This is in response to a comment by Frish, from this post.
You must start with an understanding of the word. You can look it up in history, but Fascism is an appropriate description for the process whereby a group of people attempt to wrest control away from other people by force (specifically of other people’s property) and control it centrally. The eco movement’s focus on legislation and treaties, rather than free choice, is exactly that.
The term came from Benito Mussolini’s Fascisti in Italy in the 1930s (he ruled from the late ’20s to early ’40s). Mussolini was a devout communist who had his own plan for bringing about a communist regime. His vision, his method for arriving at pure communism, was called fascism.
There is a common thread running through today’s eco-movement, regardless of what particular group is involved: They all are striving for less individual rights, particularly less property rights, and more centralized control, i.e. fascism. Q.E.D.
We can argue over whether a free market economy, based on the principles of liberty, on one hand, verses a centralized, authoritarian system wherein those in control see humanity as a stain on the face of the Earth on the other hand, is most likely to produce a prosperous, clean, healthy, successful, long-lasting society that would be worth living in. What we must first agree on is that fascism (now that you know what it means) is almost universally favored by the eco movement in this country. The use of force (laws) is their primary if not their sole focus. To the extent that they urge voluntary compliance, I submit, they are preparing their followers and priming the rest of us for future laws forcing compliance. Once the voluntary bit fails, which it will because there is no possibility of “success”, force becomes necessary, as we’ve seen in places like China, where there have been hideous anti-procreation laws.
As soon as you ecofascists start offering only free-market solutions to the problems you say in your wisdom exist, some of us who believe in freedom just might start taking you seriously. But then a fascist is a fascist, regardless of the particular cause they’ve latched onto for a given day, so asking a fascist to embrace free-market solutions is a bit like asking Ted Bundy to look after a sorority. The problem is in the basic world-view, and that has to change first. Stop hating humanity, seeing freedom as loathsome and frightening, and start respecting humanity, seeing freedom as hope.
On that note I will give you a practical example of what I mean: The Sierra Club spends enormous resources attempting to get legislation passed– land use restrictions, limits on businesses, etc.. The proper, polite, human rights-friendly, American method to achieve their stated goals (large tracts of land void of humanity, more animal habitats, etc.) to an extent far greater than mere legislation (which can be overturned at the next election cycle) would be to purchase those large tracts of land. I can’ remember that last time I saw then in a TV ad, trying to raise awareness or money. Instead they waste their money on lobbying efforts which must by necessity continue on without end if the laws they favor are to remain in force. By buying land, asking for voluntary conributions, or through a multitude of possible free market offerings, and nothing more, they would be favoring the same things that real Americans are favoring– respect for property rights, and low taxes. We wouldn’t be correctly referring to them as fascists, but would get along nicely with them as fellow Americans instead.
Bottom line: You either respect humanity, respect human rights, and want to further a system of liberty, of which capitalism is an inseparable component (and are therefore an American) or you see humanity as a threat, a stain, a bunch of unworthy sinners, etc., and want to keep people from pursuing their dreams by using government as a means of initiating force to bend them to your will (and are therefore a fascist).