Environmentalism poses a problem for libertarian ideology

[stone]

I know a lot of you guys are both libertarians and also climate change skeptics so I wondered what you all made of this:

http://mattbruenig.com/2011/12/21/envir ... -ideology/

No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels because those things affect the freedom and property rights of others. Those actions ultimately cause damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from those affected. They are the ethical equivalent — for honest libertarians — of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else’s window.

That is why environmentalism is such a huge problem for libertarians, and it is no doubt why so many of them are skeptical of the effects of climate change or other environmental issues. Admitting that someone’s use of their own property almost certainly entails an infringement on someone else’s property makes the whole libertarian position basically impossible to act out in the real world. A landowner could never get individual contracts with literally every single person that might ever be affected by the owner’s land-use (e.g. operating a coal-burning power plant). But a libertarian that was honest about environmental externalities would require such a landowner to undertake precisely that impossible task.

[Benko]

1.  When the first humans on the planet built the first fire, they started polluting the air.  There is no way around this if there are going to be humans existing.  Of course you are talking about e.g. corporations, but this is a matter of degree.

2.  "and it is no doubt why so many of them are skeptical of the effects of climate change "
Seriously?

--The gobe has stopped warming (over last decade). 
--Global warming was so obviuosly false that it is now "climate change"  which can mean anything, so it can never be proved false
--Climate change advocates have been caught conspiring to supress dissenting data, etc.

[ns2]

There are a lot of good articles refuting the dangers that libertarianism presents to the environment. They can be found by googling easy enough.

Just read where they are now predicting 30 years of severe winter storms.

Sometimes I can't believe how shameless the global warming climate change folks are. No matter what happens it always proves them right. At the very least one should be allowed to doubt how well they have a handle on things.

[Pointedstick]

I always find it kind of funny when people sound the alarm with regards to the hypothetical environmental consequences of libertarianism when the world around us provides a pretty good idea of the actual environmental consequences of liberalism and and conservatism.

[stone]

I always find it kind of funny when people sound the alarm with regards to the hypothetical environmental consequences of libertarianism when the world around us provides a pretty good idea of the actual environmental consequences of liberalism and and conservatism.

A good point. I'm always especially struck by just how polluting the Soviet system was.

[RuralEngineer]

Most of the people I know who are of the libertarian persuasion are also, if no tree hugging hippies, at least more environmentally conscious than average.  Many of us embrace our freedom to recycle, reduce our personal pollutants where we can (I'm talking actual pollutants...not by holding our breath lest the dreaded CO2 escape).

The disagreement arises from the assertion that we need an oppressive governmental body to decide what it thinks are sound environmental decisions (guess what, they often aren't) and then impose those decisions upon the populace.

I literally just got back from a supplier visit at a small foundry where he has an employee dedicated to handling the random EPA visits.  The last time the EPA stooge apparently wanted the foundry owner to get up on his roof and wipe it with a white towel so he could see how dirty it was and also develop and action plan for how he was going to manage the dust generated by the trucks either shipping or delivering product.  Dust.  This foundry is exceedingly small and makes no production parts for our company, only prove design (we use them because they're fast).  However, the owner told me that the EPA costs him $80,000 per year.  He melts metal with electricity, he's not a coal fired power plant...it's insanity what we're allowing them to do to our economy.

[WildAboutHarry]

The whole CO2 bugaboo drives me crazy.  CO2 is a natural byproduct of respiration.  Respiration = life (most life, anyway).  Animals produce CO2.  Plants produce CO2 (ok, plants produce a net gain in O2 but they respire and produce CO2 nonetheless).  I'm talking about respiration at the cellular level, by the way, not the breathing in and out thing.

CO2 is a limiting resource in photosynthetic output.  There just isn't much CO2 in the atmosphere, compared to other gasses.  Every form of energy we use, save nuclear, and I guess tidal, is derived from solar energy.  Some are more direct than others, but it is mostly recycled solar energy.  Capture of solar energy through photosynthesis requires CO2.  How can CO2 be a "waste product"?

So when I use energy (my metabolism, my car, my home heating, my computer, et al.) I "trespass" on the collective.  Give me a break.  One function of our society is to "optimize" that trespass so that individual rights are maximized to the greatest extent possible.  That is the "individual contract" alluded to in the article.  Or at least that is how it should work.

Our major environmental laws (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, etc.) are administered by un-elected bureaucrats who are not subject to the will of the people except in the most indirect way.  There has been tremendous "mission creep" in the implementation of these laws far beyond the intent of Congress.

[Benko]

Harry,

You miss the point.  Reality does not matter.  Only appealing theory matters (would that I were kidding). 

[Pointedstick]

I literally just got back from a supplier visit at a small foundry where he has an employee dedicated to handling the random EPA visits.

But don't you see… the EPA creates jobs!

Great point about libertarians being more environmentally conscious than average. That's been my experience, too. The biggest polluters I know are republicans, followed by a couple of democrats who are huge hypocrites because they delude themselves into thinking that replacing one of their three cars with a Prius is helping anything. Or willingly paying $400 a month to heat their houses instead of getting the dang things insulated. All while feeling exceedingly guilty about it, of course.

I think the reason for this is because a common trait of libertarians is a love of efficiency. The bottom line is that pollution is inefficient. In my experience, Republicans tend not to care much for efficiency as long as it appears that resources are unlimited, while democrats pay it lip service, but ideology and self-delusion win every time.

[ns2]

I think the reason for this is because a common trait of libertarians is a love of efficiency. The bottom line is that pollution is inefficient. In my experience, Republicans tend not to care much for efficiency as long as it appears that resources are unlimited, while democrats pay it lip service, but ideology and self-delusion win every time.

Interesting observation about libertarians. I've also noticed the same thing.

As for democrats and republicans, maybe this is true when you're talking about the environmental but when you're talking about spending other people's money democrats seem to be the ones who believe the resource is unlimited.

[Pointedstick]

Interesting observation about libertarians. I've also noticed the same thing.

As for democrats and republicans, maybe this is true when you're talking about the environmental but when you're talking about spending other people's money democrats seem to be the ones who believe the resource is unlimited.

Yeah, I was talking about natural resources, not so much money.

It's funny. If you ever hang out on any forums related to REAL environmentalism like permaculture or raising backyard chickens or net-zero construction, what you find is that the people there lean heavily toward libertarianism. I had a college friend who was fairly liberal until she and her husband opened a farm at which point they basically became flaming libertarians.

It seems like real environmentalism is just not political enough for liberals, and too much about what YOU can personally do. I think a lot of liberals have a real fear of doing things themselves, which is why they take comfort in government solutions, and also why it's so easy to dupe them into buying fake greenwashed stuff like vegetarian-fed chicken and hybrid cars. Tell them something costs 20% more but it's better for the environment and they'll line up to buy it, usually without even doing any research. They'd rather spend money to feel better than actually know that they're doing better.

Relatedly, did you know the CEO of Whole foods is a Libertarian?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mack ... rtarianism

[WildAboutHarry]

You miss the point.  Reality does not matter.  Only appealing theory matters (would that I were kidding).

Well, it wouldn't be the first point I've missed

It seems like real environmentalism is just not political enough for liberals, and too much about what YOU can personally do. I think a lot of liberals have a real fear of doing things themselves, which is why they take comfort in government solutions, and also why it's so easy to dupe them into buying fake greenwashed stuff like vegetarian-fed chicken and hybrid cars.

I'm sure the chickens appreciate the vegetarian diet.  Not.  If you have ever seen a chicken catch something big -- a lizard, a mouse, etc. -- watch them run.  And watch all of the other chickens in hot pursuit.

I do like your distinction between "REAL environmentalism" and the other kind.  Real environmentalism is kind of hard.  You have to think critically about things.

[Pointedstick]

I'm sure the chickens appreciate the vegetarian diet.  Not.  If you have ever seen a chicken catch something big -- a lizard, a mouse, etc. -- watch them run.  And watch all of the other chickens in hot pursuit.

I got to watch chickens tear into a dead mouse a few weeks ago. They really are tiny dinosaurs.

[WildAboutHarry]

They [chickens] really are tiny dinosaurs.

Indeed they are!  You have to admire how they can convert disgusting things into tasty things.

[Libertarian666]

I know a lot of you guys are both libertarians and also climate change skeptics so I wondered what you all made of this:

http://mattbruenig.com/2011/12/21/envir ... -ideology/

No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels because those things affect the freedom and property rights of others. Those actions ultimately cause damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from those affected. They are the ethical equivalent — for honest libertarians — of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else’s window.

That is why environmentalism is such a huge problem for libertarians, and it is no doubt why so many of them are skeptical of the effects of climate change or other environmental issues. Admitting that someone’s use of their own property almost certainly entails an infringement on someone else’s property makes the whole libertarian position basically impossible to act out in the real world. A landowner could never get individual contracts with literally every single person that might ever be affected by the owner’s land-use (e.g. operating a coal-burning power plant). But a libertarian that was honest about environmental externalities would require such a landowner to undertake precisely that impossible task.

The libertarian position on that issue is that people who are harmed by negative externalities have the right to sue for damages.

[Tyler]

More accurately, libertarianism poses a problem for environmental ideology (which is more interested in centrally planning the global economy than measurably improving the environment).

[WiseOne]

The libertarian position on that issue is that people who are harmed by negative externalities have the right to sue for damages.

The only problem with the lawsuit method is that the playing field is not level.  A large corporation is going to beat, say, a small community that got used as a toxic waste dump about 99.99% of the time, because legal costs are too much for the average citizen.  I guess if an issue were sufficiently high profile they might be able to get pro bono or charity-funded services, but that probably works out less often than one would like to imagine.

I rather think that the real Achilles' heel of libertarianism is health care.  It's unfortunately a situation where free market solutions aren't going to help much for the big ticket items, simply because from any one person's point of view the chances of a truly serious condition striking is so low.  When it does though, you'd have the unpleasant choice of going untreated (tantamount to committing suicide in many cases) or being wiped out financially.  I'm sure you are now thinking that there is no issue if you have the foresight to buy medical insurance and the intelligence to make sure you are buying a good policy, but most people will fail at one or both of those in an open, uncontrolled market.

[Pointedstick]

The libertarian position on that issue is that people who are harmed by negative externalities have the right to sue for damages.

The only problem with the lawsuit method is that the playing field is not level.  A large corporation is going to beat, say, a small community that got used as a toxic waste dump about 99.99% of the time, because legal costs are too much for the average citizen.  I guess if an issue were sufficiently high profile they might be able to get pro bono or charity-funded services, but that probably works out less often than one would like to imagine.

That's only with the current government legal system which is inherently biased against those without means and has been systematically manipulated by the wealthy for generations. A more free market for justice services would be far more egalitarian and easier to access for those without much money or power.

I rather think that the real Achilles' heel of libertarianism is health care.  It's unfortunately a situation where free market solutions aren't going to help much for the big ticket items, simply because from any one person's point of view the chances of a truly serious condition striking is so low.  When it does though, you'd have the unpleasant choice of going untreated (tantamount to committing suicide in many cases) or being wiped out financially.  I'm sure you are now thinking that there is no issue if you have the foresight to buy medical insurance and the intelligence to make sure you are buying a good policy, but most people will fail at one or both of those in an open, uncontrolled market.

Actually I'm now thinking that this is also a by-product of the present system that is heavily distorted by government. Our health care issue is primarily a problem of expense. It's too damn expensive! That's why we try to mitigate the high costs with insurance and trying to get the government to pay for it. But these "solutions" exacerbate the original problem of the service itself costing too much money! It's the same problem with college tuition where trying to make it more affordable through government loans and loan guarantees just cause the price itself to continue rising.

We need to get the costs down, plain and simple. And that primarily means getting the government out of the way, since the government increases the cost of every private sector good or service it tries to make cheaper or more accessible.

[Libertarian666]

The libertarian position on that issue is that people who are harmed by negative externalities have the right to sue for damages.

The only problem with the lawsuit method is that the playing field is not level.  A large corporation is going to beat, say, a small community that got used as a toxic waste dump about 99.99% of the time, because legal costs are too much for the average citizen.  I guess if an issue were sufficiently high profile they might be able to get pro bono or charity-funded services, but that probably works out less often than one would like to imagine.

That's only with the current government legal system which is inherently biased against those without means and has been systematically manipulated by the wealthy for generations. A more free market for justice services would be far more egalitarian and easier to access for those without much money or power.

I rather think that the real Achilles' heel of libertarianism is health care.  It's unfortunately a situation where free market solutions aren't going to help much for the big ticket items, simply because from any one person's point of view the chances of a truly serious condition striking is so low.  When it does though, you'd have the unpleasant choice of going untreated (tantamount to committing suicide in many cases) or being wiped out financially.  I'm sure you are now thinking that there is no issue if you have the foresight to buy medical insurance and the intelligence to make sure you are buying a good policy, but most people will fail at one or both of those in an open, uncontrolled market.

Actually I'm now thinking that this is also a by-product of the present system that is heavily distorted by government. Our health care issue is primarily a problem of expense. It's too damn expensive! That's why we try to mitigate the high costs with insurance and trying to get the government to pay for it. But these "solutions" exacerbate the original problem of the service itself costing too much money! It's the same problem with college tuition where trying to make it more affordable through government loans and loan guarantees just cause the price itself to continue rising.

We need to get the costs down, plain and simple. And that primarily means getting the government out of the way, since the government increases the cost of every private sector good or service it tries to make cheaper or more accessible.

Right on all counts.

[Pointedstick]

Consider this story about a Chinese man whose severed hand was successfully re-attached to his arm after first being grafted to his leg for a month so it could heal from the wound: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/health/ch ... ?hpt=hp_t2

Total cost: the equivalent of a little under $50,000. What are the Chinese doing right that such an incredible surgery can cost so little? Imagine what that kind of thing would cost in the USA. Probably millions. Why?

These are the kinds of questions we need to ask if we actually want to solve our health care cost crisis rather than just papering it over with more layers of bureaucracy and indirection.

[Pointedstick]

And the extremely high pay of U.S. doctors is a function of the low supply and the incredible debt loads incurred during medical school, both of which can be directly traced to government policies that restrict the supply of doctors, require extremely long stints in school, and raise the price of education in myriad ways.

Let's not kid ourselves that the U.S. medical industry is in any way representative of what a real market in medical care would look like. Maybe China's isn't either… but whatever their government is doing is keeping medical care far more affordable than it is here and I think we owe it to ourselves and others to examine the true effects of government policies.

[Pointedstick]

both of which can be directly traced to government policies that restrict the supply of doctors, require extremely long stints in school, and raise the price of education in myriad ways.

How much is it due to government, and how much of it is the cartel using government to lock out others?

I'm sincerely asking because I don't know.  I do have a hard time believing that governmental policies were enacted without lobbying by physicians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... Criticisms

The AMA has lobbied intensely for the passage of a variety of laws that essentially mean that you can only be a doctor if you're certified and accredited through them or their chosen institutions.

So yes, it's industry groups that twisted government to their own aims. Like they always do. It's only through government that they could actually gain this kind of power...

[Pointedstick]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... Criticisms

The AMA has lobbied intensely for the passage of a variety of laws that essentially mean that you can only be a doctor if you're certified and accredited through them or their chosen institutions.

So yes, it's industry groups that twisted government to their own aims. Like they always do. It's only through government that they could actually gain this kind of power...

So why not hold the AMA responsible for their own actions, and not blame their actions on the existence of "government".

That's a good question. And perhaps I should. But I also think that government is just too irresistible an opportunity for the strong to use it to oppress the weak. That's why they're attracted to it like a magnet. We will always have strong people and groups, and weak people and groups. But the government is an organization that is taken over and co-opted by the strong far, far more easily than it is by the weak. And as a result, all too often it becomes used as a weapon against the weak, which is exactly what's happening here.

It's not just the AMA. They're just an example of the general problem of government being seen as a vehicle for furthering one's own goals at the expense of others that the clever and slightly immoral elements of society can understand very clearly.

[Kshartle]

Pollution is a waste and an added cost. Business, liberatrianism, capitalism etc. has built-in incentives for humans to limit pollution. To the extent businesses produce pollution it's a neccessary evil they will always want to limit, everything else being equal. They will employ other people (businesses) to help them reduce.

Goverment can only reduce pollution by reducing the things we want even more. It can only reduce pollution by outlawing profit creating activities that create pollution as an unwanted by-product. The profit demonstrates that the pollution downside doesn't outweigh the benefits.

Government is by far the biggest pollution creater and it does this without offereing anything of value. It can do this because no one is personally responsible for the polution. This is the opposite of what would occur in a libertarian or anarchist society. Jesus Christ look at Iraq. The country's population centers are bathed in radiation. Asking government to reduce pollution is again like asking Hitler to reduce murder amoungst Jews. He can do it, but you won't like how he does it.

The best way to make the world less polluted would be to constantly move away from violence-based solutions to problems and move towards voluntary solution.

Incidently, if humans didn't exist none of this would matter since no one would be around to even give the concept of what matters existance. Therefore the only thing that matters with regards to pollution is how it impacts humans. Nature has a lot of pollutants that are harsh on humans. We create "pollution" to lessen much worse nature-pollution. Think about undrinkable water, or the pollution of bad weather vs. having shelter. Nature is really good at killing humans so if we need to burn a few logs to keep warm.....hey...it's our planet

[Libertarian666]

So why not hold the AMA responsible for their own actions, and not blame their actions on the existence of "government".

That's a good question. And perhaps I should. But I also think that government is just too irresistible an opportunity for the strong to use it to oppress the weak. That's why they're attracted to it like a magnet. We will always have strong people and groups, and weak people and groups. But the government is an organization that is taken over and co-opted by the strong far, far more easily than it is by the weak. And as a result, all too often it becomes used as a weapon against the weak, which is exactly what's happening here.

It's not just the AMA. They're just an example of the general problem of government being seen as a vehicle for furthering one's own goals at the expense of others that the clever and slightly immoral elements of society can understand very clearly.

I generally agree with this.

But I still hold the AMA, etc. responsible for their own actions.

And I would contend that a group that views government lobbying as an "irresistible opportunity" to be taken advantage of at the expense of the weak will take advantage of other opportunities at the expense of the weak, even if there were no such thing as government.

More generally, is there any sort of system/entity that isn't taken over and co-opted more easily by the strong than by the weak?  This is sort of what defines the strong, isn't it?

There is a system that isn't taken over very easily by the strong. It's called free enterprise. In that system, anyone who wants to offer a product or service can do so without being told not to by a "government", and no one can stop someone else from doing the same. This gives the consumer, poor or rich, much better choices than a cartelized governmentally rigged system.