Here's a research paper out of The University of Cambridge that seriously, actually argues that it might be a good idea to use authoritarianism, starting as soon as possible, to deal with the climate "crisis."
I am gravely concerned about this paper. The fact that a research paper from one of the most prominent universities in the world is outright arguing for authoritarianism is just beyond me.
But I'm sure many, many leftists will be on board with crazy ideas like this one.
Because, SCIENCE!!
Here's some text from the article concerning personal freedom:
From the perspective of political legitimacy, ensuring safety and security may, at times, justify relaxing or suspending strict adherence to certain democratic processes or individual rights.
Although the idea of such trade-offs will strike many as troubling, we should note that they already comprise a nearly ubiquitous—if often only implicit—element of contemporary political practice. In times of war, for instance, authoritarian impositions of power, including those that curtail democratic processes or basic rights, are often thought legitimate to the extent they are necessary for protecting citizens and restoring normal conditions. Likewise, as those who have survived COVID-19 can attest, during a health emergency, severe and enduring limitations of rights to free movement, association, and speech can become legitimate techniques of government, even in robustly liberal-democratic states.
So basically, he argues, when emergencies come along our governments must naturally move toward authoritarianism in order to fix these problems. And I agree. That's true. Sometimes you just gotta fix stuff.
But people aren't buying into the climate narrative and are voting down measures that would force them to drastically change their lives under totalitarian government control.
Apparently, that's a problem...
Democratic publics have, on multiple occasions, defeated (via referendum or protest) even modest carbon taxes.
If only that pesky things called democracy and inherent rights would go away!
Free-speech rights in many countries have made regulating harmful climate denial and disinformation campaigns virtually impossible. Likewise, the primacy of individual autonomy has at times rendered even minor interventions (e.g., around lightbulbs, fuel efficiency standards, or diets) extremely contentious, and more ambitious policies (like population control) totally unthinkable.
Given this, liberal-democratic governments (and theorists) must confront the bleak possibility that responding to the existential threat of climate change at this late stage may require relaxing or suspending adherence to some of the most widely shared [contingent legitimacy] standards and embracing authoritarian power.
Embracing authoritarian power.
I repeat, this man is arguing for governments o use authoritarian power, starting right now, in order to overthrow democracies using climate as an excuse.
Oh, and there's no timeline for when the crisis will be over.
This is insane, and it's exactly what conservatives have been warning about for years when it comes to global warming, or whatever they're calling it now.
Here's more:
Given all of this, it is clear why—often at the behest of committed activists—hundreds of governments, representing a combined 798 million people, have declared a "climate emergency." While these declarations are symbolically significant, they have rarely been paired with serious action. If this does not change soon, many states face the prospect of intense near-term shocks, scarcity, and violence, and all risk political catastrophe and collapse in the long-term. In this sense, it appears that climate change constitutes a full-scale legitimacy crisis, even for otherwise legitimate governments.
For if we take the imperative of ensuring safety and security to be a necessary condition of legitimacy, as I have been arguing we should, then it follows that those governments that do not undertake adequate climate action are, for that reason, illegitimate regardless of their commitments to liberal-democratic values or other normative virtues.
And by "adequate climate action," you mean…?
Oh yeah, authoritarianism.
Governments that do not undertake authoritarian climate action are illegitimate, according to this Cambridge research paper.
Here are some suggestions for this new, sunshine-and-lollipops-style authoritarianism offered up by this research paper:
For one, governments might impel citizens to make significant lifestyle changes. One pertinent example concerns curbing meat-heavy diets…
We may also imagine a censorship regime that prevents the proliferation of climate denialism or disinformation in public media…
Governments might also justifiably limit certain democratic institutions and processes to the extent these bear on the promulgation or implementation of environmental policy.
So basically, full-blown 1984.
Yeah well, good luck trying that on the American people. We saw how that turned out with Covid.
Ain't gonna work!
The rest of the world?
Sorry, you failed the test, and now they know you'll comply.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
