The neosocialist who sold his economist's soul to the left for some demagogic power, Paul Krugman, says he knows why we who oppose Gore getting the Nobel Peace Prize oppose Gore getting it (his piece can be read at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin ). Now, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but let's see how his thesis holds out with me. Or if his argument holds up at all.
Krugman says, "Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration." So he's accusing the right of being sore winners? I don't think anybody on the right cares a whit about Gore in this context. That's dreaming on Krugman's part -- or a sort of mirror-image projecting. I, personally, could care less because I didn't support Bush in the first place. And I haven't supported much of what he's done since (the tax cut being the exception). So this certainly doesn't explain my opposition to Gore's getting the Nobel Prize.
Krugman says, "In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. " Here we see a logical fallacy. Krugman is making an appeal to authority, which proves nothing. We don't know if the prize that year was given for political purposes (as the literary and peace prizes too often are), to support a certain agenda. If (for the sake of argument) the selection was made for this reason, then Krugman is making the same argument as the Christian who makes the argument, "I believe in God because the Bible says He exists." "So why do you believe the Bible?" "Because it's the word of God." Thus, Krugman proves nothing.
Krugman says, "In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved." Has it? Krugman must be basing this on all the attaacks that have happened to Americans in the U.S. No, hold it, wait, all those attacks on Americans have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is Krugman surprosed that peole die in war? I suppose he would have argued that because more Americans died in WWII after entering it that "the resulting chaos posed a far greater danger from the United States than we faced from Hirohito and HItler." Such nonsense. You would think Krugman could come up with beter arguments than these.
Krugman says, "It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater." Now, on the first sentence, Krugman and I agree. Thus, I would welcome his condemnation of Gore and his lifestyle, since Gore is not doing any of the things he says everyone else should do. It is clear that Gore "would like that somebody to be somebody else." This is in fact one of the areas where I oppose Gore's getting the Nobel Peace Prize -- hypocrites should never get it.
Now, as for the last sentence, this shows that Krugman is ignorant both of human nature and of free markets. In opposition to what too many economists think, people do not make only narrowly selfish decisions. The Ultimatum Game in game theory shows that people are fair-minded. We think of what is best for family and friends and even country. And it has been the free market offering green alternatives that has done far more for the environment than has any government in history. Some of the most successful suppliers of electricity (in places that have had real deregulation) have been green suppliers -- precisely because they are green. People do want to live in a clean environment. In fact, if we could get complete recognition and enforcement of property rights, that would be a huge step toward being greener -- since nobody has the right to pollute your water and your property. An air pollution market would go a long way to solving these problems (then groups like Greenpeace would have to put their money where their mouths are). Krugman at least has the sense to support something like this -- though not for the reasons I give. Genetic ownership of species (esp. endangered species) would also work best (turkeys are in no danger of going extinct, unless animal rights activists have their way).
Krugman says that "the smear campaign has failed." I never relaly noticed one. I heard people making reasonable objections to ridiculous claims being made by Gore. I hear people decry his hypocrisy. I've even heard of a court saying Gore was wrong, lied, or exaggerated about at least 9 elements in his movie. But smear? It's not a smear if it's true.
No comments:
Post a Comment