Democratic Socialists Don’t Deserve the Moral High Road of ‘Good Intentions’

In a FEE article, The Good Intentions Fallacy Is Driving Support for Democratic Socialism, Barry Brownstein attempts to explain the growing popularity of Democratic Socialism. After recounting tales of starvation in Venezuela, the latest in the long list of catastrophic human disasters wrought by socialism, Brownstein writes:

With reports like these (from Venezuela), one wonders how support for socialism in America can be growing?

If some Americans are economically illiterate and ahistorical that would explain their support. If they have mistakenly identified Scandinavian countries as socialist, that would also offer an explanation.

Perhaps people are seeking more meaning in their lives and being part of a mass movement fills a void.

Some students have admitted to me they value being able to exercise power over others. Perhaps they see socialism as a means to acquire power?

These may be some of the explanations for increasing support for democratic socialism; and yet, there is another factor at work. Americans are increasingly allowing their thinking to be influenced by logical fallacies.

Brownstein spends the rest of the article blaming “The Good Intentions Fallacy”, which essentially means if your intentions are “good,” then the ends justify the means. As he explains though, mere good intentions isolated from objective reality leads to authoritarianism. He even quotes Milton Friedman: “ “Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.” 

Brownstein is pretty much on the mark. But I think he falls short. He concludes:

Let us grant “good intentions” to today’s cadres of democratic socialists. Let us assume they are “thinking positively.” No matter. No good intentions or positive thoughts will overcome how reality works. The destructive outcomes of socialism will follow as history repeats itself.

No. Let’s not “grant ‘good intentions’ to today’s cadres of democratic socialists.”

What is meant by "good" in "good intentions?" A person may have “a vision to . . . benefit especially those people who had felt neglected and marginalized” or want to “improve the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen.” A person may see himself as altruistic--putting others’ needs above his own. I don’t think that’s morally good. Nor do I think wishing to see other people’s lives improve is necessarily altruistic. But a person’s morals are his own private business. Anybody can wish or desire anything she wants. Who does not want to see the lives of his fellow countrymen improve? 

A wish or a desire is not an intention. The question is, what does one intend to do about his wishes, if anything? That’s where intentions come in. Socialists are altruists. Altruism means self-sacrificial service to others' needs. That’s fine if one practices it privately. But applied to political economy--the relationship of government and economics--altruism leads to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" imposed by law; which leads to the sacrifice of individualism to collectivism; which leads to totalitarian socialism. That’s the socialists’ intent. There is nothing "good" about the intentions of democratic socialists. Genuine good intentions begin with respect for the moral and political  rights of every individual to live and act on his own judgement in pursuit of his own flourishing. Democratic Socialists, by definition, are devoid of that respect. Why else do they turn to politics, when they are free to follow their wishes by forming their own voluntary communes, leaving those who disagree to live in peace? Because they intend to force their morals on everyone else. So they turn to politics, because "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Altruism is the morality of sacrifice. Merged with politics, altruism means forced sacrifice--and the first thing to be sacrificed are man’s individual rights--sacrificed to the “greater”, or “common,” good. A socialist country is born.

Support for socialism is rising in America because, whether they acknowledge it or not, the socialists' intentions are evil. Their intentions grow out of the barrel of a governmental gun. As long as people believe that "good" means living for others rather than the pursuit of happiness—and as long as the socialists are granted the unearned moral stamina of proceeding from "good intentions"—socialism will never die. So, as of now, their altruist wishes are winning over the Declaration of Independence. 

Brownstein is far too generous. I don't believe "The Good Intentions Fallacy" is applicable to the Democratic Socialists. Their intention is to force the country into submission to their socialist programs. There may have been some excuse 100 years ago, when there was no historical record to draw upon. But when the same intentions lead in practice to life-crushing results, over and over and over again, right up to today's Venezuela, those who would “try again” have long since lost the benefit of the doubt. Ignorance is no excuse--not in the face of the accumulated evidence of socialism's record. To quote Ayn Rand from a critique of socialism in practice:

Mistakes of this size are never made innocently. If men fall for some vicious piece of insanity, when they have no way to make it work and no possible reason to explain their choice— it's because they have a reason that they do not wish to tell.

Today, the reason they do not wish to tell is pure powerlust. After the last 100 years, the term “good” cannot logically be applied, in any form, to today’s Democratic Socialists. Bad intentions--and only bad intentions, from powerlust to greed to envy--fit. Followers of Democratic Socialists have long since lost the right to claim ignorance. 

Today's Democratic Socialists do not deserve the moral high ground. They are in fact motivated purely by evil intentions. The question is, will America collapse, taking the world with it, before the majority of Americans wake up?

Related Reading:

Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society

The Passion of Socialists—Craig Biddle

QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist?'

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

Biden Cancels America

It’s no surprise. Joe Biden has incorporated the “1619” Big Lie into his campaign. The Associated Press reports:

Joe Biden told residents of Kenosha, Wisconsin, that recent turmoil following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, could help Americans confront centuries of systemic racism, drawing a vivid contrast with President Trump amid a reckoning that has galvanized millions across America.

“We’re finally now getting to the point where we’re going to be addressing the original sin of this country, 400 years old … slavery and all the vestiges of it,” Biden said at Grace Lutheran Church, where he met with community leaders after a private session with Blake and his family. Bill Barrow, Will Weissert and Scott Bauer report.

[emphasis added]

The so-called “1619 Project'' is a New York Times initiative that holds that America’s true founding was when the first African slaves were brought to Jamestown in 1619. It holds that slavery, not individual freedom, defines America. Obliterated—“canceled” in today’s fashionable terminology—is America’s actual Founding, 1776, when the Declaration of Independence from Britain was signed and adopted as the first Law of the new American nation. Gone, then, is the philosophical bulwark that stands against all forms of tyranny of man over man; the moral sovereignty and of every individual, and his liberation from any master. America, according to 1619, is no longer the nation that embodied the promise of the Enlightenment, a promise that stands opposed to slavery, and led to its end in the west. The American Revolution was to protect slavery, claims the 1619 project, not to liberate the individual.

Ignored are the Enlightenment ideals of individualism, political and legal equality, and inalienable individual rights that spawned America, brought to us by philosophers and intellectuals most of whom weren’t even born until after the arrival of slaves to the shores of North America in 1619. John Locke, the most influential of these thinkers, was born in 1632. Ignored is the fact that Jamestown was a British colony. America wasn’t even a gleam in anyone’s eye in 1619. Ignored is the fact that the 18th Century gave rise to the first ever meaningful opposition to slavery, which had infected humanity for thousands of years, leading to the Abolitionist Movement. Abolitionism was not just about the Confederacy. It was integral to and an established force at the American Founding in 1776. Ignored is the fact of the success of the movement to abolish slavery. Abolitionism was an established force in 1776, which is why slavery began to be extinguished in the new American nation shortly after the signing of the Declaration. Every state in 1776 was a slave state. With the Declaration of Independence at their backs, state after state began to abolish slavery; first in Vermont in 1777, followed by Pennsylvania in 1780. Across all of the Northern States, slavery was abolished by 1804. Further victories for the anti-slave movement included the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which ensured “that the modern day states of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana entered the Union as free states.” (Page 43) Thanks to the Declaration of Independence, slavery was on its way out during the Founding period.

Until Abolition stalled in its tracks as the Southern States reacted. They defended their slavocracy by repudiating America’s Founding principles. How is it that the states that honored the Founding ideals outlawed slavery, and those that didn’t repudiated those ideals? Unlike the New York Times, the Southern slavocracy understood that slavery is incompatable with America’s true Founding in 1776, and to save slavery it had to do exactly what the 1619 Project intends, repudiate 1776—that is, cancel America. 

1619 doesn’t just acknowledge that slavery is evil. It doesn’t just acknowledge that America’s Founding was incomplete, allowing slavery to linger in parts of America through the early decades of the new nation. Borrowing from religion one of the most vicious frauds ever foisted on humanity, 1619 declares slavery to be America’s Original Sin, thus tainting America and Americans with unrearned guilt in perpetuity (Thank you Christianity.) 

The words of the Declaration of Independence, that All Men are Created Equal in their inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—words that gay rights movement hero Harvey Milk believed “can never be erased”— get erased as if trivial and historically unimportant; tainted, like everything else American, by the “Original Sin of Slavery”. Just as all humanity is irredeemably tainted according the Christianity, so ““In this worldview,” observes Columbia University Professor John McWhorter of the 1619 Project, “redemption for the [American] founding seems impossible.”

Even on its own terms, there was nothing “original” about slavery in 1619. Slavery had existed throughout the world, including in Africa, for thousands of years. Even the Transatlantic African slave trade wasn’t original to 1619 Jamestown. It began in the 16th, not the 17th, Century. 

1619 is, of course, sheer folly. But as Ayn Rand put it, 

There’s always a purpose in nonsense. Don’t bother to examine a folly--ask yourself only what it accomplishes.

What does the 1619 Project nonsense accomplish? Just as the Confederacy understood that the Founding Principles of America are an insurmoutable barrier to slavery, so the political Left in America understands that the Founding Principles of America are an insurmoutable barrier to socialism. Overlain with the Original gambit, assuming enough Americans are dumb enough to be duped in unearned guilt, the cancellation of 1776 paves the road for a criminal socialist agenda. After all, what socialist program can not be rationalized as penance for America’s Original Sin? Just as Christians must atone for their Original Sin by submitting to obedience to God (or Jesus), as determined by His representatives on Earth, the Christian clergy, so Americans must atone for their Original Sin by submitting to the American Collective’s representative, the socialist state, under the guise of “racial justice”, “social justice”, “environmental justice”, “anti-racism”, or whatever collectivist rationalization the Cancel Left can come up with. (Once again, thank you Christianity.)

The Left is attempting to revive slavery as a current issue for political purposes. But slavery is history. There are no “vestiges” of slavery in America today. We are not “finally now getting to the point where we’re going to be addressing the . . . sin” of slavery.” “Getting to the point” now? Slavery was addressed in 1776 and the ensuing Revolutionary War, the decades that followed, the Abolitionist Movement, the Civil War and its 620,000 casualties, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th “Civil War” Amendments. Slavery polarized America like nothing before or since, ultimately leading to the nation’s breakup as the Southern states seceded and formed the Confederacy. A nation that went through a wrenching decades-long soul-seaching, secession, and bloody Civil war has certainly addressed its sin of slavery. To say America hasn’t addressed slavery is a flat out lie.

So why revive slavery now, ignoring history? For crass political opportunism. Original Sin is a monstrous injustice in all of its forms—and un-American. Americanism holds that no person can be guilty of or judged by wrongs he did not commit, including crimes committed before he is born. By attaching Original Sin to slavery, Biden is declaring that no attonement imposed on innocent current and future Americans, especially white Americans, will ever be enough to “cancel” the unearned guilt. The “original sin of slavery” is a political ploy that, if accepted, will keep on giving to the collectivist, socialist, egalitarian, statist, racist American Left, since any resistance to the Leftist agenda will be met with a play on the unearned guilt of America’s “Original Sin of Slavery”.

As 1776 Unites agrees, America was born in 1776, not 1619. America was born amidst two overlapping historical trends—slavery, which was in its dying stage, and universal freedom based on individual rights, the revolutionary new concept born of The Enlightenment. America was created to establish a free country, not to protect slavery. It is the New York times and the Democratic Party that is determined to protect slavery and undermine freedom. Any lingering injustices against blacks in America can only be dealt with by consulting 1776 and the true Founders of America, not rewriting American history. 

And in rewriting American history, the Times is not original. They are following in the footsteps of the defenders of slavery. Yes, the Confederacy! As historian Timothy Sandefur explains:

The myth that America was premised on slavery took off in the 1830s, not the 1770s. That was when John C. Calhoun, Alexander Stephens, George Fitzhugh, and others offered a new vision of America—one that either disregarded the facts of history to portray the founders as white supremacists, or denounced them for not being so. Relatively moderate figures such as Illinois Sen. Stephen Douglas twisted the language of the Declaration to say that the phrase “all men are created equal” actually meant only white men. Abraham Lincoln effectively refuted that in his debates with Douglas. Calhoun was, in a sense, more honest about his abhorrent views; he scorned the Declaration precisely because it made no color distinctions. “There is not a word of truth in it,” wrote Calhoun. People are “in no sense…either free or equal.” Indiana Sen. John Pettit was even more succinct. The Declaration, he said, was “a self‐​evident lie.”

It was these men—the generation after the founding—who manufactured the myth of American white supremacy.

[My Emphasis]

The Left is living in the tribal past. It is aligned with the reactionary defenders of slavery. The future belongs to Americanism. By repudiating the philosophical underpinnings of 1776, Biden is cancelling America. It’s just one more reason to despise Joe Biden, the Democratic Party, and the entire Leftist philosophy. It is philosophic treason. The 1619 Project is premised on a Hitlerian style Big Lie, and Biden has bought into it. Biden, the 1619 Project, and the Democratic Party should be morally condemned and defeated in the 2020 presidential election, even at the price of a second Trump term.

Related:

1776 Unites: A counterpoint to the 1619 Project

The ‘1619 Project’ Fraud Begins its Poisonous Infiltration into American Politics

Obama's Collectivist Manifesto-Part 1...the "Original Sin" gambit

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

A New Textbook of Americanism — edited by Jonathan Hoenig

The Collectivist Left Appropriates an Inhumane Christian Doctrine to Obliterate Americanism

The 'New American Socialists' Dilemma: The Declaration is as much anti-Socialist as anti-Slavery

Thomas Sowell on slavery -- quotes from The Thomas Sowell Reader by Mark J. Perry for the American Enterprise Institute

Frederick Douglass, The Columbian Orator, and the 1619 Project by Joseph R. Fornieri

Election 2020: The Pickpocket vs. the Murderer

J.D. Tuccille has captured my basic feelings on the choice that is shaping up for voters this year. Competing Brands of Authoritarianism Are All Trump and Democratic Candidates Offer, Tuccille correctly observes. “The real resistance,” he writes, “is made up of those who refuse to be governed by any of the wannabe rulers.”

I agree. There are three sides to this year’s election--Trump, the Democrat, and liberty. Tuccille goes on:

Do presidential debates have you considering likely places to stash your cash? Do political polling results have you contemplating waiting it all out in a mountain retreat? Rest assured that you're not overreacting; you're sensibly responding to a political culture that has turned very welcoming to authoritarian candidates and intrusive policies.

Where I differ from Tuccille is captured in my comments posted to the article:

I agree with Tuccille’s basic premise. But the two sides cannot be equivocated. The Democratic Party is now defined as socialist, which by definition means totalitarian. The Republican Party has picked up the mantle of welfare state capitalism. In terms of authoritarianism, comparing the Trump Republican Party to the Democratic Party is like comparing a pickpocket to a murderer.

It’s not time to head for a mountain retreat. We do face a genuine choice—voting for the lesser of two evils. And there is a lesser of two evils. It’s obviously Donald Trump. 

To be sure, there are really three sides--Trump, the Democrat, and Americanism. Trump is not the president to reverse the march toward authoritarianism in America. But a continuation of the Trump Administration can delay it or at least slow it down, giving the forces of liberty more time to fight back.

At this juncture, it looks to me like (ARRGGHH!) Donald Trump -- 2.0

Related Reading:

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist?'

Sanders’ Goal to ‘Transform Society’ Puts Him in Some Terrible Company

Bernie Sanders created a lot of disgust when he praised Fidel Castro, the Communist dictator of Cuba.  Yuri Pérez posted the comment that got the attention of the public in Yes, Bernie Sanders, Castro's literacy program was 'a bad thing:.

. . . a militarized state has guaranteed the Castro dynasty’s power over half a century — not, as Sanders asserted in his 1997 book, because "he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed the society." 

In a CNN article posted by NBC, Sanders says 'it's unfair to simply say everything is bad' with Fidel Castro's Cuba, Paul LeBlanc and Dan Merica wrote:

Buzzfeed reported during the 2016 election that Sanders said at the same time that America was "very, very mistaken about" the Cuban people's desire to revolt against Castro because Americans "forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed the society."

Sanders’ comments about education and healthcare got most of the attention, and, rightfully, pushback. 

However, the final part of the statement praising Castro for totally transforming Cuban society didn’t get nearly enough attention, if any. But it should have, because of what it says about Bernie Sanders, and of socialism. 

So let me correct that. A government that has the power to “totally transform the society” from the top down, by government force, is a totalitarian state. This is Sanders. He seeks political power so as to impose on 330 million Americans his brand of socialism. Anyone who believes that an entire society and everyone in it is his to “transform” according to his vision of what the ideal society looks like is a full-blown sociopath. This puts Sanders in the terrible company of such recent utopians as Stalin, Hitler, Mao ZeDong, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, and of course Castro. Sanders may be a minor leaguer compared to these major league monsters. But he is cut from the same mold. 

For most of his career as an Independent Democratic Socialist, and now a Democrat for presidential purposes, Sanders is in the process of capturing a large swath of the Democratic Party. Even if he doesn’t get the 2020 presidential nomination, he will have redefined the Democratic Party in a new and dangerous way, aligning it more with undiluted socialism than welfare statism. We need to take Sanders seriously, and at his own word. Ideas matter. Words matter. They have predictable consequences in real life. We’ve seen his political sociopathy before.

Related Reading:

China’s Recovery from Socialism vs. Bernie Sanders, The Most Evil Politician in America

Bernie Sanders’ Evil Takes Root

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

Socialism's Totalitarian Nature Cannot Be Obscured by 'Democratic Socialism'

Sanders’s Open Socialism Blows the Cover Off of the Left’s Stealth Socialism

QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist?'

A Socialist Confirms that the Basics of ‘True’ Socialism is Totalitarianism

Liberty-Loving Americans Understand Bernie Sanders a Lot Better Than This Australian Thinks

What If the Climate Change Catastrophists Actually Have a Point?

Climate change has become so politicized that it’s hard to have a rational discussion about the subject. If you disagree with the statist/Environmentalist/socialist agenda of the Democrats and their media supporters, you are automatically labeled a “denier” of some kind, regardless of what you actually say and believe. For people who oppose that Leftist agenda, opposition often consists of outright refusing to accept the possibility of human activity causing harmful climate change, if for no other reason than to defend free market capitalism. This is understandable, because the catastrophists' position is unequivocally anti-freedom and wrapped up in a socialist push, causing some to conclude that defending freedom necessitates ignoring or minimizing the actual science and facts of anthropogenic climate change.

Some of us remain uncompromisingly true to valuing freedom but reject both positions and try to stay objective about climate. I'm one. And while I listen to both of these sides, sorting through the bullshit to get at the substance of what they’re saying, I depend on certain leading independent  thinkers who are not on either of those sides to help shape my thinking to maintain a balanced view without sacrificing my free market radicalism.

So when one of those thinkers alters his position, I sit up and take notice. One such thinker is Ronald Bailey of Reason. Recently, Bailey ran a column titled Climate Change: How Lucky Do You Feel?, in which he announced a significant alteration (or evolution) in his position on man-made climate change. (His column was seconded by Jonathn H. Adler.) Bailey rejects the hysterical panic-mongers who see “a ‘collapse in society’ in about 10 years.” And he never denied the possibility that climate change may become “a significant problem” longer term. But in his recent article, he goes considerably farther:

I have unhappily concluded, based on the balance of the evidence, that climate change is proceeding faster and is worse than I had earlier judged it to be. There are still big scientific uncertainties, such as just how sensitive the global climate is to a given increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. And the proper public policy remains far from clear. Still, most of the evidence points toward a significantly warmer world by the end of the century—probably more than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. Such a temperature increase will definitely have substantial impacts on human beings. (For a more detailed review of current climate science, visit reason.com/climatedata.)

He goes on to discuss various proposed options for dealing with it, divided into three broad categories; Option 1: Privatize It, Option 2: Regulate It, and Option 3: Ignore It. And he concludes:

Will climate change be apocalyptic? Probably not, but the possibility is not zero. So just how lucky do you feel? Frankly, after reviewing the scientific evidence, I'm not feeling nearly as lucky as I once did.

I have great respect for Bailey, especially after reading his terrifically informative book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century, in which he argues that freedom and economic growth, not statism, are the only effective, progressive means of mitigating negative climate effects.

But this one statement raised a nagging question in my mind:

It's time for market-oriented folks to recognize these facts and figure out the best way to handle them. If we don't offer solutions to the public, the only ones on the table will be those proposed by people who misunderstand economic principles or are unfriendly to market capitalism.

“Unfriendly to market capitalism” is extraordinarily generous. “Capitalism hating” is more precise. That aside, “I’m wondering if Bailey and Reason (and others) are leaning more towards catastrophism not so much because they believe it but because they fear that freedom-fighters are losing to the statists. So by giving a nod to the catastrophists, the pro-capitalist forces can more credibly advance their policies and head off the truly catastrophic assault on capitalism being waged by statist/Environmentalist/socialist forces in the name of “saving the planet from global warming.” In short, pro-capitalists need a “seat at the table” so it’s best to get there through the “climate crisis” door.

I may be wrong. In any event, a free market response to the “Green New Deal” thinking that calls for government force to “totally remake the American economy to address the climate crisis” is desperately needed. Bailey remains loyal to his defense of freedom, while  seemingly opening the door to governmental policy solutions: 

Continued economic growth and technological progress would surely help future generations to handle many—even most—of the problems caused by climate change. At the same time, the speed and severity at which the earth now appears to be warming make the wait-and-see approach increasingly risky.

In his latest article, Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change, Bailey highlights a Wall Street Journal article by Ted Nordhaus, who argues that “The deniers and alarmists may make headlines, but behind the scenes, an expert consensus is taking shape on how to respond to global warming.” Nordhaus observes:

Beyond the headlines and social media, where Greta Thunberg, Donald Trump and the online armies of climate “alarmists” and “deniers” do battle, there is a real climate debate bubbling along in scientific journals, conferences and, occasionally, even in the halls of Congress.

I will add that I have seen no evidence that Bailey is backtracking on the wisdom of his book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century. He seems to be building on it.

I’ve been in the camp that climate change is real, humans are contributing significantly though not exclusively to it, likely has both positive as well as negative consequences, and that restrictions or banning of reliable, economical energy would do far more harm than the negatives. I’ll be paying close attention to this debate, and what respected experts like Alex Epstein, Ron Bailey, Michael D. Shellenberger, and other leading pro-capitalists energy/environmental thought leaders have to say about this. 

Related Reading:

‘Climate Denier’: The Leitmotif of the Climate Propagandist

It’s Time to Listen to the ‘Climate Denialists’

The Climate Debate Should Focus on How to Address the Threat of Climate Change, Not Whether Such a Threat Exists--JONATHAN H. ADLER for THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY 

Clean Free Market Policy Beats a Carbon Tax. Here's Why.--JIGAR SHAH AND ROD RICHARDSON for Reason.com

If clean technologies can now compete and win, then we need to open closed markets by removing barriers to participation.

That's the core proposal of clean free market policy. Several free market think tanks (including the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit which publishes Reason) have distilled this insight into The Declaration on Energy Choice & Competition, which calls on government leaders to protect everyone's right to produce, buy, or trade the clean, reliable energy of their choice, and remove barriers to energy competition.

Ecomodernism Is the Solution to Man-Made Climate Change--Ronald Bailey

The Breakthrough Institute's Ted Nordhaus urges Americans to reject both doomism and denialism.

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels—Alex Epstein

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century—Ronald Bailey

Climate Expert Shreds Claims Made By Ocasio-Cortez, Thunberg In Congressional Testimony--Ryan Saavedra for DailyWire.com

Related Viewing:

Fossil fuels are not mankind's enemy--Illinois Channel TV interview with Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels