what BS! it's the same kind of thing as "Marxists are all closet totalitarians" or "Feminists are secret advocates of mass castrations" or "all gays engage in irresponsible sexual behavior..." Sweeping statements of this sort don't help rational discussion at all.
The fact is that _some_ Greens are "Authoritarian." Many if not most are not. There's a wide variety of different kinds of people and different kinds of visions within the Green movement(s), just as there is tremendous heterogeneity amongst Marxists, Feminists, gays, etc. To ignore the heterogeneity is to think in terms of idealist stereotypes.
It would make more sense if we were to be much more specific, e.g., "the Malthusian wing of the Greens, especially Paul Ehrlich, leans heavily toward authoritarianism" or "the vision that non-human species are just as important as humanity implies a deeply anti-democratic view." Or whatever. These are the kinds of statements that can actually be discussed and defended. These also can open the way to some sort of Red/Green synthesis, something Mr. Gnome's original statement does not.
LBO-talkative today,
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html "There's nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine... Been here 4 1/2 billion years. We've been here, what a 100,000 years, maybe 200,000. And we've only engaged in heavy industry a little over 200 years. 200 years vs. 4 1/2 billion. And we have the conceit to think that somehow we're a threat? The planet isn't going away. We are." -- George Carlin.