Balancing environmental concern with liberty

[DocHolliday]

That's great. I'm glad to hear it.

I'll look into milton friedman videos.

Brazil is not a libertarian country. They are as vulnerable to criticism of disastrous environmental policy as our government.

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?

 

[BenIsForRon]

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.

Most libertarian writers don't really have an answer. Things in nature are hard to quantify in a monetary value. For example, how much money are you willing to spend to make sure a certain rare salamander in the Appalachians doesn't go extinct? People developing their vacation homes could give two shits, they just want to make money on their property. But how do we know if their grandkids will be cool with their grandpa's quick cash in? They don't have anything to show for it, except one less beauteous species left on the earth.

This is why I am a staunch supporter of the Endangered Species Act. On this forum, that makes me a radical!

EDIT: This also why I kinda despise Lew Rockwell, check this Op Ed on his view of environmentalism http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/envirohate.html

 

[pcosmar]

Lake Erie.

If someone screws up hold them accountable. Nature can rebuild itself.

Animals go extinct. Face up to facts of life.

Or is it humans fault that there are no Dinosaurs?

 

[BenIsForRon]

Animals go extinct. Face up to facts of life.

Or is it humans fault that there are no Dinosaurs?

For fucks sake, this shit really pisses me off.

Do you not realize that humans are making animals go extinct at rates hundreds of times faster than before we industrialized?

Look at the coral reefs in the gulf and around Cuba. Those things are dying, and they're dying fast. Once they're gone, they can't come back, because an opportunistic species, like seaweed and so on, will come in and fill the niche. Much like how a dictator can easily take control after the chaos of a civil war.

 

[pcosmar]

For fucks sake, this shit really pisses me off.

Do you not realize that humans are making animals go extinct at rates hundreds of times faster than before we industrialized?
.

Prove that or stfu.
I am tired of this whiny shit too.
I am tired of people pretending to believe in liberty and selling Agenda 21 crap.

 

[pcosmar]

If you draw a blank on Lake Erie,

It was dead. It caught on fire. You could walk across it.

It is now a living vibrant ecosystem again.

People cleaned it up. Nature did the rest.

 

[Epic]

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

 

[BenIsForRon]

Prove that or stfu.
I am tired of this whiny shit too.
I am tired of people pretending to believe in liberty and selling Agenda 21 crap.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm

I disproved your theory about agenda 21. The UN did not invent sustainable development, much the same way the did not invent the idea of human rights. But they still pretend to believe in both.

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

Well, first, you haven't answered the question I asked earlier. I imagine it will be a difficult one for you to answer:

Seeing as we do not live forever, and we are usuing land and resources that will also be needed by our descendants... Do future generations have rights to those resources?

 

[Objectivist]

If you draw a blank on Lake Erie,

It was dead. It caught on fire. You could walk across it.

It is now a living vibrant ecosystem again.

People cleaned it up. Nature did the rest.

Hmm, Mount Saint Helens comes to mind.

 

[Objectivist]

For fucks sake, this shit really pisses me off.

Do you not realize that humans are making animals go extinct at rates hundreds of times faster than before we industrialized?

Look at the coral reefs in the gulf and around Cuba. Those things are dying, and they're dying fast. Once they're gone, they can't come back, because an opportunistic species, like seaweed and so on, will come in and fill the niche. Much like how a dictator can easily take control after the chaos of a civil war.

Coral reefs have died off at much faster rates in the past, well before man entered the picture. And species died off at much faster rates than since man arrived too.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Coral reefs have died off at much faster rates in the past, well before man entered the picture.

Ok, well now the reason they are dying is because all of the effluent coming from the Mississippi as well as central and South American countries. It is moral problem in my eyes. If you can't understand why I would think that, I don't think I will be able to explain it to you.

 

[Objectivist]

Species of man are dying off or evolving as well, do you favor racist policies to prevent different sub-species of humans from pro-creating?

 

[Epic]

Seeing as we do not live forever, and we are usuing land and resources that will also be needed by our descendants... Do future generations have rights to those resources?

My previous post was not generally directed to you - it was more for DocHolliday.

No, only living individuals have rights. But your concern is unfounded, a society based on private property will conserve resources because that is incentivized. When loggers actually own the land, they will replant trees after they cut them down.

 

[Objectivist]

Ok, well now the reason they are dying is because all of the effluent coming from the Mississippi as well as central and South American countries. It is moral problem in my eyes. If you can't understand why I would think that, I don't think I will be able to explain it to you.

Is that really the reason? Or does the sediment washing down the river basin have anything to do with it? The earth washes tons of materials into oceans that choke off sea life as well. Did you see what happened to the lake just below Mt. St. Helens after she blew?

 

[pcosmar]

Ok, well now the reason they are dying is because all of the effluent coming from the Mississippi as well as central and South American countries. It is moral problem in my eyes. If you can't understand why I would think that, I don't think I will be able to explain it to you.

WTF

Ok, well now the reason they are dying is because all of the effluent coming from the Mississippi as well as central and South American countries.

Assumes facts not in evidence. That is the rumor and unsubstantiated claim that I have heard before.

You have dived those reefs? tested them and compared it to the reefs of 1000 years ago?

If you can't understand why I would think that, I don't think I will be able to explain it to you.

You're correct there.

 

[Objectivist]

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.

 

[BenIsForRon]

My previous post was not generally directed to you - it was more for DocHolliday.

No, only living individuals have rights. But your concern is unfounded, a society based on private property will conserve resources because that is incentivized. When loggers actually own the land, they will replant trees after they cut them down.

There are more issues than logging. I'm talking about mountain top removal and things of that nature. For example, when you blow the top off of a mountain, you are destroying an ecosystem that has been evolving for millions of years, now its starting over again from a pile of rocks and sludge. Do you think your grandkids would rather have rocks and sludge on a decapitated mountan... or a beautiful ecosystem?

Seriously, I don't think you have the right. You grandkids have the right to inherent the earth in a way that hasn't been stripped of everything of value. It's the EXACT same thing when Ron Paul says we don't not have a right to pass this national debt on to our children.

Do you not agree with Ron Paul when he says that? If you do, how do you rationalize that and still say that the future generation doesn't have other rights?

Is that really the reason? Or does the sediment washing down the river basin have anything to do with it? The earth washes tons of materials into oceans that choke off sea life as well. Did you see what happened to the lake just below Mt. St. Helens after she blew?

You'd have to understand how industrial agriculture works. When they till millions of acres of land, they begin to have erosion problems. So pesticides and herbicides, which are very volatile chemicals, wash down in torrents, along with nasty nitrogen fertilizers and silt. Way more than at natural rates (volcano, earthquake, etc excluded).

 

[Epic]

There are more issues than logging.

I was just using that as an example.

I'm talking about mountain top removal and things of that nature. For example, when you blow the top off of a mountain, you are destroying an ecosystem that has been evolving for millions of years, now its starting over again from a pile of rocks and sludge. Do you think your grandkids would rather have rocks and sludge on a decapitated mountan... or a beautiful ecosystem?

They would definitely want a beautiful ecosystem. So do I. However, I have no right to force any subjective value judgements on other who have differing subjective value judgements.

Seriously, I don't think you have the right.

Not surprising, I haven't seen any evidence that you know what a right is.

You grandkids have the right to inherent the earth in a way that hasn't been stripped of everything of value.

They are not living, they don't have any rights. Something that doesn't exist does not have rights. If you try making the argument that something that doesn't exist has rights - in the technical sense, not just as rhetoric - I think that you should get laughed at.

It's the EXACT same thing when Ron Paul says we don't not have a right to pass this national debt on to our children.

Agreed. I think Ron Paul is just using political rhetoric if/when he says this. I think RP's point is just that the economic decisions being made will make life worse off for our kids. However, technically, of course Ron Paul knows there is no right - if there were such a right - then I would be able to use force against any person who made decisions before I was born that I didn't agree with and that affected my life.

You'd have to understand how industrial agriculture works. When they till millions of acres of land, they begin to have erosion problems. So pesticides and herbicides, which are very volatile chemicals, wash down in torrents, along with nasty nitrogen fertilizers and silt. Way more than at natural rates (volcano, earthquake, etc excluded).

Gasp. You're right. We should just starve and die! Then the environment could just be natural!

For the record, I consider myself a free-market environmentalist. I think you should consider that your arguments go together with an advocacy of a large state which is very negative for the environment.

The environment is best served when the people who damage parts of the environment are damaging their own property - and then they have to suffer the consequences.

 

[Expatriate]

While I agree that strong laws and lawsuits may protect property owners more than the EPA does, I wonder who is protecting the property from the property holders?

I didn't have the time to read the entire thread, but I wanted to comment on this part of the OP. Apologies if someone already did.

If someone is protecting your property from you, i.e. someone else has the final say on what you can do with your property, then it isn't really your property.

However, if the actions you take on your property affect someone else's property, then something should be done about it. I think that is the best angle for libertarian environmentalists to take, as almost all of the things we environmentalists are concerned about do indeed have massive detrimental effects on others' properties.

 

[BenIsForRon]

and then they have to suffer the consequences.

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...