145. THE JAY HANSON SOLUTION: MILITARY JUNTA
Jay Hanson is fruitcake-in-chief of the peak oil die-off movement. He is founder of the website "dieoff.org", and is well known for his theory that we are all going to die from peak oil because human beings are genetically stupid. Jay has been on the cutting edge of peak oil for years, and, like the true-blue American he is, is now advocating that we forget about "rights", and install a military dictatorship in the U.S.:
Peak oil is a hall of mirrors, isn't it? On the one hand, you can join up with Dick Cheney and the cynical status quo crowd who want to run the country as a military dictatorship. Or you can join up with the hip, green, counterculture peak oil people like Hanson, who want to run the country as a military dictatorship.
I would like to engage as many of you as possible in a FRIENDLY analytical
discussion about "realpolitik" (practical politics). In order for this
discussion to bear fruit, posters are going to have to set aside
"ideologies" and beliefs about "rights". We might as well start thinking
about life without current ideologies and rights, because sooner-or-later
they will be replaced by a military dictatorship -- it's just a matter of
From a strictly analytical standpoint, our society has the potential to feed
and water it's people on a tiny fraction of the recourses is presently
requires. For example, the food sector of our society tries to fatten
people up, while the medical sector tries to deal with the health problems.
Why not simply eliminate restaurants and advertising by the food sector?
The US today is composed of a hundreds-of-thousands-of-special-interests all
burning resources trying to pull society in different directions.
While a drastic (by a factor of 1000?) reduction is resource consumption can
not eliminate an inevitable world war sometime in the future, it could delay
that war by decades. Moreover, if a military dictatorship is inevitable
anyway, I believe that the sooner the better.
Consider the following two basic types of political systems: "process"
politics and "systems" politics.
As the name implies, process politics emphasizes the adequacy and fairness
of the rules governing the process of politics. If the process is fair,
then, as in a trial conducted according to due process, the outcome is
assumed to be just -- or at least the best the system can achieve. By
contrast, systems politics is concerned primarily with desired outcomes;
means are subordinated to predetermined ends.
The time has come to replace our current system of "process" politics with a
new "systems" politics. It must be administered by most-qualified entity we
have: the Joint Chiefs (and obviously many more details I haven't considered
Considering the alternatives, what do the rest of you think of this idea?
(Remember to be PRACTICAL. Forget about "rights" and "ideologies".)