textfiles-politics/politicalTextFiles/yob92env.txt

        The Environmental Movement and the Value of "Moderation"
                            by Brian K. Yoder

[Presented  at a 1992 commencement address in California.  An  excellent
analysis  of  the  totalitarian threat posed  by  environmentalism.  The
historical  examples  discussed here bring to  mind  Santayana's  maxim,
"Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it."]

If  you  could give some advice to a fish about how not to end up  on  a
fisherman's  stringer, you might recommend that he closely examine  each
juicy tidbit he encounters to see if it contains a hook. I would like to
make  that  same  recommendation to you  this  evening  with  regard  to
political  ideologies. If you consider swallowing an ideology containing
some  true  and good components, you should scrutinize its structure  in
order to determine whether it contains a false and evil hook.

A look at history will show us many instances of large numbers of people
adopting  tyrannical  ideologies which killed and  enslaved  them.  What
caused  this?  Were these people less intelligent than  we  are?  Weimar
Germany had one of the best educated populations in the world before the
Nazis   came  to  power.  Certainly  they  weren't  grossly  stupid   or
uneducated. Even today, many of the most vocal proponents of Marxism  on
American campuses are otherwise intelligent people.

Were they more subject to evil intent? There is certainly no evidence of
this.  Nobody promotes ideas he considers to be evil. Do you have  ideas
you  consider  to  be evil? Of course not. Neither did the  citizens  of
Russia and Germany. It must be something else.

How  could the proponents of tyranny have been so effective and the oppo
nents  so  ineffective?  If  the common people  wouldn't  stand  up  for
themselves,  didn't  business and religious  leaders  stand  up  to  the
tyrants? No, for the most part, they supported them. How can it be  that
intelligent,  well-meaning  people  can  allow  and  even  support   the
development  of tyrannical political movements? The answer is  that  the
majority swallowed some juicy bait uncritically, without looking for  an
ideological hook, and that's how they ended up on the stringer.

So, how does one identify a "hook" of this kind? Answering this question
is  vitally  important  today because we are  being  presented  with  an
ideology similar in many respects to those of the worst tyrannies of the
20th century. It is necessary to be able to recognize such ideologies in
order to fight against them.

The ideology I would like to discuss this evening is environmentalism as
a  philosophical and political movement. We will examine the  philosophy
of environmentalism, and determine whether or not it is safe to swallow.

I  could  speak  about the scientific case (or lack of it)  behind  such
issues  as  ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, and the solid  waste
"crisis", but I won't, because these issues have been dealt with by many
others already, and because I do not believe that science is what  makes
environmentalism "work" as a political movement. Let's begin by  looking
at  several  environmental issues and trying to see what  they  have  in
common and how they differ.

Remember  Acid  Rain?  Asbestos? Mercury in fish? Ozone  Depletion  from
Supersonic Transports? Alar in apples? Rachel Carson's Silent Spring  of
the  1960s?  The Coming Ice Age of the 1970s? Paul Ehrlich's  Population
Bomb  of  the 1980s? What all of these have in common is that  they  are
based  on  dubious scientific theories, and that they predicted disaster
unless  the environmentalists were given the power to violate the rights
of  individual citizens. Also, ultimately all of the apocalyptic  claims
were  proven  to be false, if for no other reason than that the  massive
disease and death these theories predicted never materialized.

What  about today's predictions such as ozone depletion from  CFCs,  the
greenhouse  effect, deforestation, and the solid waste crisis?  What  do
they all have in common?

They  are being trumpeted by the same people, they have the same dubious
scientific foundations, and they are accompanied by the same demands for
power  to  violate  individual rights as the  previous  list.  The  only
difference  is that this last list is newer and therefore  has  not  yet
fallen  to  scientific disproof. Actually, global warming is already  on
its  way  out  as more and more scientists stand up and  point  out  the
theory's  faults.  Don't worry though, there will  be  more  sources  of
doomsday predictions next year. Perhaps the next big crisis will be  the
evil  of  road kills, paint fumes, neon lights, navigation  beacons,  or
something else I can't even imagine. Probably that.

If  these predictions of doomsday are again and again shown to be false,
why  do  new  ones rise to take the place of each one that  falls?  This
propensity  can  only  be  understood in a philosophical  and  political
context  rather  than a scientific one. That is because environmentalism
is  a philosophical and political movement rather than a scientific one.
It  is  no  more  scientific than communism (with its pseudo-science  of
history) or Naziism (with its pseudo-science of race).

The  communists claimed that scientific socialism would put  an  end  to
poverty  and alienation. The Nazis claimed that the science of  genetics
proved  that  the  Aryan  race  was  blessed  by  nature  with  superior
abilities.  No matter how many times these theories were disproved,  the
adherents  remained loyal to the ideology. Even today one can find  many
proponents  of  Marxist  or racial ideologies  plying  their  wares.  Is
environmentalism an ideology of the same kind?

If  we  are  to understand the nature of tyrannical political ideologies
and  determine whether environmentalism fits into that mold,  we  should
examine  some  historical examples, and identify what  makes  them  tick
politically.

We'll  start with the communists. The essence of what they said  to  the
public  was,  "Poverty is bad. We are the people opposed to poverty.  In
order  for  poverty to be eliminated, the people opposed to it  must  be
given  the power to violate individual rights. After all, helping others
is  the moral ideal and that's all we are doing. Trust us, we'll  do  it
right this time.".

The  Nazis  had  a slightly different message for the common  man.  They
said,  "The destruction of Germany is bad. We are the people opposed  to
the  destruction  of Germany. In order for Germany to be  defended,  the
people  who defend Germany must be given the power to violate individual
rights. After all, helping others is the moral ideal and that's  all  we
are doing. Trust us, we'll do it right this time."

The  Khmer Rouge in Cambodia said, "Corruption is bad. We are the people
opposed  to  corruption. In order for corruption to be  eliminated,  the
people  opposed  to  it  must be given the power to  violate  individual
rights. After all, helping others is the moral ideal and that's  all  we
are  doing.  Trust  us,  we'll do it right this  time."  Each  of  these
ideologies has a common set of attributes.

   1.  Each  defends  an  utterly uncontroversial position  about  which
       most  people are likely to be concerned. (In these examples, that
       poverty  is  bad,  that  national destruction  is  bad,  or  that
       corruption is bad).

   2.  Each  offers  to solve the uncontroversial problem, if  only  the
       public  will grant the group the power to violate the  rights  of
       individuals.

   3.  Each  justifies  that violation on the basis of the  morality  of
       altruism,  that  is,  the  moral  theory  that  the  standard  of
       goodness is doing what is beneficial for others.

   4.  Each  resulted  in millions of deaths, and slavery  for  millions
       more.

Ideologies of this kind work by establishing a "package deal" in which a
true  and  good  idea  is  attached to a false and  evil  one  which  is
swallowed whole by the unwitting citizen. This works the same way  as  a
worm on a fisherman's hook and has similar results for those who swallow
the combination.

The  simplest  way  of  understanding how people  can  be  tricked  into
swallowing a package deal of this kind is to notice that the first claim
of  each  of  these ideologies (that poverty, national destruction,  and
corruption  are evil) are things everyone already agrees  with.  So  ask
yourself,  what  does taking such a position accomplish in  a  political
context?  Does  it  mobilize the public to change its  opinions  on  the
issue? Of course not, everyone already agrees. Does it differentiate the
movement  from  the  massive pro-poverty, pro-national  destruction,  or
pro-corruption forces afoot in the population? Certainly not, there  are
no  such  wide-scale movements. It merely serves as the "worm"  for  the
hook that follows.

Once  one  has swallowed the worm and believes that "The Communists  are
the opponents of poverty," "The Nazis are the defenders of Germany,"  or
"The  Khmer  Rouge are the opponents of corruption," there is  only  one
step  left for the advocates of tyranny. They must establish their  goal
as  a  moral  primary. This is necessary because otherwise people  could
object  to the tyranny on the basis of some higher moral principle  such
as individual rights.

What  I  mean  by "Moral Primary" is a moral concept which need  not  be
justified  on  the basis of any other moral premise. For example,  if  I
said, "It is good to eat your vegetables." you might ask why, to which I
would answer, "A diet containing vegetables promotes health." That means
my  vegetable-eating principle was not moral primary. It was based on  a
more  fundamental  moral principle . . . the goodness of  health.  After
hearing this, you might ask, "But why is being healthy good?" to which I
would  answer  (depending  on my moral philosophy),  "Because  having  a
healthy body is important to my life," or "Because God commands it,"  or
"Because  society needs strong citizens to survive," or "Because  health
brings pleasure." In each case, one is expressing a moral primary,  that
one's  life,  the will of God, the good of society, or pleasure  is  the
foundation  of  moral  evaluation. Each of these is  moral  primary.  An
egoist has no moral principle that underlies his evaluation of his  life
as  his  standard  of  value. What underlies it  is  an  epistemological
principle.  A  theist  cannot explain what  moral  issue  underlies  the
goodness  of  God.  A  collectivist  cannot  explain  what  moral  issue
underlies  the goodness of society, and a hedonist cannot  explain  what
moral  issue  underlies  the goodness of pleasure.  In  each  case,  the
explanation of the standard of good is epistemological, not  moral.  The
theist,  the collectivist, and the hedonist, will typically explain  why
their  standard  is correct with some version of "My  standard  is  good
because  I  feel  it  is." We'll get back to this issue  later  when  we
discuss  the  relationship  between theories of  knowledge  and  ethical
systems.  We  will see why egoism can be defended on the basis  of  more
than arbitrary feelings, while the others cannot.

The moral foundation that the creators of tyrannical package deals count
on,  and  the moral system already accepted by most people, is altruism.
Altruism is the ethical theory which says that the moral ideal is to  do
what  benefits  others. Broadly speaking, "others" could  include  other
people,  supernatural beings, or even inanimate objects;  the  important
issue  is that altruism demands that one abandon one's own concerns  and
do things which are contrary to one's rational self-interest in order to
lead  a  morally  acceptable  life. This is  the  perfect  basis  for  a
tyrannical  ideology since anyone who claims that he is being personally
harmed  by  Communism,  Naziism, or the Khmer  Rouge,  is  merely  being
selfish and is thus an agent of poverty, national destruction, or corrup
tion.  (Do  you  see  how the package deal works  here?  To  oppose  the
movement  is taken as opposition to the uncontroversial idea, and  since
that idea has been elevated to a moral primary, such opposition must  be
considered  the  worst  possible sin.) So, how  can  anyone  oppose  the
tyranny?

Once  one  has swallowed the hook, the chance for the citizen to  oppose
the  violation of his rights in a consistent way is gone. Accepting  the
premises  that the tyrants are the advocates of the good, and  that  the
good  supersedes  the rights of any individual leads inexorably  to  the
conclusions  of  the  tyrants . . . that they  should  rule  outside  of
considerations of individual rights.

In  our  examples, anyone opposed to communism was considered to  be  in
favor  of  poverty,  and therefore could be treated  without  regard  to
individual  rights, since communism was considered to be  equivalent  to
the  opposition to poverty, which was considered to be a moral  primary.
Anyone  opposed  to  Naziism  was considered  to  be  in  favor  of  the
destruction of Germany, and therefore could be treated without regard to
his  rights. Anyone opposed to the Khmer Rouge was considered to  be  in
favor  of  corruption, and therefore could be treated without regard  to
his rights. By grafting the movement to an uncontroversial idea which is
a moral primary, tyrants can dismiss any objections to their movement as
opposition to that moral idea. Opposition to the actions of the movement
therefore  becomes an unforgivable sin, subject to any  retaliation  the
movement chooses.

I  should point out that the worst of such retaliation historically  has
not  become a reality until after the tyrants took power. Obviously they
can't  build death camps before they take over, so you should not assume
that  any movement that hasn't imposed press censorship or started  mass
purges  yet is not tyrannical. Mass killings and censorship are not  the
hallmarks of tyranny on the rise, they are the hallmarks of tyrannies in
power.

OK. Enough for history. Let's look at current affairs.

Consider  the  reaction to those who speak out against  environmentalism
here  in 1992. Anyone opposed to the environmentalists is considered  to
be  in  favor  of pollution, and can be treated without  regard  to  his
rights (at least if the environmentalists have their way).

The  essential  message of the environmental movement is, "Pollution  is
bad.  We are the people opposed to pollution. In order for pollution  to
be  eliminated,  the  people opposed to it must be given  the  power  to
violate individual rights. After all, helping others is the moral  ideal
and that's all we are doing. Trust us. we'll do it right this time." One
can  expect  that the results of this package deal will be the  same  as
those generated by its ideological counterparts if the environmentalists
have their way.

Let's  look at what several prominent environmentalists have to  say  in
their own words . . .

Christopher Manes, the editor of the Earth First! Journal writes, "[T]he
biological meltdown is most directly the result of values fundamental to
what  we  have  come  to  recognize  as  culture  under  the  regime  of
technological  society:  economic growth, "progress",  property  rights,
consumerism, religious doctrines about humanity's dominion over  nature,
[and] technocratic notions about achieving an optimum human existence at
the expense of all other life-forms."

Lynn  White, a professor of history at UCLA wrote: "men must  not  crowd
coyotes  [or]  try to exterminate locusts," because, he  says:  "we  can
sense  our comradeship with a glacier, a subatomic particle, or a spiral
nebula," and therefore, "We must extend compassion to rattlesnakes,  and
not just to koala bears."

Paul Ehrlich, a prominent writer on population control in the Population
Bomb  writes:  "We must have population control . . . by  compulsion  if
voluntary methods fail."

Dave  Foreman, a founder of the Earth First! movement and a former repre
sentative  for The Wilderness Society writes: "An individual human  life
has  no more intrinsic value than does an individual Grizzly Bear  life.
Human  suffering resulting from drought in Ethiopia is tragic, yes,  but
the  destruction  there  of other creatures and  habitat  is  even  more
tragic."

Kirkpatrick Sale, an "ecological historian" was quoted in the Washington
Post  as saying Western civilization is "founded on a set of ideas  that
are  fundamentally  pernicious, and they have to  do  with  rationalism,
humanism,  materialism, science, progress. These are  to  my  mind  just
pernicious concepts."

David Graber is a research biologist with the National Park Service.  In
Graber's  Los Angeles Times review of Bill McKibben's book, The  End  of
Nature he wrote:

"Somewhere along the line_at about a billion [sic] years ago, maybe half
that_we  quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a  plague
upon  ourselves and upon the Earth . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens
should  decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the  right
virus to come along."

When  I  present  this  evidence and reasoning to friends  and  debating
opponents, a common reaction is "Oh sure, those guys are bad,  but  they
are  just  on the lunatic fringe. I'm no misanthrope, I just want  clean
air  and clean water. That's why I'm an environmentalist, not because  I
believe  in  all  those radical ideas." But aren't these "radicals"  the
ones who are leading influential environmentalist groups? Writing books?
Making speeches? Raising and spending millions of dollars for environmen
talist causes? Writing educational materials for our children? Even  so,
the  everyday environmentalists say "That's not what I mean when I  talk
about environmentalism. I'm a moderate and I'm an environmentalist.  Why
don't you talk about what moderate environmentalists have to say?" Well,
that's exactly what I would like to do this evening. Let's look at  what
Senator Al Gore, someone moderate enough to be elected vice-president of
the  United  States,  thinks is a proper response to  the  environmental
"crisis".

First, let's turn to the explanation Gore gives in his book Earth In the
Balance:  Ecology & the Human Spirit of why we are in  such  a  terrible
position  in  the first place. He essentially gives two reasons.  First,
that we human beings and Western civilization are mentally ill.

On the one hand, we are individually "addicted" to civilization . . .

[p. 222]      "Industrial  civilization's great engines  of  distraction
       still  seduce us with a promise of fulfillment. Our new power  to
       work  our will upon the world can bring with it a sudden rush  of
       exhilaration,  not  unlike the momentary  "rush"  experienced  by
       drug   addicts  when  a  drug  injected  into  their  bloodstream
       triggers changes in the chemistry of the brain."

That is because we are more interested in technology than in nature:

[p. 207]       "[F]ar   too  often,  our  fascination  with   technology
       displaces  what  used  to be a fascination  with  the  wonder  of
       nature."

On   the  other  hand  Western  civilization  itself  is  "addicted"  to
technology . . .

[p. 220]      "I  believe that our civilization is, in effect,  addicted
       to   the   consumption  of  the  Earth  itself.  This   addictive
       relationship distracts us from the pain of what we have  lost:  a
       direct  experience of our connection to the vividness,  vibrancy,
       and  aliveness  of the rest of the natural world. The  froth  and
       frenzy  of industrial civilization masks our deep loneliness  for
       that communion with the world that can lift our spirits . . ."

How can addicts of civilization solve this problem?

[p. 225]      "Rather  than  distracting their inner  awareness  through
       behavior,  addicts  must learn to face the real  pain  they  have
       sought  to  avoid. Rather than distracting their inner  awareness
       through behavior, addicts must learn to face their pain_feel  it,
       think  it,  absorb  it,  own it. Only  then  can  they  begin  to
       honestly deal with it instead of running away."

Notice  that according to Gore, in order to even recognize that  one  is
addicted,  one  needs  to accept the idea that  one  is  making  choices
because  of addiction, rather than because of reason. Anyone who  claims
to make rational choices in favor of technological civilization, must be
mentally  ill  and  therefore blind to his illness. In  fact,  the  only
"solution"  to  this illness is for people to accept  that  it  is  real
despite    the    fact   that   there   is   no   evidence    of    this
technologically-induced mental illness:

[p. 236]      "[Experts  have  shown]  than  the  act  of  mourning  the
       original  loss while fully and consciously feeling  the  pain  it
       has  caused  can heal the wound and free the victim from  further
       enslavement."

So,  anyone  who claims not to feel this "psychic pain", is  a  wounded,
enslaved victim who can only be cured of this disease, which he  doesn't
know  he  has, by adopting an environmentalist view of civilization,  by
mourning,  and by experiencing pain. Those who don't agree are  mentally
ill  and  are  in need of re-education and psychological help.  This  is
reminiscent of the attitude of the Soviet Union toward dissidents.

Gore's  second  explanation is that the prime mover of  history  is  not
philosophy,  necessity, money, religion, or great men, but the  weather.
He  equivocates about this considerably explaining that he really  isn't
saying  that  climate is necessarily the most important  factor  in  the
course  of  civilization, but you can decide what he really  thinks.  He
attributes  more historic events to weather than I have time to  recite,
but I'll read you a few just to give you an idea of where Gore is coming
from. He says weather caused:

    Human evolution, p. 63
    Vanishing of the Minoan civilization, p. 58
    Mass disappearance of population in Scotland in 1150 BC, p. 58
    Cannibalism & failed harvests in China in 209 B.C. p. 59
    Migration of Indians to America, p. 61
    The rise of Mesopotamia and Jericho, p. 62, p. 103
    The rise of Egypt, p. 62
    End of northern bronze age, p. 64
    The invasion of Europe by germanics, p. 64
    Macedonian conquest of Greece, p. 64
    Alexander the Great's conquest, p. 64
    Expansion of Chinese civilization, p. 64
    Decline of the Mali civilization in West Africa, p. 65
    Disappearance of the Mycenaean civilization, p. 65
    Migration of bronze age people from Balkans, p. 65
    The collapse of Hittite civilization, p. 65
    The rise of Rome, p. 65
    The imperial nature of Roman civilization, p. 64
    The fall of Rome & Barbarian invasions, p. 64
    The fall of the Mayan civilization, p. 66,67,379
    The voyages of Leif Erikson & Eric the Red, p. 66
    French revolution, p. 59
    Napoleonic wars, p. 57
    Anti-semitic riots in Wurzburg, p. 57
    The European emigration to the United States, p. 71
    The  rise of the modem bureaucratic state (including the New  Deal),
    p. 73
    The  renaissance and enlightenment, & individualism in politics,  p.
    68

If  you  still don't think that Gore considers weather to be  the  prime
mover  of history, I suggest you read his book and look at the  rest  of
the list I didn't have time to recite.

Third,  he  explains  that  we as a civilization  are  a  "dysfunctional
family"  because  we  can't seem to give up on  science  and  reason,  a
dreadful hang-up according to Gore.

[p. 230]      "Like  the rules of a dysfunctional family, the  unwritten
       rules  that govern our relationship to the environment have  been
       passed  down  from one generation to the next since the  time  of
       Descartes,  Bacon, and the pioneers of the scientific  revolution
       some  375  years ago. We have absorbed these rules and  lived  by
       them  for centuries without seriously questioning them. As  in  a
       dysfunctional  family,  one  of  the  rules  in  a  dysfunctional
       civilization is that you don't question the rules."

All  of  this addiction and dysfunctional interaction ultimately arises,
according  to  Gore  from "psychic pain" [p. 219]  which  we  experience
because  we  are separated from nature. This separation began  with  the
invention  of  agriculture,  and  is directly  related  to  the  use  of
knowledge in the creation of civilization. Civilization keeps us "out of
touch"  with nature by creating artificial environments like  homes  and
fields.  Being  "in  touch  with nature" apparently  requires  the  most
primitive animal state of existence.

Another  problem  Gore  cites  is that  we  have  too  much  information
available to us:

[p. 197]      "  .  .  .  rarely  do we examine the negative  impact  of
       information on our lives . . ."

[p. 200]      "We  have  .  .  .  automated the  process  of  generating
       data_with    inventions    like   the    printing    press    and
       computer_without  taking  into account  our  limited  ability  to
       absorb the new knowledge thus created."

[p. 201]      "Vast  amounts of information ultimately become a kind  of
       pollution."

So,  we westerners and our civilization have been driven to insanity  by
too much civilization, technology and information. What method does Gore
suggest we should use to understand our problem? He gives a long list of
methods:  the  Hindu  method, the American Indian method,  the  Buddhist
method, the Christian method, the Baha'i method and others. All of these
methods,  Gore tells us, will lead to the same conclusion  .  .  .  that
civilization  is a failure, that technology doesn't work,  and  that  we
should give it all up for some higher purpose. This theme is repeated in
his   book  again  and  again  in  regard  to  pesticides,  fertilizers,
mechanical  trucks  and plows, mass-production, decorations,  electronic
communication, transportation, and the mass-production of artwork.  Gore
bases this on some interesting and very scientific premises:

[p. 244]      "Whatever  is  done  to the Earth must  be  done  with  an
       awareness that it belongs to God."

[p. 243]      "From the biblical point of view, nature is only safe from
       pollution  and brought into a secure moral relationship  when  it
       is united with people who love it and care for it."

His scientific analysis continues on:

[p. 244]      "...  whatever verses are selected in an  effort  to  lend
       precision  to  the Judeo-Christian definition of life's  purpose,
       that   purpose   is  clearly  inconsistent  with   the   reckless
       destruction of that which belongs to God and which God  has  seen
       as `good'."

Now  we arrive at the real enemy ... human efficacy and achievement. The
idea  that  we  can have what we want out of life is wrong according  to
Gore.

[p. 206]      "Technological hubris tempts us to lose sight of our place
       in  the natural order and believe that we can achieve whatever we
       want."

To be more specific ...

[p. 240]      "We  have  been  so  seduced by industrial  civilization's
       promise  to  make  our  lives  comfortable  that  we  allow   the
       synthetic  routines of modern life to soothe us in an inauthentic
       world  of  our own making. Life can be easy, we assure ourselves.
       We  need not suffer heat or cold; we need not sow or reap or hunt
       and  gather. We can heal the sick, fly through the air, light  up
       the  darkness,  and  be  entertained  in  our  living  rooms   by
       orchestras and clowns whenever we like."

Apparently,  Gore thinks that medicine, aircraft, heating,  light  bulbs
and  agriculture are intrusions against God's creation. If God had meant
us to be mobile, healthy, well-fed, warm in the winter, and able to read
at  night,  he  would have provided us with wings, disease-free  bodies,
heated  caves, and nite-lights. Since he didn't, it is wrong for  us  to
provide them for ourselves. That wasn't what God created and saw  to  be
"good" .

But  isn't environmentalism supposed to be a scientific ideology? If so,
why  bother  with  the religious arguments? According to  Gore,  we  can
reconcile  science  with religion in such a way as  to  allow  religious
revelation to inform scientific opinion.

[p. 253]      "...  science  offers a new way to understand_and  perhaps
       begin  healing_the  long  schism between science  and  religion."
       Aand  he  goes  on  to  explain that the  Heisenberg  uncertainty
       principle  opens  the  way to allowing religion  and  science  to
       coexist without contradiction. Exactly how he proposes that  this
       might  be  done,  is not clear, but Gore really does  think  that
       religion  can  be  used in place of science, and  therefore  that
       religion is a proper method for discovering the truth.

In  a C-Span interview just after his book was published, Gore explained
that  the  source  of the idea that civilization must be  restrained  is
irrelevant.  One  can justify that idea using science, religion,  social
solidarity,  whatever  you like, as long as the conclusion  is  that  we
should renounce our civilization, technology, and power over nature. Any
method that does not create that conclusion should be discarded.

The  moral goal toward which that renunciation is to be directed is also
optional  according  to  Gore. You can give up  your  comforts  for  the
benefit  of  the  state,  for your children, for  your  class,  for  the
biosphere, for cute little animals, or for God. What matters is that  we
use  some method to arrive at the conclusion that we should perform some
acts  of  renunciation  toward some end other than  ourselves.  This  is
simple unadorned altruism. The method of thought doesn't matter to Gore.
The recipient of the sacrifices doesn't matter either. What matters, and
he  said  this literally over and over again, is that we must  sacrifice
something, to anyone or anything, for any reason.

As  Ayn  Rand  said in For the New Intellectual, p. 73,  "It  stands  to
reason  that  where  there's sacrifice, there's someone  collecting  the
sacrificial  offerings. Where there is service, there is  someone  being
served.  The  man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks  of  slaves  and
masters. And he intends to be the master."

To  sum  it  up, the environment reigns supreme as a force  in  history.
People  and  civilization are insane, and we should  rely  on  religious
insights  in order to see this. We should choose some person, thing,  or
superstitious entity to sacrifice ourselves for, and give up  everything
we  can  to accomplish this. Anyone who selfishly refuses to do this  is
acting immorally because of his mental illness.

OK,  that's the theory . . . lets look at the practice that follows from
it.

Gore outlines two political programs in his book. The first is a "Global
Marshall Plan" by which the United States transfers billions of  dollars
to  the  rest  of the world to get them to adopt environmentally  benign
lifestyles.  The  second is the SEI (Strategic Environment  Initiative),
the  domestic  counterpart which will completely transform the  domestic
economy  according to a plan of environmentalist control. This  pair  of
initiatives  are,  according to Gore, designed to  transfer  the  entire
foundation   of  civilization  from  its  current  focus  on  fulfilling
individual  human needs and desires toward one based on the preservation
of the world in its natural state.

[p. 269]      "I  have  come  to  believe that we  must  take  bold  and
       unequivocal  action; we must make the rescue of  the  environment
       the central organizing principle of civilization."

[p. 270]      "Although it has never yet been accomplished on  a  global
       scale,  the establishment of a single shared goal as the  central
       organizing  principle for every institution of society  has  been
       realized by free nations several times in modern history."

In other words, rather than being in the business of promoting the lives
of  human beings, as it does now, civilization ought to primarily be  in
the  business  of making it more difficult for human beings  to  extract
values from nature.

According to Gore, existing civilization is based on the fulfillment  of
human wants and desires:

[p. 243]      "[O]ur  civilization is built on the premise that  we  can
       use nature for our own ends."

and goes on to explain that this is contrary to religious dictates.

Civilization, Gore says, is wrong because it tries to do good things for
people, when it should be trying to do good things for Bambi instead and
he knows this because God told him so.

He  explicitly calls for a change in the central organizing principle of
civilization to one which has as its goal the maintenance of  the  world
in  a wild state, and he claims that the only way to accomplish this  is
by  the  establishment  of  a  world-wide pseudo-government  which  will
control  all  of  the  human activities which have  any  impact  on  the
environment.

[p. 204]      "the  people of all nations have begun to feel  that  they
       are  part  of  a  truly  global civilization,  united  by  common
       interests and concerns_among the most important of which  is  the
       rescue of our environment. "

[p. 295]      "what's  required now is a plan that combines large-scale,
       long-term,   carefully  targeted  financial  aid  to   developing
       nations,  massive  efforts to design and then  transfer  to  poor
       nations  the  new  technologies  needed  for  sustained  economic
       progress, a worldwide program to stabilize world population,  and
       binding  commitments  by  the industrial  nations  to  accelerate
       their  own  transition to an environmentally responsible  pattern
       of life."

[p. 302]      "We must negotiate international agreements that establish
       global  constraints on acceptable behavior but that  are  entered
       into  voluntarily_albeit with the understanding that  there  will
       be    both   incentives   and   legally   valid   penalties   for
       non-compliance."

This [p. 301]    "framework of global agreements" Gore insists is not  a
           government   despite  its  binding  nature  and   enforcement
           mechanisms  and  Gore assures us that  our  fear  of  such  a
           delegation  of  sovereignty  to  a  global  government  is  a
           guarantee  that  it  couldn't possibly  develop.  Clearly  he
           wants  it  both  ways  . . . to have a global  government  to
           manage  the economies of the world but without it having  any
           power. For what it is worth, the index of the book says  that
           this  page  contains a discussion of "Post-nationalism"  even
           though  that word is never actually used . . . it  is  pretty
           obvious  that is really what he is proposing here,  a  global
           environmentalist state.

As  you might guess, this switch from the idea of the individual good to
the  collective good involves a switch away from the idea of  individual
rights,  and  toward the power of a universal government just  like  the
ones proposed by the other tyrannical ideologies.

[p. 278]      "we have tilted so far toward individual rights and so far
       away  from  any sense of obligation that it is now  difficult  to
       muster  an adequate defense of any rights vested in the community
       at  large  or in the nation_much less rights properly  vested  in
       all humankind or posterity."

With  this  anti-individual rights paradigm in hand, Gore can  plan  his
domestic policy. He can argue for it on the basis that his opponents are
insane and therefore need not be answered rationally. He can argue  that
religious determination is more important than individual rights. He can
argue  that people ought to be prevented from using the Earth to improve
their  lives,  and  that all of this follows from the desire  for  clean
water and air.

He can base it on that same old kind of package deal: "Pollution is bad.
We  are  the people opposed to pollution. In order for pollution  to  be
eliminated, the people opposed to it must be given the power to  violate
individual  rights.  After all, helping others is the  moral  ideal  and
that's all we are doing. Trust us, we'll do it right this time."

Let's  look at the Strategic Environment Initiative. Here is an  outline
of the parts of the plan:
[p. 319-320]

       1.     Tax  incentives for government-approved  technologies  and
       disincentives for those the government doesn't approve of.

       2.     Research  and  development funding for government-approved
       technologies  and  bans  for  all those  the  government  doesn't
       approve of.

       3.    Government purchasing programs for the new technologies.

       4.     Government  promises of large profits in a market  certain
       to emerge as older technologies are phased out.

       5.      The   establishment  of  rigorous  technology  assessment
       centers  which  evaluate new technologies and  determine  whether
       they are "appropriate".

       6.     The  establishment  of a network of  training  centers  to
       create  a  core  of environmentalist planners and technicians  to
       control third world economies.

       7.     The  imposition of export controls in developed  countries
       to  assess a technology's ecological effect and prevent all trade
       the government doesn't approve of.

                 8.  The  expansion of intellectual property  rights  to
       include  genetic  materials which will be  the  property  of  the
       governments where various species emerged.

This  amounts to complete domination of the domestic economy by  environ
mentalist  government  agencies.  It is  quite  consistent  with  Gore's
proposal  to change the central organizing principle of civilization  to
be  the  preservation of the world in a natural state.  That  being  the
case, individual rights, economic efficiency, and human advancement must
all be made subservient to environmentalist dictates.

Gore doesn't believe that just dominating the lives of Americans is good
enough. He insists that the only way he can achieve his goals is through
coordinated  global  actions,  through a global  state  with  powers  of
economic  planning, technology approval, redistribution of  income,  and
enforcement  of  its  demands.  Of  course,  everyone  will  voluntarily
cooperate  with  this,  so no violence will be  necessary.  "After  all,
helping others is the moral ideal, and that is all we are doing."

Here are a few of his "strategic goals":

       1.    A comprehensive population control program, p. 311-314

       2.     A  blur  in  what  Gore  calls the artificial  distinction
       between hard and soft currencies in international trade, p. 344

       3.     The  establishment of debt-for-nature swaps  whereby  poor
       countries  have their debts forgiven in return for their  promise
       to leave their resources untouched, p. 345

       4.     The  establishment  of a CO2 trading  credit  system  with
       fewer and fewer credits being issued each year, p. 345

       5.     A change in the way GNP and productivity are calculated to
       include  the use of natural resources to counteract the  apparent
       creation  of wealth when a resource is used to create  goods,  p.
       346

       6.     A  shift in the legal burden of proof from those who  want
       to  prove environmental harm to those who want to prove they  are
       innocent, p. 341

This  last  is  particularly ominous since it assumes that  everyone  is
guilty  of  crimes without proof, and with counterproof an impossibility
because  it  is impossible to prove a negative. We are to be  considered
guilty  until  proven  innocent  of crimes  which  violate  the  central
organizing principle of civilization. What could be worse?

There  are  some  additional  ominous items in  the  joint  Clinton-Gore
campaign  book,  Putting People First which are  not  in  Earth  in  the
Balance. For example:

       1.     A national identification card with a magnetic strip which
       will  be  required to gain access to government services such  as
       medical care.

       2.     A national service corps where young people will serve the
       state in order to gain access to government services.

       3.     The  establishment  of  a  government-controlled  national
       computer  network linking every home, library, and  classroom  in
       the country.

       4.     A change in the corporate average fuel economy regulations
       from  current 27.5 MPG to 40 MPG by the year 2000 and to  45  MPG
       by 2015.

       5.    Massive spending on public transportation.

       6.    Opposition to use of nuclear power.

       7.     A  national  program  to re-educate  citizens  to  produce
       environmentally correct behavior.

Elsewhere  in  Putting  People First, we see  proposals  for  government
control  of other areas as well, including doctors, insurance companies,
hospitals,  pharmaceutical companies, labor, transportation,  education,
energy  production,  civilian R&D, the arts,  political  elections,  day
care,  space exploration, computer telecommunication, the housing market
.  . . have I left anything out? The principle is clear. If the citizens
are not doing what the wise managers of the environment desire, there is
no reason why the individual rights of the people involved should get in
the  way.  "In  order for pollution to be eliminated, those  opposed  to
pollution  must be given the power to violate individual  rights.  Trust
us, we'll do it right this time."

What's  that  you say? You don't want government control of  everything?
You  don't want a global state whose central organizing principle is  to
thwart  your  use of the earth to make your life better?  You  want  the
government  to  respect your rights? Why, if that's what you  want,  you
must  want  to drink polluted water and breathe poisonous air! Remember,
"Pollution   is  bad.  Environmentalists  are  the  people  opposed   to
pollution.  In  order for pollution to be eliminated,  environmentalists
must be given the power to violate individual rights. After all, helping
others  is  the  moral ideal and that's all we are  doing.  Trust  them,
they'll do it right this time."

The  unstated  argument here is that individual rights are  incompatible
with life, and that respecting them will lead to death and suffering. Of
course, if that argument were to be addressed in this head-on way by the
environmentalists, they would have to make admissions they would  prefer
to  avoid.  Among  them,  what  individual  rights  actually  are,  that
environmentalists are opposed to individual rights, and that this is  on
the  grounds that citizens are incompetent to arrange their own affairs,
and  must  turn to government bureaucrats for orders. Free  thought  and
free  action  are what individual rights exist to defend.  If  they  are
forced  to  address the question, environmentalists have to  admit  that
they  are  opposed  to  free thought and free action  and  in  favor  of
government control of individual lives and property.

As  we look at the history of the 20th century, we observe that the most
"toxic"  thing present is not plutonium, dioxin, pesticide residues,  or
mercury.  These  have at worst killed a few thousand  people.  Far  more
dangerous  than  these  are the things they combat:  spoiled  food,  the
winter cold, starvation, and disease. Before the 20th century these were
very  wide-scale killers and cripplers of human beings,  and  they  have
been in the 20th century where modern technology was not available.  But
both  of  these hazards pale in comparison to the hazards  of  political
tyranny.  Governments  using  ideological  package  deals  of  the  kind
environmentalists present have killed hundreds of millions and  enslaved
billions   more.  Even  if  there  really  are  dangerous  environmental
catastrophes   looming   on   the  horizon,   abandoning   technological
civilization, and granting the government (a world-wide one at that) the
power to violate individual rights is FAR more dangerous.

If  anything, the environmentalists are worse than the Nazis, the  Khmer
Rouge,  and  the Communists. At least the Nazis, Communists,  and  Khmer
Rouge  were  claiming some kind of human goal as the  reason  for  their
activities. The environmentalists are explicitly promoting the idea that
having human needs and desires met is a bad thing.

I hope you can see by now that there can be no such thing as a "moderate
environmentalist"  any  more  than  there  can  be  a  "moderate  Nazi",
"moderate  communist" or a "moderate axe murderer".  Anyone  who  grants
moral  support to an ideology of this kind is helping to bring  it  into
reality  . . . not just the "clean air part" or the "anti-poverty  part"
but the whole package deal, worm, hook, and all.

So,  what is the position of the leader of the Republican Party,  George
Bush,  on  this?  He says "I'm an environmentalist too  .  .  .  just  a
moderate  one."  Unfortunately, Bush and many other conservatives  think
that the way to win battles against those who want to violate individual
rights  is  to leap out ahead of the pack and show that they agree  with
every premise of the environmentalists, and to claim that their policies
are every bit as severe as those of the radicals.

Witness  George Bush's recent performance at the Rio Earth Summit  [June
1992].   Rather  than  pointing  out  the  scientific  faults   of   the
environmentalist cause, or pointing out the moral flaws in the idea that
governments  should violate the rights of individuals, or  pointing  out
the  counterproductivity of various environmental proposals,  or  simply
staying  away  from the Earth Summit entirely, he conceded  every  point
immediately. He begged the audience to believe that the Clean  Air  Act,
the policies of the EPA, and a myriad of other laws he has supported are
as  strong  as  the restrictions the radical environmentalists  wish  to
impose.

This  is  obviously false. Worse yet, by arguing this way, opponents  of
the  environmentalists, such as Bush is supposed to be, cannot  hope  to
win.  They  concede every important point before they even  begin.  They
have swallowed the environmental package deal hook, line and sinker.

In  political life today, there are no anti-environmentalists. There are
only  "pretend  environmentalists" like Bush  who  pretend  to  be  both
pro-and   anti-environmentalist,  and  there  are  "moderate  environmen
talists"  like Gore who offer the public a dangerous package deal.  This
situation  is  not  a  good  one. We are  not  given  a  choice  between
environmentalism  and  anti-environmentalism, but  between  enthusiastic
genuine environmentalism and weak-kneed "me-too" environmentalism. It is
heads-environmentalism and tails-environmentalism.

What  conservatives like Bush lack is a rational philosophy  to  counter
the irrational philosophy of the environmentalists. At best, they simply
offer no philosophical alternative, and at worst, they offer a religious
or  emotional one which (fortunately) they are shy about expressing.  To
combat  a  philosophy  one  cannot use  emotion  or  raw  conviction  as
intellectual weapons. The opponents of environmentalism are in desperate
need of philosophical ideas. What they need is a philosophical answer to
the  people  like Al Gore who deny free will in favor of  climatological
determinism.  What they need is an answer to those who  deny  reason  in
favor  of religion, emotion, or social consensus as a method of thought.
What  they need is an answer to those who deny the objectivity of values
in  favor of intrinsic values based on some irrational revelation.  What
they  need is an answer to those who deny individual rights in favor  of
collectivistic tyranny.

In  short, what they need is an intellectual defense of their opposition
of  tyranny. Without one, they will ultimately fail in their fight. What
they need is Objectivist philosophy.

For  those of you who may not be familiar with Objectivism, I would like
to  present to you the outlines of the Ojectivist point of view to  help
you  understand why such an intellectual foundation is necessary for  an
intellectual defense of any ideas whether they are scientific, moral  or
political.

Obviously,  I  cannot  in  the few minutes  remaining  give  a  thorough
exposition  of  objectivist philosophy. What I can do is recommend  that
you  read  Ayn  Rand's  books: Atlas Shrugged, Capitalism:  The  Unknown
Ideal,  and  The  New  Left:  The  Anti-Industrial  Revolution.  I  also
recommend  Objectivism:  The Philosophy of  Ayn  Rand  and  The  Ominous
Parallels  by  Leonard  Peikoff. I also  recommend  Ayn  Rand's  novella
Anthem, it you want to have a look at the kind of "in touch with nature"
society these "moderate" environmentalists propose.

Although  I  cannot  give a complete exposition of  Objectivism  in  the
remaining time, I will offer a brief outline:

There  are 5 branches of philosophy, four of which are important in  the
context we are examining:

   Metaphysics-Which answers questions about the fundamental  nature  of
   reality.

   Epistemology-Which deals with the nature of knowledge and  the  means
   by which it can be acquired.

   Ethics-Which  deals with questions regarding what choices  one  ought
   to make with that knowledge.

   Politics-Which deals with issues of ethics in a social context.

Let's look briefly at each of these:

In  metaphysics, some believe that the ultimate foundation of  existence
is  one's own mind and that there is no external reality. Others believe
that  it  is  the  collective mind of society which  is  the  source  of
existence. For others, it is the mind of God, and for others,  there  is
simply  no reality and no way to know anything about it if it did exist.
The  objectivist  view is that reality is the foundation  of  existence.
Objectivism says that External reality exists independent of the mind.

In  epistemology,  there  are  many  who  believe  intuition,  religious
revelation,  social  consensus, or word games are  the  means  by  which
knowledge can be acquired. Others deny that knowledge of the real  world
is  possible by any means. The objectivist position is that human beings
possess  free will and can choose to use a process of reason and science
on  information presented by the senses in order to achieve knowledge of
reality. Objectivism says that reason allows knowledge of existence.

In  ethics, many believe that people should make their choices of action
based  on  what  would benefit the race, the class,  the  nation,  one's
neighbor,  God, or the ecosystem. Others claim that any kind of  ethical
principle  is naive and that one ought to act on the expediency  of  the
moment. The objectivist position is that one ought to make choices which
are  to  one's  rational self-interest. Objectivism says  that  rational
choices   of   action  are  those  which  are  consistent   with   one's
self-interest.

In  politics, many people believe that the proper role of government  is
to  plan  the  lives of individuals, to do the will of the majority,  to
serve  the will of God, to serve the interests of the powerful, to serve
the  interests of the weak, to maximize the common good, or to  preserve
nature  against human intrusions. The objectivist position is  that  the
proper purpose of the government is to protect the rights of individuals
by  outlawing  the  initiation of force and fraud  from  human  affairs.
Objectivism says that the rational way to live in a social context is by
the principle of individual rights.

To review:
    External reality exists independent of the mind.
    Reason allows knowledge of existence.
    Rational  choices  of  action are those which  are  consistent  with
    one's self-interest.
    The rational way to live in a social context is by the principle  of
    individual rights.

The  objectivist political message is this: "The initiation of force  is
bad.  In  order  for  the  initiation of force  to  be  eliminated,  the
government must protect the individual rights of every citizen and never
violate  these rights itself. After all, rational self-interest  is  the
moral  ideal,  and that is the source of the idea that individuals  have
rights."  This is different from the tyrannical ideologies  in  that  it
doesn't  demand that people renounce the control of their lives  to  the
government.  It  demands that the government renounce the  violation  of
rights and prevent others from doing so as well. This provides the  kind
of  environment  where  individuals are free to  solve  their  problems,
economic, personal, environmental, and otherwise.

You  cannot  mix  and  match these positions. It you  believe  that  the
foundation  of reality is social consensus, how could you conclude  that
individuals  have inalienable rights? Maybe next week there  will  be  a
poll in which most people deny individual rights.

If  you believe that reality cannot be known, how can you conclude  that
one course of action is actually better than any other?

If  you  conclude  that serving God is the ethical ideal,  how  can  you
consistently defend a secular government? What if God demands theocracy?
What if God changes his mind?

Just as the objectivist ideas of reality, reason, egoism, and individual
rights  are  consistent  with one another, so  are  theism,  skepticism,
irrationalism,  altruism, and tyranny. If you are consistent  (and  most
people  are  not)  you  will ultimately have  to  choose  between  these
incompatible systems of ideas.

At  any  point in the philosophical hierarchy, objectivism  answers  the
arguments  of  environmentalists that the "me-tooism" of the  kind  Bush
exemplifies cannot.

In metaphysics, the environmentalists claim that the ground of existence
is  anything  but reality, and that allows them to turn  away  from  the
facts  when it suits them. Objectivism claims that reality is a  primary
which cannot be ignored or wished away.

In  epistemology, environmentalists claim that religion, intuition,  and
tradition just are as valid as reason and science. Objectivism  counters
this  with an insistence on observation and reason. Each position  flows
from  the previous metaphysical premises. A conservative who agrees that
reality is not a primary, but a matter of social consensus, religion, or
intuition, cannot consistently adopt a pro-scientific position and  will
have  to  slug  it out in the epistemological free-for-all that  results
when one's ideas have no firm ground to stand on.

In   ethics,  environmentalists  claim  that  trees  and  animals   have
"intrinsic  value." How do they know? They "feel it", or  God  has  told
them  so.  Without  a  rational epistemology, how  can  such  claims  be
discredited?  A  conservative who agrees that  non-rational  methods  of
thought are valid cannot consistently accuse environmentalists of  flaws
in  the  way  they determine what has value and why. He has thrown  away
every  tool  that  could  have  disproven  the  ethical  claims  of  the
environmentalists.

In  politics, environmentalists claim that the government knows best how
to  organize society and that individuals ought to be forced to  conform
to  the  demands  of  the  government as long  as  the  world  is  being
maintained in a natural state. They claim that people have no rights  if
the government considers itself to have a good reason to violate them. A
conservative  who  simply asserts the existence of  rights  (using  some
equally  flawed epistemology based on emotion, intuition, tradition,  or
revelation) can't even explain what rights are. His arguments  are  just
as  weak  as  those of the environmentalists. They typically  amount  to
nothing  more  than appeals to emotion. Such arguments  are  only  empty
shells. Their foundation has been undercut by a lack of any intellectual
foundation in ethics.

Finally, when the environmentalists claim that this or that law ought to
be  passed  or  that  this or that industry ought  to  be  attacked  and
destroyed,  the  conservatives  show  their  bankruptcy.  They  have  no
intellectual arguments with which to combat such laws. They are  reduced
to  pathetic me-tooism rather than a principled opposition. They have no
principles and nothing to build them out of.

How  have  large business concerns reacted to this onslaught? No  better
than  the politicians, I am afraid. They have pumped millions of dollars
into  environmentalist  groups, and into their  own  ad  campaigns  that
promote their products as being ecologically beneficial. They hope  that
by  doing this, they will get the environmentalists to leave them alone.
They are just as wrong as the supposed opponents of environmentalism  in
government. They too need an intellectual defense of their existence and
of  their freedom, and without one, they will continue answering attacks
with bribes rather than with moral condemnation.

So,  how can one fight against this ideology once one concludes that  it
is tyrannical?

If you are a part of the political process as either an intellectual,  a
politician, or a voter, you need to take sides. A "moderate" position is
no more acceptable against environmentalist tyranny than against Nazi or
Communist  tyranny. It you are a businessman, you must stop  sanctioning
your destroyers. Stop supporting environmentalist groups with donations.
Stop advertising your products as "recyclable". Stop any support of  the
environmental  movement that may encroach on your work. Lastly,  if  you
are  a  student, parent, or a teacher, work to restore a  sound  science
curriculum  to your school. If there are environmentalist  materials  in
your  curriculum,  complain  about  them.  Learning  about  science   is
important,  learning environmentalist pseudo-science is not,  and  every
hour  wasted discussing the apocalypse of the month is time  that  could
have  been  spent  studying important things like  literature,  science,
history,  and math. Youth is too important to waste on pseudo-scientific
propaganda.

When  citizens are presented with a tyrannical ideology, they can either
accept the package deal and suffer the consequences or recognize it  for
the trap it is and reject it. Germany, Russia, and Cambodia failed to do
so, and suffered the horrible consequences we have all seen.

It you were a fisherman, you might offer advice to nearby fish along the
following  lines:  "Worms taste good. This tidbit contains  a  worm.  In
order  for you to benefit from the worm, you have to swallow it all  the
way  down.  After all, eating is the most important thing fish  do,  and
that's  all I'm suggesting. Don't look too closely, it'll be tasty  this
time."  I  hope  I have helped to cleared the way for you  to  see  that
environmentalism is a worm on a hook. I urge you not to take the bait.

Thank you.

           [The following is not part of the original speech.]

                        Remarks by Mike Sivertsen

On  page 16 Mr. Yoder states: "It you conclude that serving God  is  the
ethical ideal, how can you consistently defend a secular government?"

  A  secular government which departs from the principles of our U.S.
  Constitution  and  the  first ten Amendments  does  not  warrant  a
  consistent defense; rather effort should be directed to changing it
  or  replacing it with one that does. This is clearly stated in  the
  Declaration of Independence:

      "...  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all  men
      are  created  equal, that they are endowed by their  Creator
      with  certain unalienable rights, that among these are life,
      liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure  these
      rights governments are instituted among men, deriving  their
      just  powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever
      any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it
      is  the  right of the people to alter or abolish it, and  to
      institute  new  government, laying its  foundation  on  such
      principles  and organizing its powers in such  form,  as  to
      them  shall  seem  most likely to effect  their  safety  and
      happiness..."

If   one  equates  serving  God  with  defending  any  and  all  secular
governments  then  Marxism  is on an equal  footing  with  our  original
republic. Our Constitution has been subverted by elected representatives
and  by  court  decisions which make law rather than  passing  upon  the
constitutionality  of it. The Constitution demands strict  adherence  in
order to preserve the most successful form of government in history. Our
Constitution  does not need to be changed, rather it is those  who  have
run it into the ground who must be replaced. Evil prospers when good men
do nothing.

On page 16 Mr. Yoder states: "What if God demands theocracy? What if God
changes his mind?"

God  does NOT change His mind. Malachi 3:6a in the Old Testament  states
"For I [am] the Lord, I change not..."