A contradiction in my thinking?

How can I be an anarchist or a libertarian in tendency and hence sceptical about states and state power, when I am also most definitely a Green and an environmentalist?

This apparent contradiction comes about because it is surely the case that solving environmental problems at present will require state power, whether exercised by states alone or by states in groups?

I think that individual action is also part of the solution to the environmental problems that we face.
Empowering individuals will definitely help with environmental problems. But surely power will need to be exercised in the form of legislation by states to enforce measures that protect the environment?

There was an opinion piece in a newspaper in the 1989 that was entitled "Beware the Stalins of Greenery." The belief that Green politics potentially involved a coercive strand was around then. Well I felt that the kind of thinking articles like this exemplify, to be scare-mongering by capitalists who feel their interests threatened, and I believe this kind of thinking to be wholly unjustified and falacious. I have never felt that there is any kind of  undemocratic tendency within Green politics. On the contrary.

But there is a quandary here - surely urgent action is needed to save the planet. If this action involves using power to force people to take certain actions or not take certain actions, is it then justified if the end is to save the environment or improve the environment?

I would say that measures to save the environment should be taken democratically and as a result of the will of individuals to save the planet.

Green politics are potentially more popular than present politics allows for.
More freedom for individuals and hence also more democracy would be good for the environment and I think would increase the popularity of environmental measures.
The Green Party has a potential 100% vote all across the world.
Education about the environment is also important.

It is possible for freedom and real democracy to coincide with saving and protecting the environment. And this is what I stand for.

I do admit this apparent contradiction and it is certainly worth thinking about. I also admit that I haven't necessarily fully solved the problem with my thinking.

I am not an anarchist if it means outright opposition to every manifestation of the state. I am a libertarian.
I believe that state authority may have a role to play in saving the planet's environment.





..........

I am opposed to Islamism

Surely a reason why some Islamists hate "the West"and "Westerners" is very simple - Islamism.
Surely a reason why ISIS emerged is Islamism.
What caused Islamism? One origin of it is Islam itself - the religion which inspires it.
Islamism needs to be vocally opposed by the Left across the world, regardless of its causes.
Speaking as someone on the Left, I have problems with the whole concept of "the West" as I have discussed elsewhere.
And - as expressed in another blog - I regard the USA and England as recently having perpetrated an anti-Semitic (in its literal meaning) genocide on Iraq since 1991. I am opposed to anti-Semitic racism of every kind.
But being anti-racist and pro-human rights does not mean I have to support religion of any kind.
I am opposed to persecution and hatred of people because of their beliefs or religion, but that does not mean I have to support any belief or religion.
It is possible to be peacefully opposed to a belief without being intolerant of a person or a group. In fact it is very important that we are allowed to be.

I fully support human rights. I regard myself as being on the Left. And I do not regard it as left-wing to unquestioningly support the rights of any religion.
Religion is bullshit. A major part of religious liberty and freedom of belief is the right to peacefully oppose any or all religion. And this freedom should be exercised for it to be maintained. The criticism of religion is vital for human progress.

There are those of us on the Left who do think that Islamism is not entirely caused by U.S. imperialism, and is at least partly caused by Islam itself.

Why is being opposed to Islam - or any religion - regarded as being right-wing?
We need to say that we are left wing and opposed to religion loudly and clearly.
And we need to develop this line of thinking.

The right and the extreme right can too easily contend that the Left is the same thing as Islamism.
They are indeed doing this very vocally.

We need to allow for left-wing criticism of Islamism and also of Islam.
And we should not allow the Left to in any way support the intolerable in the name of tolerance.

I am not a part of the so-called Regressive Left.
Regressive Left
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left

Why is it OK for progressives and the Left in general to criticize Christianity, but not OK for it to criticize Islam in any way?

Philosophy and Boxing.

"A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring." - Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Incidentally, like some medical doctors I think boxing should be banned.
I also think E.C.T. should be banned. All medical doctors should think this.