I don't like other people telling me what to do.

One of the reasons I abhor communitarianism (and tend to see my political philosophy as the opposite of that) is because it vests communitarian thinkers with the self appointed power to tell me (and others) what to do. Provided, of course, that they come up with a claim to do so in the name of what they call "the common good." "For the good of all." It's utilitarianism on stilts.

(Yeah, I'm making fun of Bentham who said that the idea of "natural rights" is "nonsense on stilts." Perhaps out of respect I should call communitarianism "nonsense on steroids.")

Anyway, my fear and loathing of communitarianism is not merely grounded in the fact that communitarians would tell me what to do. They would also disregard the Constitution, which they see as something there to be interpreted for the good of all (anything that "promotes the general welfare" is fine) -- something in many ways analogous to the idea that "Natural Law" supersedes the Constitution whether we can define it or not.

Far from being a fringe philosophy, communitarianism is fast becoming the law of the land which will not only supersede the Constitution, but which is poised to reach out and touch every single one of us and restrict our lives in countless myriad of ways -- simply because a group of people have decided they know what is in the common good.

The source of today's soon-to-be-ascendant total communitarianism (would that be "communitarian totalitarianism"?) can be summed up in two words:

GLOBAL WARMING.

It is the best thing to hit communitarian thinking since theocracy.

Depending on how you look at it, Global Warming Theory might even be a form of theocracy, and I don't mean because it's a form of earth worship, but because it shares something in common with all religious dogma.

I'm including atheism as a religion even though some would disagree, because as I've touched on before, atheism, though it denies the existence of deities, does so in an assertive manner similar to believers in deities. What atheism and theism have in common is that they are ways of explaining the unknown. Both posit that the unknown is knowable, and that they know it.

I realize that I am oversimplifying here, and I should be more careful to delineate the distinction between knowledge and belief. I do not consider my belief in God to be a form of "knowledge" because I cannot assert that I know to a certainty that which is not truly knowable. Technically, belief cannot be said to be knowledge. Because I admit that belief in something unknowable is one of life's greatest challenges, it is tough for me to sit in judgment on those who have differences with each other based on disagreements over the unknown. I might wish they didn't go at it as they do, but they have every right to argue over the unknown into all eternity.

What I do not like (and what to me is theocracy) is when any individual or group posits that a particular theory or explanation of the unknown gives it an exclusive right to rule. Thus, I find the idea of Christian theocracy repellent, as I do Sharia, or state-enforced atheism. (If forced to live under one of these theocracies, as I've said before I'd take my chances under even the worst Christian theocracy over the others. I'd rather live under Torquemada than Stalin. And yes, choosing Dobson over Khomeini would be a no-brainer.)

I've lived more than half a century, and I have yet to see any system of control based on a theory of the unknown which promises to be as all-encompassing as the theory of Global Warming. That's because we are creatures of carbon, both producers and consumers of it.

Any theory declaring carbon to be a poison declares all of us to be poison, and all of our activities to be poisonous. By doing this, Global Warming Theory is the ultimate trump card. It will reach out and touch every one of us, in every and any way imaginable and in ways none of us ever imagined.

(Interestingly, most Global Warming communitarians would probably see their view of thinking as grounded in "natural law," which they'd probably define differently, although I bet Locke could be cited in support of man limiting his fellow man's ability to poison him and other men. Once you posit carbon as a poison, it all flows "naturally." What a utopian communitarian's delight!)

Most of us clucked and chuckled over the widely circulated news item about divorce being bad for the environment. I'm sorry to say that it struck me as so tired as to not even merit one of my usual comical or sarcastic blog posts.

The thing is, I already threw over a half a dozen hissy fits over the fact that the Global Warming Theorists were largely ignoring the importance of giving up meat despite the fact that their own theory claims this is a bigger cause of "warming" than cars.

What irritated me was their opportunism. They don't want to cause a mass rejection of the damned theory that is poised to take over before it has. It's similar to the way Communists will deny the ultimate goals of Communism (or even that they are Communists) until they're solidly in power, at which point the nationalizing and the construction of reeducation gulags begin in earnest.

But the meat stuff is absolutely serious. So, for that matter is the divorce stuff, which should not have been laughed off as it was. The fact is, the theory is all encompassing, and if carried to its logical conclusions, would entitle government to restrict meat eating, divorce, and just about any activity imaginable. (Has anyone thought about the carbon footprint of football games? Rock concerts? Yes, they have, but I don't expect to see headlines the sports and entertainment pages.... Not just yet!)

Ultimately, Global Warming Theory means the triumph of radical communitarian totalitarianism. It is a form of theocracy based on a system of beliefs involving the unknown.

Fortunately, we still have the Constitition to protect us against such systems from becoming ascendant.

This is not to say that Global Warming Theory might not, like any form of religion or atheism, turn out to be true. But even if it were proven beyond any doubt that we are all mutually poisoning each other by our very lives and existences, that does not vest the government with any new power beyond what it has.

If mass regulation of human activity is required to save man from himself, the proper way to do that in this country is by constitutional amendment giving the government the vast and sweeping new powers it would need.

Good luck getting it through.

I hope I never live to see it.

UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, Orin Kerr links an interesting piece about "Green Hannuka":

In a campaign that has spread like wildfire across the Internet, a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukka to help the environment.

The founders of the Green Hanukkia campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.

I'd say banning Christmas trees to stop Global Warming is the conspicuously communitarian thing to do.

Or is it? Read this first!

If you're still dreaming of a white Christmas, wake up. Green, environmental types insist, is the new white.

Fake trees unleash a never-ending assault on the environment, the eco-friendlies say. They're made of plastic, whose destructive manufacturing process contributes to global warming. They linger in landfills year after year, contributing to the buildup of those noxious mountains. Anyone who has been on the Bishop Ford lately knows all about that.

A fresh-cut, live tree is better for the environment -- or is it? Doesn't that amount to tree murder or at least seem counterintuitive? Thanks to some tree-planting quid pro quo, live trees are, indeed, preferred. The Christmas tree industry plants two trees for every one cut down to pretty up the house around the holidays.

UPDATE: Michael Wade at A Second Hand Conjecture has some very kind words about this post and some additional insight. Don't miss his post!