Cambridge Research Paper Pushes ‘Authoritarian Power’ to Halt ‘Climate Change’ – Opinion

First, it was “global warming.” When that didn’t get the job done — it didn’t cover enough weather-related events — they went with the more inclusive “climate change.” And now, “the existential threat of our time.”

Welp, apparently there are still too many “climate deniers” out there, fighting the climate loonsEvery step of the journey is a challenge for climate-conscious people. So what’s the climate-change crowd to do?

A recent University of Cambridge study found that they can suspend at most part of the U.S. Constitution and implement authoritarian control to do what the hell they like. Any questions?

This actual Cambridge research paper argues that in order to solve climate change we need to take an “authoritarian approach” and go full-blown 1984 😑 https://t.co/mMk6A170ra

— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) January 6, 2022

The paper’s author begins with the question, “Is authoritarian power ever legitimate?”

Interesting question, the answer of which in part is also a question: “Held by whom for what purpose(s?” The other part of the answer, as it relates to government, is “No.” And when held by left-wing loons who are hellbent on forcing their policies on society, the answer is an emphatic “Oh hell no.”

Author Ross Mittiga writes:

Is authoritarian power ever legitimate? The contemporary political theory literature — which largely conceptualizes legitimacy in terms of democracy or basic rights —would seem to suggest not. I argue, however, that there exists another, overlooked aspect of legitimacy concerning a government’s ability to ensure safety and security.

Mittiga suggests that while under normal conditions, “maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, emergency situations” call for emergency actions.

There are often conflicts between the two parts of legitimacy. This is evident in the COVID-19 Pandemic. During which strict restrictions on freedom of movement and association were legal techniques of government, this was a prime example.

The public’s safety is being threatened by climate change. Accordingly, legitimacy might require an equally authoritarian approach. This is a disturbing sign of the political significance climate action. [Huh?]

If we are to avoid authoritarian powers being legitimized, then we need to act now to ensure that crises do not arise.

Ah! That is the last sentence. Faux intellectualism. Fake intellectualism is the go-to for the elite left.

Also this:

Sometimes, it may be justified to relax or suspend strict compliance with certain democratic processes and individual rights from the point of view of political legitimacy.

Even worse. The ridiculous “logic,” I mean.

In wartime, for example, the imposition of authoritarian power over citizens, even those that limit democratic processes and basic rights is often considered legal to the extent necessary for restoring normal conditions.

It is also possible, according to those who were able to survive COVID-19, that severe and persistent limitations on rights of free movement, association, speech, and speech, can be made legitimate government techniques even within liberal-democratic countries.

Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin furiously nod in agreement.

This guy is missing the point. The strong majority of people support government actions to defeat an enemy in times of war. But, “climate change”?

In 2021, there was a steady flow of @UNReaffirming the message of man-made: -backed reports #ClimateChange is an urgent & even existential threat to life on Earth.

Time for meaning #ClimateAction.

Via @UN_News_Centre https://t.co/02wZoBDN6Z

— UN Environment Programme (@UNEP) January 6, 2022

The ceding of constitutionally-guaranteed individual rights to the totalitarian control of the left for anything?Less Climate change Yeah, no.

People believe climate change is increasing natural disasters. However, data shows that they actually decreased by 10% over two decades. pic.twitter.com/lpWbWSQZQf

— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) January 6, 2022

However, the right to free speech must also be eliminated.

In many countries, free-speech rights have rendered it nearly impossible to control climate denial and disinformation campaigns. […]

Liberal-democratic governments and theorists must face the grim possibility of responding to climate change’s existential threat at this late stage. This may mean that they need to relax or suspend their adherence to certain widely shared principles. [contingent legitimacy]To adopt authoritarian power and standards

Okay, we get it. And more importantly where he wants us to go. He drones on ad nauseam in his research paper, but we’re going to stop the nonsense now. The entire paper can be found here.

This left-wing loon and his equally loony research paper should shock no one; it simply “says the quiet part out loud” [hate that overused saying]The ultimate goal of left.

As I’ve written in the past, when Democrats don’t win, their first inclination is to cheat. (See: “election fraud.”) When cheating doesn’t work, they attempt to change the rules. Opposition to voter ID and lax mail-in voting regulations, packing Supreme Court, elimination of the Electoral College, et. al.

And if “all of the above” fails to get the job done? This guy spelled it out clearly: “relaxing or suspending adherence to some of the most widely shared [contingent legitimacy] standards and embracing authoritarian power.”

Two words: You should try it. 

RedState is related to:

There Is No Evidence Linking Tornadoes to ‘Climate Change,’ but That Doesn’t Stop the Ghoulish Fearmongering

Pelosi Calls $550 Billion Climate Change Spending a ‘Religious Thing’

Canadian Doctor Diagnoses Patient With… ‘Climate Change’ — No, Really

Joe Biden Gives A Planeload of Cabinet, Aides and Support to Europe in Combating Climate Change

Democrats’ Climate Change Predictions May Not Materialize — but Their Taxes Undoubtedly Will