down because of "carbon emissions."

In the same way that drug advocates say that it is none of your business whether or not they ravage their own bodies, these types of radical environmentalists say it is none of your business whether they interfere in, experiment with and ravage entire industries, economies, and financial systems. Effects be damned! They are doing "good work" and those who say otherwise are "deniers" who basically have no right to speak or act contrary to their desires. "The Earth is heating up at an alarming rate, and by gum, we need to do something about it!" If you dissent, you are not to them a charming hippie but a danger to humanity!

Thus, the radical environmentalists become like the militarized DEA, parachuting into the flowering fields of manufacturing, storming through the bay doors, and demanding that everyone lay down with their face to the ground. As the "straights" used and use the power of government, under the guise of eradicating drug use in America, so these environmentalists use the power of government to bust heads wherever pollution happens to be. Ever since Jimmy Carter initiated a Department of Energy, there has been this war. Where the straights created a Drug Czar, the radical environmentalists created an Energy Czar. Where the straights militarized the DEA, so the environmentalists are militarizing the EPA and other organizations to be a "task force" against carbon emissions. If you thought the Thought Police were bad, wait until you get a whiff of the Breathing Police.

carbon-tax-out-of-chimneyThe radical environmentalists use not only the same tactics and strategy as drug-war hawks, they also produce the same fractured scientific evidence. True to form, just as the clinical results regarding psychedelic drug effects on the human body are sketchy, unclear, even tainted, "global warming" is equally if not more so. Tit for tat. "If you can have a War on Drugs based on questionable studies, we can have a War on Carbon also based on questionable studies." Effective hypocrisy masquerading as the ultimate white knight riding to the rescue. But still, it is astounding that the "enemies of carbon" have seen how ineffectual the War on Drugs has been on drugs, and yet believe that a War on Carbon will have any greater effect.

But there is one place where this is not a mirror image, not a double standard of prevailing psychological dogma, but rather an extension of baby-boom mentality, which is, "we are going to experiment." Just as the ingestion of psychedelic drugs, the infliction of laws minimizing or eliminating carbon emissions is also an experimentation. There is a narcissistic fatalism to it, too, which believes that everything the baby-boom generation does is right because, well, they are the baby-boom generation. They are smarter, they are more self-aware, and, dammit, they want people to be happy!

This "me" mentality believes it is changing the world for the better by making it unfamiliar but, familiarly, it must continue this psychotic tantrum by forcing its will upon those with whom it disagrees. These are not freedom-lovers, but fascists. Your quirks do not interest them, for these quirks are impediments to their utopian views. Do you mistrust people not like you? Though it is a positive, a survival mechanism, the baby-boom "me" fascists say you are xenophobic for disliking the unfamiliar, and racist for desiring your own dominant culture, your own hegemony. You like yourself, but because they hate you, or even believe you should not exist, they must make you out to be an enemy of mankind. Conservative? "You Neanderthal! Evolve!" Republican? "You segregationist! Die!" White? "Your time is over! Accept it and maybe you will have a place in ourworld." Capitalist? If you're not with them, you are a polluting beast, leaving behind a trail of wrappers, slaves, smog, and depleted ozone layers. Get it?

But what about their utopian views? In the first place, the radical environmentalist is, for all intents, invoking a "right" to experiment with society and capital. This flies in the face of Rule One, which is, I have rights too and get the hell off my lawn! As the stoner, the environmentalist conveniently forgets that his actions have consequences. That is a sociopath. Second, the radical environmentalist's vision of energy independence is to restrict its flow worse than OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) ever did. If dealing with Arabs is difficult, dealing with Greenies is impossible. Ultimately, we will have to decide whether to let these Greenies have their way with us or... Third, prohibitions always lead to Mafias. If the environmentalists succeed, their next arena will be to destroy energy smuggling. How does that sound to you? Fourth, experimentation on society always leads to more experimentation on society. Just like cocaine use led to the creation of crack, so will environmental meddling lead to human hardships not seen since the Dark Ages. Fact or opinion? Let's just say that I would rather fearmonger now than have humanity endure 1000 years of darkness later.

Now let's look at it inversely. The druggie thinks his transgression is worse than the government reaction to it. That is, the "innocent" use of drugs brought forth a world filled with (among other things) black helicopters, illegal surveillance, dead bystanders, and money-laundering laws which prohibit the free movement of legal money. Isn't the "altruistic" use of government force against carbon leading to (among other things) closed factories, less energy, land grabs, and Agenda 21 concepts? Leaving aside the false argument that drugs are a personal detriment but carbon is a worldwide danger, what difference be there between government force against either? Both lead to gargantuan agencies with poor oversight, bloated budgets that drain the tax coffers and (ultimately) the economy, and, most importantly, a horrific decrease in human liberty. And that's the rub, for every fascist makes the argument that what he (or she) views as a danger is most dangerous, and that what he (or she) proposes as the solution is best, fastest, and most efficient. "Sorry about the decrease in freedom!" Hitler said it was the Jews, Al Gore says it is the emissions. "Get those emissions!"

Just as a "vice tax" is proposed to be attached to the legal use of marijuana, so is a "carbon tax" proposed to be attached to the legal use of carbon. And what does that solve? Nothing. For if marijuana is dangerous, the tax does not mitigate that danger. And likewise, carbon tax does not change environmental impact, if any. The worst "offenders" shall merely pay the tax, having that wherewithal.

If you believe that the ultimate end of the carbon tax is to destroy industry, you're wrong. The ultimate end of the carbon tax is to bring in the carbon tax. A "carbon tax" is simply a useful tool to fund a leviathan government, and its shadow counterparts.

The carbon tax is not meant to clean up the atmosphere, and those who think so are useful idiots. Like all passionate energy, the environmentalists are, for the most part, merely convenient weapons which fascists wield, then expediently discard.

The fervent wish that stricter emission laws or arduous carbon taxes shall make the world cleaner and safer is riddled with inconsistencies and untruths. First, such laws and taxes can only be imposed by governments. Where governments have vested interests in quick industry, there shall be no such laws or taxes. Thus, even if all of America and Europe were to participate in the scheme to tax carbon, China, Russia, India, Brazil, and many other nations shall not participate, and their pollution shall reign, and their economies shall lead and conquer. Second, such laws and taxes only have the desired effect if they deter pollution. Those who can pay the fine will do so and continue to pollute. Only the weakest will suffer, not having sufficient money or power to weather the storm. What remains, at best, is an oligarchy. Is this your goal, environmentalist? Third, not only shall small industry be devastated, but the poorest individuals shall be colder, or have more heat stroke, or have less mobility. The result is death and despair. Is this your goal, environmentalist?

Thus, it is clear that there is greater danger in carbon taxes than in carbon emissions. The environmentalist can scream "we all gonna die!" but that cannot be proven, and is quite the extreme position besides. But when the libertarian screams "we all gonna be poor and enslaved!" - That has been proven throughout history. Why then does the environmentalist shake his head in disgust or pity? Is it better to be poor and enslaved than to be dead? Why is that your decision, environmentalist? You may ask the same question, but you must answer it as well.

Unfortunately, logic is lost on those who live their lives fully emotionally, and there are countless millions who have an empathy for the Earth but no compassion for the rights of men. The most power-hungry of the radical environmentalists, who now populate the US Government, know this, and exploit this extreme weakness. The "me" generation which claimed to be for individuality ("do your own thing") and freedom ("power to the people") has turned out to be just another fascist entity, imposing its will on an unwilling majority, and their mindless minions are easily manipulated to vote for clean air over opportunity for all. So smoke your weed now while you can, pious zealots of pseudo-liberty. Soon your small victories shall be taken from you, and your resin-stained hands shall perhaps be digging potatoes for yet another despot.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.