Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Mobocracy and Climate Crimes

Mobocracy does not equal democracy. Democracy is when the people elect their representatives to write laws that reflect their wishes. Then the law becomes the thing that rules, not the people (a.k.a. “The Rule of Law”). Mobocracy, in contrast, is when a mob of people insist upon their way disregarding the law, usually by way of threat, until their demands are appeased. Therefore, mobocracy is the rule of the most successful at threatening. These two methods of "governing" may sound narrowly similar, but where they differ is in what rules. In democracy, the law rules. And, in mobocracy the most threatening people rule. The rule of people always results in anarchy, while the rule of law has a more likely peaceful result. To commit our governance to the will of the mob is ultimately suicidal in almost every way.

With that point made, what politicians do, with or without the mob, is write laws - more and more laws every day. And, with every new law something becomes newly criminalized that wasn't before. Therefore, the more laws that are written/passed there is an increase in the number of things that become illegal. At the current pace, eventually there will be no way to live and act without doing something against some law. For example, the tax code is so complex that it is takes up approximately 75,000 pages when printed.  For this reason, a law-abiding citizen has to hire a CPA (and pay them hourly fees) just in order to comply with the myriad of complexities in the law. Imagine that – you have to hire someone just to help you understand and follow the law. Should laws be so numerous and so complex that you must afford to hire someone just to avoid being a criminal? Are we being set up for slavery under tyranny ushered in by our own votes?

Where am I going with these two seemingly unrelated points? Well, America is increasingly becoming ruled by the mob rather than the law. And, one of the latest mobs to emerge is the mob screaming for jail and punishment for climate change deniers. All that is left is for our government to appease the mob as they have done over and over again. In fact, in some cases laws don’t even have to be passed to bully those on the unpopular side of thought. For example, this month, the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a subpoena to Exxon Mobil alleging that the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change. The subpoena is demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents (a.k.a. an abusive fishing expedition). The same Attorney General has also been investigating Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal producer, for two years over whether it properly disclosed financial risks related to climate change. Why can the Attorney General do this you might ask. Well, because politicians passed more laws giving him the authority to do so in response to the climate change mob. More specifically, the state of New York passed the Martin Act, which confers on the Attorney General excessively broad powers to investigate financial fraud. And, that is how mobocracy in America happens over the screams of dying democracy.

In June of this year, citing the example of prosecution against the tobacco industry, a sitting U.S. Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat, Rhode Island), made the serious suggestion that we as a society use anti-racketeering laws to prosecute global warming skeptics (a.k.a. threat of jail unless you change the way you think). Imagine that - using laws meant to thwart "The Mob" in order to silence a group of law-abiding citizens. But, what if the majority within the scientific community is misleading the public about climate change? If true, given the implications, couldn’t that be deemed more immoral? Is the climate change hoax truly a moral position, or the most immoral position one can have on the issue? Have you stopped to consider how many lives have been saved as a result of fossil fuels? How many people would have died and will die without fossil fuels? How many hospitals will run without fossil fuels? How many ambulances, firetrucks and police cars will run without fossil fuels? How many medicines, foods, goods and necessities will be delivered without fossil fuels? Did you know that the average American lives approximately 1,500 miles from their food source? Without fossil fuels, how many of us will die of starvation? How many technical innovations that have vastly improved the quality and duration of life would have been invented and produced without fossil fuels? Follow the logical implication of falsely agreeing that what humans exhale (CO2) is actually a pollutant – where does such a foolish conclusion lead? Who truly has the high moral ground? I don’t know about you, but I stand for human life first and foremost (a.k.a. humane). All else is at best a distant second. And, the hyper-theoretical threat to human life from climate change ranks at the bottom of all threats on practically every measure. If those opposed to freedom have their way, we will lose more than just our freedom - the vast majority of us will lose our livelihood and our lives.

Only an immoral mob would seek to criminalize thoughts. Are you in the mob of those aligned with criminalizing “deniers”? Before you answer that question, realize that “denier” is not a scientific term. “Denier” is a term of dogma. Challenging the scientific position of the majority is not denial – it is challenge. And, science by its nature, must constantly welcome challenge, not silence it. For example, was Albert Einstein a Newtonian Physics denier? Of course not. Rather, Einstein challenged certain tenets of Newtonian Physics with what became known as his theories of General Relativity. As a result, science was advanced not denied. “Denier” is a pejorative term meant to shame people into agreeing with the mob by threat of jail.

The rule of the mob is becoming the rule and no longer the exception. That means the mob will become even more violently persistent that we all worship what they decide that we should. Christian, we will have a choice to either deny God or deny man. Choose wisely.

You can purchase the book "Reason If You Will - How To Answer Questions Regarding Faith" by clicking HERE. Profits go to Camp Bahamas. You can also follow @ReasonIfYouWill on Twitter.