Balancing environmental concern with liberty

[pcosmar]

Wow, just think abut how many millions of people pissed in your water , for thousands of years before you were born.

Happy thought for the day.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Wow, just think abut how many millions of people pissed in your water , for thousands of years before you were born.

Happy thought for the day.

Yep, you got me there, totally forgot about all that piss.

 

[DocHolliday]

Thanks for your clear explanation of that view.

I especially intend to check out healing our world age aggression.

Consider the concerns of people who worry that others will impede technological progress and use of natural resources.

You are complaining that people who don't even use force against you will not be nice enough to your special interest. You are asserting that you "own" some part of their property and should have a say in how it is used (even though the property is not yours).

But consider the alternative. Consider that force is used against people to make sure they don't use their own land the way they want. Now, their complaint - that force was used against them such that they weren't able to enjoy their own property how they wanted - is a much stronger complaint than yours.

In a sense, a pure market society with private property rights is the ultimate form of democracy without the coercion of a state. Each person's actions and preferences exert forces that alter the landscape of the voluntary interaction system.

So, you see, my adherence to the libertarian ethic is not an obstacle to helping the environment. It is value-neutral. A libertarian society does not make judgement calls as to what happens with what property - it simply allows each person the maximum impact upon their own sphere of influence. A libertarian society would be shaped by the subjective value sets of all the individual in such a society. The principle of liberty is the only known way to integrate the various conflicting preferences of all individuals. Keep in mind that people have various preferences - other people may value quality of life more, while you value environmental preservation. Your views are no more "right" than theirs - value is subjective, as Mises would tell us.

The interplay between the subjective values of all individuals would unleash the sentimental equality of modern democracy, without the logistical logjam and implicit coercion. Campaigning would be for hearts and minds, not votes and lobbyist money. Ostracism and boycotts often take the place of force and jailing.

I hope this is helpful.

More links from a technical standpoint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism
http://www.commonsblog.org/about_freemkt.php
http://www.votemary2008.com/index.php?page=environment-part-1
http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Our-World-Age-Aggression/dp/0963233661
youtube.com/watch?v=j27XJ0vjr0Y

 

[Epic]

That's my point, its not just the property owners who suffer the consequences, its people who own the land in the future that had no say in the matter.

You say I have no idea what a right is. I think it is quite the opposite, and your definition of a right is incredibly limited.

Maybe you should just think about how you would feel if you were a kid in the West Virginia mountains 50 years from now...

The decisions that one makes in a free society are much more likely to benefit future generations than in today's society.

Again, private property: Walter Williams always says that the desire to profit benefits future generations. One example he uses is that people makes decisions to make their property more valuable [adding additions to houses, planting trees, bushes, other landscaping to their property, preserving ponds, streams, etc.] PRECISELY BECAUSE people in the future will value these things.

The individual does it because he can make more money selling his property later if he preserves elements of nature that future buyers will want.

The drive to profit is elegantly intertwined with the drive to benefit future generations.

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

YOu know if the Buffalo hadn't been wiped out there may have been millions of them on North America, and all the shit they crapped out would wash into rivers and streams that end up in the Gulf of Mexico. Animal crap is full of the same Nitrogen that is in modern fertilizers and heavy metals are in the soil and rocks.

Not even Justus von Liebig would agree with that statement, at least not at the end of his career.

The farm bill subsidizes corn and bean acres in the Mississippi river valley. Because of this, "farmers" put drain tiles in their fields to drain off wet fields that are not naturally suitable for corn and beans. As a result, when it rains or when the spring snow melts, the water does not soak into the soil and slowly filter into the water tables or surface water the way is did when much of the Midwest was grassland. Instead, it is channeled off the farmland as quickly as possible, taking soil, fertilizers and agri-chemicals with it. When the deluge hits the rivers all at once, it causes rapid flooding which qualifies millions of acres of low lying farmland for disaster relief.

Back up on the fields, since the buffalo are gone and their manure is replaced with petroleum based salt fertilizers and anhydrous ammonia, "farmland" is the greatest source of carbon emissions on the planet. Crop residue is viewed as "trash" instead of as an important source of fertility since the fungi that are responsible for breaking down the residue have been killed by the toxic soup of Monsanto products. In healthy soil, the carbon acts not only as a sponge to retain water, but also as a "reef" to house and feed a complex network of microbes that unlock minerals from the soil as the plants need them.

The depleted soil and drainage tiles create near drought conditions virtually every year as there is no longer humus to capture the rain water and the tiles flush it away as fast as it falls. During the drier months of mid to late summer, the crops begin to fade and the farmers review their crop insurance policies, or just hope that they will get drought disaster relief from the government. This insane system of subsidized farming may yet produce farmers that gets flood and drought disaster relief for the same acres in one year.

If you subsidize something, you will get more of it.

The libertarian solution would start with cutting off all subsidies to the people who have caused the problems. The cost of farmland would plummet and the price of food would rise to its true market value, creating fantastic opportunities for anyone willing to actually work and create food. The higher food prices would be offset by lower taxes (and sound money). Manufacturing and mercantile would explode as money returns to raw materials production and those that provide material support to such endeavors.

As competition returns to the food supply, quality and ecological issues will become important if they are important to the consumers. The fact that we are having this conversation proves that they are.

For heaven's sake, we have never seen anything resembling a free market in our lifetime. Let's just start with that.

 

[BenIsForRon]

The decisions that one makes in a free society are much more likely to benefit future generations than in today's society.

Again, private property: Walter Williams always says that the desire to profit benefits future generations. One example he uses is that people makes decisions to make their property more valuable [adding additions to houses, planting trees, bushes, other landscaping to their property, preserving ponds, streams, etc.] PRECISELY BECAUSE people in the future will value these things.

The individual does it because he can make more money selling his property later if he preserves elements of nature that future buyers will want.

The drive to profit is elegantly intertwined with the drive to benefit future generations.

Wow, do realize how simplistic your argument is? You're speaking about all property as if it were in a suburb.

West Virginia mountains have coal under them. The Amazon rain forest can be cut down to grow more meat so we can open up more McDonalds in South America. Do you not see that there are two ways to go about this? The person that chooses to profit off their land in the short term does so at the expense of that land having any use or beauty for centuries in the future.

 

[Epic]

Wow, do realize how simplistic your argument is? You're speaking about all property as if it were in a suburb.

West Virginia mountains have coal under them. The Amazon rain forest can be cut down to grow more meat so we can open up more McDonalds in South America. Do you not see that there are two ways to go about this? The person that chooses to profit off their land in the short term does so at the expense of that land having any use or beauty for centuries in the future.

I was giving one example, not an exhaustive list.

It sounds like you know how all resources should be allocated in an economy - subjective value sets of the populace be damned. You should run for president.

 

[federalistnp]

To the OP:
I agree which is why I can't call myself a Capital L libertarian and why I suspect RP does not simply go back to being a libertarian. I'm still learning about RP but of all the politicians in the nation, I have the most faith in him. I like Paul Ryan too but do not known as much about his voting record. I hope his judgment for legislature matches his tenacity for ideas.

There is an answer to be found that creates incentives for excellent and responsible use which is left to choice.

To Objectivist:
I see framed somewhere in the mind of all Rand enthusiasts an interpretation that is more "subjective individualist objectivism" rather than "objectivism". So what would government's role be if left to Ayn Rand? It certainly would not infringe upon the individual. With that maxim, protection of the individual from tyranny, we develop two more ideas: A republic to protect citizens from mob rule, and protection for the individual against the ill conditions of the behaviors of other groups or individuals. I define environmental degradation as being something caused by groups or many careless individuals, which does in fact infringe upon my individual freedom. Government failing to enact some few limits has resulted in the later need for more intervention and more rules which has exponentially expanded the bureaucratic matrix of governmental regulations. Fewer laws, but laws with teeth.

The New Federalists view all the of the nation's environmental ecologies as resources or geographical concerns. Resources are a valuable commodity and should be maximized and preserved for usefulness. With greater security in renewable energy and agriculture, we have greater economic security and more of a chance to offer self chosen isolationist self-sufficiency. If you protect and can resuse it, you will have no need to import it from somewhere far overseas from an alien land. Instead you help support your neighbor and gain greater faith in your product because you know it is safe here and you know where it came from.

So we are back to the question of individualism. Even though Rand did not claim to derive morality from supernatural religions, she did believe in the morality of an excellent person. An excellent individual would not do anything to the self or environment as to be a burden on another individual. Taking care of your resources and maximizing usefulness is smarter than indiscriminately letting resources be squandered and destroyed.

 

[Epic]

Thanks for your clear explanation of that view.

I especially intend to check out healing our world age aggression.

I think Ruwart has a previous version of her book up on her website, if you don't want to buy the book.

 

[Objectivist]

Not even Justus von Liebig would agree with that statement, at least not at the end of his career.

The farm bill subsidizes corn and bean acres in the Mississippi river valley. Because of this, "farmers" put drain tiles in their fields to drain off wet fields that are not naturally suitable for corn and beans. As a result, when it rains or when the spring snow melts, the water does not soak into the soil and slowly filter into the water tables or surface water the way is did when much of the Midwest was grassland. Instead, it is channeled off the farmland as quickly as possible, taking soil, fertilizers and agri-chemicals with it. When the deluge hits the rivers all at once, it causes rapid flooding which qualifies millions of acres of low lying farmland for disaster relief.

Back up on the fields, since the buffalo are gone and their manure is replaced with petroleum based salt fertilizers and anhydrous ammonia, "farmland" is the greatest source of carbon emissions on the planet. Crop residue is viewed as "trash" instead of as an important source of fertility since the fungi that are responsible for breaking down the residue have been killed by the toxic soup of Monsanto products. In healthy soil, the carbon acts not only as a sponge to retain water, but also as a "reef" to house and feed a complex network of microbes that unlock minerals from the soil as the plants need them.

The depleted soil and drainage tiles create near drought conditions virtually every year as there is no longer humus to capture the rain water and the tiles flush it away as fast as it falls. During the drier months of mid to late summer, the crops begin to fade and the farmers review their crop insurance policies, or just hope that they will get drought disaster relief from the government. This insane system of subsidized farming may yet produce farmers that gets flood and drought disaster relief for the same acres in one year.

If you subsidize something, you will get more of it.

The libertarian solution would start with cutting off all subsidies to the people who have caused the problems. The cost of farmland would plummet and the price of food would rise to its true market value, creating fantastic opportunities for anyone willing to actually work and create food. The higher food prices would be offset by lower taxes (and sound money). Manufacturing and mercantile would explode as money returns to raw materials production and those that provide material support to such endeavors.

As competition returns to the food supply, quality and ecological issues will become important if they are important to the consumers. The fact that we are having this conversation proves that they are.

For heaven's sake, we have never seen anything resembling a free market in our lifetime. Let's just start with that.

Not sure how you got here out of there but I'm for free market farming.

I also know here that a good percentage of the waste crop is tilled back into the earth and crop rotation is common. Which according to my 1921 Cyclopedia of farming, is a good thing.

 

[Epic]

bump...

 

[awake]

Government regulation and control stifles innovation. The more government tightens its grip on the people the less they are allowed to do and discover. Innovation is what has kept the human race ahead of extinction. When regulation after regulation is piled onto the back of humanity, regression actually sets in and stops the market from discovering possible new methods. The free market has the power to deal with the environmental issues. It just needs to be unleashed.

Environmental issues are a concern for the people and the markets to solve, not the government. The government is simply using the backdrop to sell more control and create more havoc.

 

[BenIsForRon]

We need smarter and stricter zoning at the local level. I know it's not a libertarian position... that's why I'm a constitutionalist.

 

[Epic]

I just wanted to bump this thread because there is another environment thread and the people posting there may want to consider this thread too.

 

[erowe1]

1) Species extinction. A commonly cited estimated is that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation. Let's say this is a gross exaggeration. Let's say it's 1 per week. It's still unacceptable.

The commonly cited estimate is rubbish. Try to stay away from believing things just because they have been oft repeated.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14275

And as for 1/week being unacceptable, what right do you have to say that?

 

[awake]

"137 plant, animal and insect species(extinct) every single day" how on Gods green earth can a statement like this be validated? Just try and fathom the resources needed to track and prove this ...

Which leads one to conclude that it is an unvalidated guess.

 

[BenIsForRon]

"137 plant, animal and insect species(extinct) every single day" how on Gods green earth can a statement like this be validated? Just try and fathom the resources needed to track and prove this ...

Which leads one to conclude that it is an unvalidated guess.

It's called statistics. In other words, scientists have advanced ways of making educated guesses.

 

[awake]

Scientists have math models that create wonderful hockey stick pictures. Statistics are a historical numerical measurement relevant only to the precise time they were measured. They can not be arranged to predict any future outcome, if they could we would all be using math models to become rich beyond our wildest dreams.

Can they confirm that a said specie is in fact extinct? what are their names? ... Alarming statements such as this serve to invoke emotion to action, all the while disarming reason and rallying action without thought.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[BenIsForRon]

The math is based in observation. Can it be manipulated for political purposes? Yes. Doesn't mean it is. I think we should be concerned about species loss.

Read this wikipedia article to get an idea of why species diversity is important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity