When making the case for the things they do, ideologues oft times like to espouse a kind of package deal in an attempt to obliterate a legitimate term. Ayn Rand best described this kind of double-speak as:

A typical package-deal, used by professors of philosophy, runs as follows: to prove the assertion that there is no such thing as “necessity” in the universe, a professor declares that just as this country did not have to have fifty states, there could have been forty-eight or fifty-two—so the solar system did not have to have nine planets, there could have been seven or eleven. It is not sufficient, he declares, to prove that something is, one must also prove that it had to be—and since nothing had to be, nothing is certain and anything goes.

This is seen with certain terms such as social justice which is a term coined by the Catholic Church used to justify certain policies grounded in collectivism be it higher taxes, welfare programs or opposition to abortion. As one Objectivist online publication has pointed out, the term is an attempt to obliterate or twist the term justice to achieve a collectivist end.

It is also seen when certain well known personalities use the term illegal in their descriptions of subjects be it illegal pornography, illegal immigrants or illegal guns. The word illegal is ascribed in order to obliterate the subjects it is tied to in an attempt to wipe out potential opposition to the person making the claim. Another example of this is the attempt by environmentalist groups attempting to demonize the practice of logging. A recent news story out of New Zealand quotes a group of eco-freaks who are calling on Australia to halt the importation of wood resting from illegal logging taking place in Papua New Guinea.

However, a quick check of the facts reveals something entirely different than what environmentalists claim. An Australian Broadcasting Corporation news story reported in August of this year states that the companies involved in logging in New Guinea who export wood Down Under is legal. The ABC news story tells of Papua New Guinea’s National Forest Board considering extending leases to a Malaysian company in order to conduct logging in the country’s rain forests. There was a recommendation that the leases be revoked but no action was taken in that regard. The company followed all laws and got the necessary approvals in order to operate including no evidence of bribery.

Two groups, Greenpeace and Global Witness, have been spearheading opposition to logging in the country. They make the argument of preserving pristine and rare forms of nature but their rhetoric is really taking points and noise in order to halt logging. They do not care of New Guinea and other countries that log the rainforest benefit in the trade as their ultimate goal is to halt the cancer of mankind from affecting nature. A form of Gaia worship if you will.

In terms of logging in developing countries, I have no doubt some semblance of corruption exists but that is a common practice that can be unlearned with the introduction of Westernization and capitalism. Things that environmentalists are diametrically opposed to.