Balancing environmental concern with liberty

[Objectivist]

That's not always the case. The new clearance could be used as farmland, replanted as you suggest, remain undeveloped due to lack of further capital or calamity, or put to any number of other uses. With only the commodity value of timber dictating the relative value of forestation, you're left with an economic model controlling an environment, which is quite possibly an unsustainable scenario, but perhaps not.

Here's a question I'd pose: What happens to the nearly one-fifth of the country's land area that is owned by the Department of the Interior if/when it cedes control to private interests?

Forestry only has problems when regulations get in the way, many burn areas could be harvested regularly and then replanted but the government holds up harvesting and bug infestations occur making the lumber useless. Eco-nuts doing their best to screw capitalism. Replanting brings back the forest much quicker too and helps save the topsoil.

 

[legion]

Here's a series that explains one of the larger issues with environmentalism and liberty:

YouTube - Forestry that Works, part 1
YouTube - Forestry that Works, part 2
YouTube - Forestry that Works, part 3
YouTube - Forestry that Works, part 4
YouTube - Forestry that Works, part 5

 

[TinCanToNA]

Forestry only has problems when regulations get in the way, many burn areas could be harvested regularly and then replanted but the government holds up harvesting and bug infestations occur making the lumber useless. Eco-nuts doing their best to screw capitalism. Replanting brings back the forest much quicker too and helps save the topsoil.

Oh, I agree with you on that completely. I'm just saying that a completely free market doesn't provide the "best" solution all the time, as that would completely contradict what a free market is. Freedom to misuse, invest poorly, and all that are part of the equation, so running a risk for an aggregate misuse of forestation might, in this specific case, possibly be justification for some kind of artificial restraint. I am certainly not arguing in favor of present restraints, just that the environmental issue does present one of those cases where some minarchy could be justified.

 

[DocHolliday]

Yes, so they're gone through cataclysms, etc., and though billions of years of evolution there are new species here. . There are also thousands upon thousands that are here now, and those are the relevant ones.

To say that their extinction isn't an issue shows how little most people know about the interplay between various plant and animal species. When some of them disappear, there is no other to plug into their unique ecological niche. A world deprived of all species but humans and the few we deem to useful such as cows and chickens is a world rocketing toward destruction.

If you are truly interested in learning more, you might enjoy reading about permaculture. Here is a nice and practical introduction. If you'd like to know, more, I can offer some more in depth suggestions.

As for desalination, it's a wasteful process that would be unnecessary if man 1) Stopped destroying water-producing and resources like rainforests, and better stewarded the water we have.

For an example of how well water can be used, and how people the live in the desert can solve most of their water problems, check out YouTube - Greening the Desert.

Lets take your No. 1, 99% of all the species that have lived on planet earth are gone, man had little of nothing to do with that fact, so how is it unacceptable.

No.2, Building nuclear power plants is the only clean way to desal millions of gallons of sea water for use by man on a consistent basis.

 

[DocHolliday]

No. Because the rain forests land are not being stripped for paper/timber, etc, and then left alone.

They are being purposefully stripped bare to raise cattle. Cattle need pasturelands, and even if the rachers didn't keep the trees stripped, the cows easily would.

In a free-market, man would be encouraged to re-plant trees that are used for practical purposes (paper, cardboard, wood etc), in order to ensure steady profits.

 

[DocHolliday]

We haven't had a libertarian society (nor close to it). You are using the shortcomings of big-government system to criticize a libertarian solution?

It would certainly be unfair to do so, yet the US in the 18th century, when the lands I'm talking about first started being polluted, was the most libertarian age of any modern society (with the capacity to collute so severely) that I'm aware of.

Granted, many of the chemicals that really compounded problems didn't start arriving until the 1940s, but pollution was certainly severe before that.

There were corporations, capitalists, etc. Most of the regulatory governmental institutions that now exist did not then.

I am just going by the libertarian ethic. I assume you are familiar with it.

I understand that you're defending it, but I'm asking you to think about the consequences of your ethic, not just lay it out for me. The libertarian ethic does not provide answers that fully satisfy my reservations. I'd like to better understand how libertarianism would address my concerns. So far no one has been able to really do so, and I'm a luke warm environmentalist by most standards.

Look, if caring for the environment is important to you, you should act on that voluntarily (buy up property to save it, donate to charities...) but don't force your views on other people (I define this as anything that violates the libertarian ethic). In a voluntary interaction framework, you can express your values (environment > cheap stuff) and other people can express theirs.

And if not enough people are with me, or if not enough capital can be mustered to counteract opposing forces, then should we just roll over and let the world be destroyed in the name of cheap steak?

 

[DocHolliday]

If you're familiar with the type of farming done in Brazil, which is a poster child for rain forest loss, you know that the land is not being harvested for timber beyond the initial clearing, but instead grazed by cattle, which will likely be the state of things unless people start wanting less cheap red meat.

Forestry only has problems when regulations get in the way, many burn areas could be harvested regularly and then replanted but the government holds up harvesting and bug infestations occur making the lumber useless. Eco-nuts doing their best to screw capitalism. Replanting brings back the forest much quicker too and helps save the topsoil.

 

[DocHolliday]

Thanks for posting those videos. I agree that in the vast majority of cases, privately-held land that is sustainably harvested and replanted is more efficient than the current model of publically held forest lands.

However, you have to understand that the vast majority of clear-cut land today is not designated forest land, but instead land in South America which is being used for cattle because Americans want cheap red meat.

It's not a matter of that land being managed well as a pastor lands, because they're replacing the vast biodiversity of rain forests, and the benefits rain forests bring, with the near desert-like (in comparison), of a pastoral lands.

Here's a series that explains one of the larger issues with environmentalism and liberty:

 

[Objectivist]

Oh, I agree with you on that completely. I'm just saying that a completely free market doesn't provide the "best" solution all the time, as that would completely contradict what a free market is. Freedom to misuse, invest poorly, and all that are part of the equation, so running a risk for an aggregate misuse of forestation might, in this specific case, possibly be justification for some kind of artificial restraint. I am certainly not arguing in favor of present restraints, just that the environmental issue does present one of those cases where some minarchy could be justified.

I understand your statement but in a free market you need a product or service to stay in business for any period of time. So if there is a wheat shortage, someone is planting wheat to make the most of the inflated prices. The timber industry works the same way and there is actually more timber planted in the US today than when the settlers came across country.

In Brazil they too will be cut short when Cane prices drop thru the floor because too many people will be planting it, and many once forested areas will takeover farmed areas once again. At least Brazil has diversified it's energy supply at a rapid rate to compensate.

Then as the Arctic ice cap has moved farther north, more trees and vegetation have taken root in those areas covered in permafrost. I bet the environmentalists haven't showed you that video. Then again the planet is dynamic and we live on a very large nuclear reactor that nobody controls.

 

[Objectivist]

If you're familiar with the type of farming done in Brazil, which is a poster child for rain forest loss, you know that the land is not being harvested for timber beyond the initial clearing, but instead grazed by cattle, which will likely be the state of things unless people start wanting less cheap red meat.

Well population control is another option, then I made the choice not to burden society by having kids of my own.

I guess I can eat steak then.

 

[georgiaboy]

And if not enough people are with me, or if not enough capital can be mustered to counteract opposing forces, then should we just roll over and let the world be destroyed in the name of cheap steak?

Hey, Doc, welcome to the forum. I believe the argument you're presenting here is what's known as a strawman argument.

As you're exploring the philosophy, I'd ask you, do you have a solution to your above question that fits within the American constitutional framework that our legislators all take an oath to follow?

Additionally, have you done any reading on these subjects in relation to the libertarian philosophy, or do you perform all your research via Q&A on message boards? Is that where you learned about the goings on in South America?

Lastly, I'd just point out that while there are libertarians on this forum, this forum is not a libertarian forum.

 

[georgiaboy]

However, you have to understand that the vast majority of clear-cut land today is not designated forest land, but instead land in South America which is being used for cattle because Americans want cheap red meat.

Doc, what do you think the US Federal Government's role should be regarding this matter?

Is there Constitutional Authorization for this role?

 

[georgiaboy]

Hey guys. I get the sense, when I talk to libertarians, that most are not overly concerned about environmental degradation.

How would you get this impression?

 

[BenIsForRon]

How would you get this impression?

I get the same impression, in general, because whenever I bring up an environmental issue, people either try to downplay it, or pretend like its inevitable. (ex: "species have be going extinct for billions of years!")

Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question, bolded in this quote. (This is very important to have answered before I debate anyone.)

Ok guys, here's the disconnect with most of you, right here^.

Who gives a crap about some political philosophy when you just want to preserve the mountains and the forest for your descendants?

You say "If people cared so much, why don't they just buy up all the land and protect it?" It's because they can't. Coal companies can get financing to blow up mountains because they will make millions and millions of dollars off just one mountain. When they do this to a few mountains, they already have enough capital to do it to the rest of West Virginia.

Now, you guys will probably say "Hey, its their property, they can do what they want". Now, let me ask you. Do future, unborn generations have rights? If you exploit all the resources and make all this land unlivable, how is that not encroaching on their rights? You're not going to live forever, so you have to think about what your great gandkids want.

 

[DocHolliday]

This isn't really a critique of individuals.

It has nothing to with any one individual. It's what we do collectively. Collectively, we're apparently continuing to have children. Collectively, we're apparently eating meat, and therefore sending out economic signals that we want more and cheaper meat. Thus the problem continues and grows.

Saying that something you, or any one person, is not responsible doesn't really get at the heart of the issue: libertarians ability to deal with environmental devastation.

Well population control is another option, then I made the choice not to burden society by having kids of my own.

I guess I can eat steak then.

 

[DocHolliday]

I get this impression because when I try to bring the topic up, most libertarians I've spoke to evade, refuse to answer my specific question, vaguely make references to the market fixing things without providing specific answers, or generally just say...well...I don't really care about (animals, earth, etc). People who are concerned generally question. That's what I'm doing. More and more I'm finding plenty of people in this movement not questioning, but just regurgitating rhetoric.

How would you get this impression?

 

[DocHolliday]

I absolutely believe that there is no constitutional authorization for preventing rainforest destruction out of the territorial bounds of the country.

So if we stick to it, it seems that we are largely unable to improve the situation through governmental means.

The government is not really doing anything right now other than providing a safe haven for our market economy, through which people are demanding the destruction of the rain forests by directing capital at meat.

People are getting to do what they want in regards to food, and thus we have our problem.

The government could theoretically step in restrict that economic force through a variety of means - trade sanctions, new laws restricting importing companies, tarrifs, etc. I don't think this is an ideal solution. I think it's a sloppy one, but it could theoretically have a great affect.

The issue is that people, if left to their own devices, have shown that they can and will destroy the environment both in this country and abroad.

Why then should they be given absolute free reign to do so?

Libertarians seem to just shake their heads and say....well...It's the people's will, so I guess we can't do anything.

This seems idiotic as the number of important species on this planet drops daily.

Doc, what do you think the US Federal Government's role should be regarding this matter?

Is there Constitutional Authorization for this role?

 

[Objectivist]

I get this impression because when I try to bring the topic up, most libertarians I've spoke to evade, refuse to answer my specific question, vaguely make references to the market fixing things without providing specific answers, or generally just say...well...I don't really care about (animals, earth, etc).

I've planted a couple hundred trees in a former military/civilian landfill on Monterey Beach. I'd take the time to transplant hundred of sprouts that pop up out of wood chip piles, pot them and grow them for a couple years until they were big enough to plant in the dunes area. I receive no financial support from anyone doing this.

I am but one! We are many.

Spend some time watching some Milton Friedman vids at YT if you can't get to the library and he can give a number of good points relating to free markets and the environment.

By the way is Brazil a libertarian country or state?

 

[DocHolliday]

I believe so.

Native Americans who lived in the eastern and western forests were master foresters, and had the concept of 7th Generational thinking.

They believed that when making decisions they should try to think how it might affect, negatively or positively, those coming seven generations in the future.

It is not a concept that holds up to libertarian economic thinking, which is very me and now centered.

However, this is my view, rather than "the libertarian view", which I realize is not carved in rock.

I don't think you're going to get a straight answer to your question.

I get the same impression, in general, because whenever I bring up an environmental issue, people either try to downplay it, or pretend like its inevitable. (ex: "species have be going extinct for billions of years!")

Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question, bolded in this quote. (This is very important to have answered before I debate anyone.)

 

[DocHolliday]

I've actually studied ecological devastation at some length, and am fairly familiar with the subject.

I am not familiar with libertarian thinking beyond a basic level - reading Ron Paul's writings, for one, some essays by libertarians, etc.

None of what I've read has provided me with the answers I'm looking for. Whenever I inquire deeper, people generally can't provide much.

I'm looking for more information, either from people here who are familiar enough with the subject to answer my questions directly, or through recommendations on books that would answer some of my questions. So far I have seen neither substantial answers nor source recommendations.

I'm not doing research. I'm asking questions. That's generally how we grow in our understanding of unfamiliar subjects. Research comes later, when one wants to test understanding.

Hey, Doc, welcome to the forum. I believe the argument you're presenting here is what's known as a strawman argument.

As you're exploring the philosophy, I'd ask you, do you have a solution to your above question that fits within the American constitutional framework that our legislators all take an oath to follow?

Additionally, have you done any reading on these subjects in relation to the libertarian philosophy, or do you perform all your research via Q&A on message boards? Is that where you learned about the goings on in South America?

Lastly, I'd just point out that while there are libertarians on this forum, this forum is not a libertarian forum.