Global Warming Ads Banned In Ireland

[JohnRgt 0]

This link was posted elsewhere.

DUBLIN — Northern Ireland's environment minister announced Monday he has banned the local broadcast of British government ads on climate change and denounced their energy-saving message as "insidious propaganda."

[David T. McKee 0]

Makes me proud to be of Irish ancestry. Think I'll go pour some used motor oil on a red-ant hill out back and light it up to celebrate...

[bborg 0]

I must admit that my initial feeling was positive, and then had to correct myself because censorship only cedes to environmentalists their belief in thought control. The government should refuse to act on viro propoganda, but it has absolutely no business forcing television networks to stop airing the nonsense. This just turns the activists into martyrs. And the irony is they will probably use this to support their crusade against capitalism, even though this couldn't be a better example of socialism (the system they advocate).

[David T. McKee 0]

Ah - good point, I am not that familiar with the governmental system of Ireland - but restricting freedom of private networks as to what they air is definitely bad. I guess if the case was: "Government Funded Global Warming Ads Banned in Ireland"... that would be great.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Banning ads (short of incitement to riot) is a thoroughly bad idea.

ruveyn

[styg50 0]

Does anyone think it matters that they were "government ads" that were banned? I don't really know what that means, except that the article indicates they were assembled, distributed and paid for by government, but should government be able to limit its own "freedoms", or in this case, what other governments are allowed to do within its borders (Ireland has some autonomy, but is considered part of the UK)?

I don't think the issue is a simple one of censorship... The government agency here charged with distributing the ads and the stations that are being paid to air them aren't exactly laissez-faire--the government is robbing its people to pay for these advertisements, including the Irish, whose representation is refusing to let their citizenry be further attacked.

Even if the TV station agreed with and wanted to air the propaganda, what right do they have to accept government subsidies to support their views?

I am not sure of the motives of the Irish politicians (the article mentions that they believe the earth is cooling, not warming, but not whether they believe it is manmade or natural), but it seems to me that the end result was the proper thing to do.

[bborg 0]

I don't think the issue is a simple one of censorship... The government agency here charged with distributing the ads and the stations that are being paid to air them aren't exactly laissez-faire--the government is robbing its people to pay for these advertisements, including the Irish, whose representation is refusing to let their citizenry be further attacked.

In other words, criminalize the receipt of subsidies as they are in fact stolen goods? I think I could get behind that.

However, for that to be the policy the government would have to be clear that the essential characteristic of the crime is the source of funds, not the ideas in the ad. Yet Wilson clearly banned the ads not because they were subsidized but because they were ideas he disagreed with. We may approve of his evaluation of global warming, but his action was censorship and not an opposition to taxation. The man holds the post of "environment minister", so his very career is a theft of his citizens' property and livelihood. There's no sense in which the ban advances freedom in Northern Ireland, rather than infringes on it.

[Stussy88 0]

I don't think the issue is a simple one of censorship... The government agency here charged with distributing the ads and the stations that are being paid to air them aren't exactly laissez-faire--the government is robbing its people to pay for these advertisements, including the Irish, whose representation is refusing to let their citizenry be further attacked.

In other words, criminalize the receipt of subsidies as they are in fact stolen goods? I think I could get behind that.

However, for that to be the policy the government would have to be clear that the essential characteristic of the crime is the source of funds, not the ideas in the ad. Yet Wilson clearly banned the ads not because they were subsidized but because they were ideas he disagreed with. We may approve of his evaluation of global warming, but his action was censorship and not an opposition to taxation. The man holds the post of "environment minister", so his very career is a theft of his citizens' property and livelihood. There's no sense in which the ban advances freedom in Northern Ireland, rather than infringes on it.

There are a great many things in Northern Ireland that infringe on the freedom of people, this is small beer, but to the substantive, he has done the right thing for the wrong reasons.

In order to be morally consistent, Wilson should support a ban on all government propaganda from 'turn your lights off' to 'quit smoking' and including everything in between. In the modern UK this is a substantial body of hectoring. From the top of my head

~ don't smoke

~ don't drink too much (no more than 21 units for a man)

~ eat at least five pieces of fruit and vegetables a day

~ don't drive a car

~ buy a car (but presumably don't drive it? ~ seriously, a recent one in light of the downturn)

~ exercise more

~ use public transport

~ don't discriminate

~ don't eat too much salt

~ love public services (like crappy schools and public hospitals)

~ PAY YOUR TAXES ON TIME!

~ don't take goods through customs for anyone else

~ look at the energy rating of white goods

~ insulate your home

~ don't carry a knife

~ report a benefits cheat

~ report an illegal immigrant

~ don't put your garbage out a day early (sic)

However, he has a narrow band of responsibility so I will give him two cheers. That said, NI politics is beset with crazy monotheism and he is no exception so perhaps only one cheer.

[AdamM 0]

However, for that to be the policy the government would have to be clear that the essential characteristic of the crime is the source of funds, not the ideas in the ad. Yet Wilson clearly banned the ads not because they were subsidized but because they were ideas he disagreed with. We may approve of his evaluation of global warming, but his action was censorship and not an opposition to taxation. The man holds the post of "environment minister", so his very career is a theft of his citizens' property and livelihood. There's no sense in which the ban advances freedom in Northern Ireland, rather than infringes on it.

Sharp analysis! I agree with this -- if he doesn't at least oppose all forms of government preaching ideas to its populace, he has no basis.

[bborg 0]

In order to be morally consistent, Wilson should support a ban on all government propaganda from 'turn your lights off' to 'quit smoking' and including everything in between. In the modern UK this is a substantial body of hectoring. From the top of my head

Why does it seem that Brits are more comfortable with Big Brother than the Americans and Australians? Or is my perception wrong on this?

[Rose Lake 0]

Looks like censorship squared. Two government entities competing over what government-generated propaganda the people will be presented with.

[Vespasiano 0]

In order to be morally consistent, Wilson should support a ban on all government propaganda from 'turn your lights off' to 'quit smoking' and including everything in between. In the modern UK this is a substantial body of hectoring. From the top of my head

Why does it seem that Brits are more comfortable with Big Brother than the Americans and Australians? Or is my perception wrong on this?

Britain's is, today as in the past, a monarchical society in which class, hereditary status, and a deference to both persist though perhaps in somewhat diminished forms. Put another way: the world of "Upstairs, Downstairs" may be long gone, but many of its attitudes remain. I suspect this is as difficult for an American to understand as it is for the "typical" British citizen to perceive in his own day-to-day social interactions. Having lived in England for a time, however, I was quite surprised to discover just how "automatic" is the tendency towards (1) deference to supposed "betters" on the one hand and (2) dismissal (though frequently with the most studiously refined of manners, of course) of supposed "inferiors" on the other.

I would not be surprised to learn that this has something to do with the Big Brother comfort you mention.

[Stussy88 0]

In order to be morally consistent, Wilson should support a ban on all government propaganda from 'turn your lights off' to 'quit smoking' and including everything in between. In the modern UK this is a substantial body of hectoring. From the top of my head

Why does it seem that Brits are more comfortable with Big Brother than the Americans and Australians? Or is my perception wrong on this?

Sadly I have to agree, a great many years of post war socialism and/or paternal/patrician toryism has made a great many of us into docile chattels who do what we are told.

Combine that with straight propaganda in education and a state-funded TV network massively sympathetic to the leftist agenda, a broadly unaccountable executive and many people don't care, don't think and do as they are told. Apart from a brief period in the 1980's I don't think individualism has ever really been encouraged.

[David T. McKee 0]

Why does it seem that Brits are more comfortable with Big Brother than the Americans and Australians? Or is my perception wrong on this?

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. - Thomas Jefferson 1776.

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. - Massachusetts Constitution 1780

- and that is (or at least was) the heart of American thinking.

[bborg 0]

- and that is (or at least was) the heart of American thinking.

Yes, but the question is why it didn't become the heart of British thinking after their defeat. Did they never recognize the truth of these principles? America grew from a collection of poor colonies to the world's greatest economic power. I think it's interesting reading the thread on Australia that American television shows and movies seem to dominate the media in other English speaking countries. Europeans frequently criticize Americans for believing they are the center of the universe but, well, we are in many respects. Of all countries I would have expected England to understand why.

[Stussy88 0]

- and that is (or at least was) the heart of American thinking.

Yes, but the question is why it didn't become the heart of British thinking after their defeat. Did they never recognize the truth of these principles? America grew from a collection of poor colonies to the world's greatest economic power. I think it's interesting reading the thread on Australia that American television shows and movies seem to dominate the media in other English speaking countries. Europeans frequently criticize Americans for believing they are the center of the universe but, well, we are in many respects. Of all countries I would have expected England to understand why.

"we are in many respects"

Perhaps the past tense is more appropraite.

None of you will like me saying this, but just as the 19th century was England's and it took us a long time to realise that we had been over taken in the world, the 20th century was America's. The 21st century wil not be. The shattering budget deficit and current accound deficit, combined with credible rivals will destroy American leadership just as debt destroyed ours. It will be hard to accept, as it was (and is) for us, you will deny it for years, perhaps decades, but the century of Americana is over.

It doesn't have to be so. A return to first principles would energise you as never before, but that is not a remote prospect.

Tell me honestly, you don't see decay and decadence everywhere?

I hate saying this.

[KurtColville 0]

- and that is (or at least was) the heart of American thinking.

Yes, but the question is why it didn't become the heart of British thinking after their defeat. Did they never recognize the truth of these principles? America grew from a collection of poor colonies to the world's greatest economic power. I think it's interesting reading the thread on Australia that American television shows and movies seem to dominate the media in other English speaking countries. Europeans frequently criticize Americans for believing they are the center of the universe but, well, we are in many respects. Of all countries I would have expected England to understand why.

"we are in many respects"

Perhaps the past tense is more appropraite.

None of you will like me saying this, but just as the 19th century was England's and it took us a long time to realise that we had been over taken in the world, the 20th century was America's. The 21st century wil not be. The shattering budget deficit and current accound deficit, combined with credible rivals will destroy American leadership just as debt destroyed ours. It will be hard to accept, as it was (and is) for us, you will deny it for years, perhaps decades, but the century of Americana is over.

It doesn't have to be so. A return to first principles would energise you as never before, but that is not a remote prospect.

Tell me honestly, you don't see decay and decadence everywhere?

I hate saying this.

I hate it, too, but I don't hate you for saying it. It's true and it matters, so that makes it important to say. No one can live successfully if in denial. America is definitely on the decline, and while it probably won't be her century, I don't have a clue whose it will be. As you say, it doesn't have to be this way (for any country), but before a country can fix its problems, it must identify them as problems, and America is still miles from doing that. I do see the decay everywhere, but rather than decadence, the other big poison I see is the tolerance of evil.

[bborg 0]

Tell me honestly, you don't see decay and decadence everywhere?

I hate saying this.

Even during the 20th we were only moving on inertia, and now the brakes have set in. But if there was another country to take our place, I'd cheer her on (if not move there myself). It's only the fact that there isn't that makes this so depressing. It won't quite be like the collapse of Rome, which plunged the world into the Dark Ages, but if America falls everyone's going to feel it. And I don't just mean because of its economic effects. I really believe that it's fear of America, the world's now only superpower, that has kept much of the world safe.

[AdamM 0]

Even during the 20th we were only moving on inertia, and now the brakes have set in. But if there was another country to take our place, I'd cheer her on (if not move there myself). It's only the fact that there isn't that makes this so depressing. It won't quite be like the collapse of Rome, which plunged the world into the Dark Ages, but if America falls everyone's going to feel it. And I don't just mean because of its economic effects. I really believe that it's fear of America, the world's now only superpower, that has kept much of the world safe.

You're right. And I wouldn't want to be South Korea, Israel, Japan, or Taiwan if America goes. It may not as bad as the dark ages, since there are many technologically advanced countries, or the disappearance of America's stabilizing influence might lead to tens or hundreds of millions of deaths. Countries which resented America while she was the dominant force might learn the hard way what she really was -- a godsend to the Earth.

[Stussy88 0]

Even during the 20th we were only moving on inertia, and now the brakes have set in. But if there was another country to take our place, I'd cheer her on (if not move there myself). It's only the fact that there isn't that makes this so depressing. It won't quite be like the collapse of Rome, which plunged the world into the Dark Ages, but if America falls everyone's going to feel it. And I don't just mean because of its economic effects. I really believe that it's fear of America, the world's now only superpower, that has kept much of the world safe.

You're right. And I wouldn't want to be South Korea, Israel, Japan, or Taiwan if America goes. It may not as bad as the dark ages, since there are many technologically advanced countries, or the disappearance of America's stabilizing influence might lead to tens or hundreds of millions of deaths. Countries which resented America while she was the dominant force might learn the hard way what she really was -- a godsend to the Earth.

It is the default assumption that China takes the lead but this ignores the internal stresses of a country like China. The various regional movements make Iraq look homogenous. China could break up and possibly bloodily.

The Russians were, are and are likely to remain a gangster/feifdom. Despite natural resources their impact will be marginal except in their immediate sphere.

India might do something, but again, the various regional and religous tensions are a massive internal threat.

FORGET the EU. This is a bureacracy gone mad, Europe will sink under the burden.

Some of the more robust countries like say Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore are too small to have a major impact.

All the countries you mention (South Korea, Israel, Japan, Taiwan) are under real threat if the US reduces and were I South Korea, Japan and Taiwan along with say Singapore, I would start a serious and major military expansion along with a cast-iron defensive alliance. I might also develop some nukes.

Overall I think your analysis is right, there really is no-one to obviously step-up and fragmantation will abound everywhere along with localised populist military adventures.

[PhilO 0]

Overall I think your analysis is right, there really is no-one to obviously step-up and fragmantation will abound everywhere along with localised populist military adventures.

I'm inclined to think that China will keep growing, since the West so kindly provided enough industrial infrastructure to make a large fraction of the stuff used in the world and America now owes it $2 trillion and counting (yes, really.)

But, if every country in the world suffers a big hit and can no longer pose the threat of a world government, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

the 20th century was America's. The 21st century wil not be.

My prediction: The 21st century will belong to that country which now has the greatest number of Objectivists and the greatest exposure to Objectivism in the media, in the schools, and in academia.