Green subsidies and social change theory

Subsidies slow green energy growth

Advocates for green energy investment gloss over a few important points: Job creation is not synonymous with wealth creation, government investment is another form of corporate welfare and government investment is usually, if not always, inefficient.

I love the false dichotomy of vote or do nothing. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how social change progresses. Social change begins with individuals, with ideas. The political system is reflective of societal ideas, beliefs and actions. Voting to cause change is blaming the wet ground for the rain.

This sort of thinking is exactly why the Obama administration failed to change anything (except kill more foreign and impoverished brown people, while infringing upon civil and economic liberties to a greater degree than the Bush administration). Aside from the fact that campaign Obama is a separate and distinct person from president Obama, his supporters tried to change society with coercion. Before anything, ideas need to develop and be defended to have any political effect. Look at the Fabian Socialists in England or William F. Buckley leading the conservative shift in American politics, among many other examples. Political changes are lagging, not leading indicators.

That being said, I think bringing Paul, Johnson, etc. to campuses is a great thing. That’s an educational forum and provides an introduction to libertarian ideals. You introduce conservatives to Ron Paul and Milton Friedman, liberals to Glenn Greenwald. Murray Rothbard isn’t the best introduction.

For a fuller exposition on political action for social change, see Frank Chodorov’s On Doing Something About It and Clint Townsend’s Social Change Theory, or Jacob Huebert’s Is There Hope for Liberty in Our Lifetime?