Russ, I don't think your argument works. If you're basing your anti-Green claim on the (necessarily) limited number of Greens with whom you've spoken, all I need to do to refute it is to come up with one Green who can make an argument against your claim based in green theory and party platforms. Now, it is clearly false for you to claim that "all the greens argue about...." Once again, all I need to do is provide another question about which Green argue in order to refute your claim.
Nw, you're claim about authoritarianism is sort of an interesting one. Are all policies prima facie authoritarian? Are you equating authoritarianism with 'required by law?' What exactly are you trying to say? Perhaps this is a question of US vs. UK Greens? Yours, Frances Bolton
> All the Greens I've come across, argue that to defend the planet, people
> must be controlled in some way. Faced with the consumption of resources
> they argue that some measure of authoritarianism is needed to keep the
> pesky humans under control for the good of said planet. I reject this
> control, whereas all the Greens argue about, is the degree of control
> needed to keep humanity in order. Deeply suspect, and deeply anti-humanist
> in my book.
>
>
> Russ
>
> >
> >what BS!...
>
>
> >"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.
>
>
>
>
>