Balancing environmental concern with liberty

[DocHolliday]

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

I hope I'm mistaken.

I realize that there is doubt about global warming. Let's ignore global warming in this thread completely.

I am a believer in limited government and sound money, but also a realist.

I believe that people and corporations, when left to their own whims, will sometimes seriously damage the earth.

In some cases it's because they don't understand the consequences of their actions. Sometimes they know and don't care.

I've read Ron Paul's rather unexpansive take on environmental care in The Revolution, and was unimpressed.

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?

Mountain top minding is destroying entire ranges for coal and other mineral wealth. We are left with decapitated peaks in areas generally too poor to fight back.

In other countries such as Brazil, American capital is paying for the destruction of thousands of acres of rainforest.

Brazil is outside of our jurisdiction, but it's our buying power that's paying for the destruction. We are still responsible for it.

What are the consequences of losing the rain forests?

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.

2) Change in rainfall patterns. This is a poorly understood area, yet it doesn't take much to see that large portions of the world are in the middle of extended drought. (And Yes, I am aware of the rain the north east is getting, but I'm also aware of all the rivers going dry.)

Scientists studying rainforests have discovered the rain forests did not just grow because there was a lot of rain, but the rain also comes because there are trees. When destroyed rain forests in asia were restored, the land that was down on rainfall started getting a lot more.

Weather patterns across the whole world are worsened by deforestation.

Others There are plenty of other environmental issues, and libertarians seem to be hands off about solving them.

Is it that libertarians refuse to believe that these are legitimate concerns? What is it? What are good libertarian ways of dealing with these issues?

[BenIsForRon]

Yeah, if enough trees are cut down, the weather pattern changes completely, and the rest of them could go.

I actually just took a class on this: Environmental Politics. The professor had many libertarian leanings. He had worked for the GAO and done studies on water projects in New Mexico. Total eye opener. When people here say that government does more damage to the environment than most corporations, they're not lying! One of the best classes I've ever taken.

The answer is, yes, there are libertarian ways to deal with this, however, we may need some amendments to the constitution to take care of some of them.


I'll expand more later on my opinions, I can talk about this stuff all day.

[DocHolliday]

Please do. I'm looking forward to hearing about it.


Yeah, if enough trees are cut down, the weather pattern changes completely, and the rest of them could go.

I actually just took a class on this: Environmental Politics. The professor had many libertarian leanings. He had worked for the GAO and done studies on water projects in New Mexico. Total eye opener. When people here say that government does more damage to the environment than most corporations, they're not lying! One of the best classes I've ever taken.

The answer is, yes, there are libertarian ways to deal with this, however, we may need some amendments to the constitution to take care of some of them.


I'll expand more later on my opinions, I can talk about this stuff all day.

[Epic]

"I believe that people and corporations, when left to their own whims, will sometimes seriously damage the earth. "

Remember, in a pure libertarian society, there is just private property.

"Mountain top minding is destroying entire ranges for coal and other mineral wealth. We are left with decapitated peaks in areas generally too poor to fight back. "

If they own the land, we can only conclude that those individuals are using their property in the most socially optimal way. If society values that property for its nature value, then it will be bought up by people who care about that. If society values that property for its natural resources, the individuals who perform that will bid more, acquire the land, and use it for that.

In a market system, people express their preferences with their demand for various goods, and then the selection of how to use different natural resources are imputed from those consumer values.

Walter Block on private property environmentalism: http://www.blubrry.com/scotthortonshow/419547/antiwar-radio-walter-block/
YouTube - Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo) (walter block youtube free market environmentalism)

And, yes, you cannot be a serious environmentalist if you support a huge government like the one we have now. It is the biggest environmental damager.

[DocHolliday]

Thanks for that video, Epic. Very interesting, and as I mentioned, I agree that, in many cases, lawsuits would do more to protect the environment on private property than the EPA/ government.

You said:


If they own the land, we can only conclude that those individuals are using their property in the most socially optimal way. If society values that property for its nature value, then it will be bought up by people who care about that. If society values that property for its natural resources, the individuals who perform that will bid more, acquire the land, and use it for that.

But we know from experience that, if this is the most socially optimal, it is very destructive. Also, what of the people that are left with the mess? There are many cases of companies polluting land and then going out of business. There are at least a half dozen brownfield (polluted) industrial sites in my city of Meriden, CT

The companies that did the polluting are all long bankrupt, and there is no one to sue.

So what are we to do? There are huge swaths of city land that cannot be used to build on or to grow on. If we leave them alone, they will still be polluted in 1,000 years.

What of the future generations stuck with a polluted earth because it was socially optimal for our generation, or our forefathers generation, to pollute?

It's a burden that's been transfered to the tax payers of the city, to some extent, but more broadly by the state and federal tax payers, which have shelled out millions to incinerate thousands of pounds of polluted soil on several of these sites.

To clean up the whole city, it will be million more out of tax payers' pockets.

How can we allow property owners to destroy land and then run, leaving others with the burden?










"I believe that people and corporations, when left to their own whims, will sometimes seriously damage the earth. "

Remember, in a pure libertarian society, there is just private property.

"Mountain top minding is destroying entire ranges for coal and other mineral wealth. We are left with decapitated peaks in areas generally too poor to fight back. "

If they own the land, we can only conclude that those individuals are using their property in the most socially optimal way. If society values that property for its nature value, then it will be bought up by people who care about that. If society values that property for its natural resources, the individuals who perform that will bid more, acquire the land, and use it for that.

In a market system, people express their preferences with their demand for various goods, and then the selection of how to use different natural resources are imputed from those consumer values.

Walter Block on private property environmentalism: http://www.blubrry.com/scotthortonshow/419547/antiwar-radio-walter-block/
YouTube - Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo) (walter block youtube free market environmentalism)

And, yes, you cannot be a serious environmentalist if you support a huge government like the one we have now. It is the biggest environmental damager.

[Objectivist]

In 4.5 billion years all of the thing above mentioned have been occurring, are you arrogant enough to believe that just because humans showed up(recently) that we are supposed to stop or change anything?

The planet is not static, it is dynamic and it warms and cools with or without humans. There is no reason to think we can stop or change that simple fact. This makes climate change a non- issue.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

And if those that claimed there was a problem with the planet warming were for real, then they should be calling for the construction of 400 new nuclear power plants.

[DocHolliday]

I very specifically noted that I wasn't talking about climate change, global warming, etc. There are many other environmental issues facing the world, and I'm focusing on those.


In 4.5 billion years all of the thing above mentioned have been occurring, are you arrogant enough to believe that just because humans showed up(recently) that we are supposed to stop or change anything?

The planet is not static, it is dynamic and it warms and cools with or without humans. There is no reason to think we can stop or change that simple fact. This makes climate change a non- issue.

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

[Epic]

But we know from experience that, if this is the most socially optimal, it is very destructive.

That destructiveness is factored into the social optimality. See my previous comments. The people who want the land most will end up owners. If people demand the land to be preserved, there will more demand to preserve it than mine the resources. I've read articles about environment groups buying up land that would have otherwise been bought by "evil corporations". I support this behavior because it abides by the libertarian ethic.

"What of the future generations stuck with a polluted earth because it was socially optimal for our generation, or our forefathers generation, to pollute?"

How is is socially optimal for people to stick their kids with a polluted earth? 'Socially Optimal' takes into account all of these things. If you believe that pollution is not factored into anybody's decisions about what to buy, what land to preserve, etc. then you are postulating that nobody cares of pollution, the environment, etc. This is not the case.

Plus, again, pollution can be handled by whatever legal system exists.

[TinCanToNA]

In a world where the only accountability is personal accountability, then each individual is accountable for all pollution they emit, be it plastic refuse or smoke from their chimney or smokestack.

I, too, had concerns with the apparent disconnect between environmental concern and libertarian philosophy. Even on RJ Harris' website, on the issue he has the shortest possible blurb about the environment. However, so long as a legal framework exists to allow people to be personally accountable for their pollution (and by extension, the pollution of their corporation), I don't think it will be a very big disconnect.

[DocHolliday]

How is is socially optimal for people to stick their kids with a polluted earth?

Yes, it seems a ridiculous question, doesn't it? But yet here Meriden stands, very polluted because, despite the social optimality of the factories at the time, today we're stuck with tons of polluted ground.


If you believe that pollution is not factored into anybody's decisions about what to buy, what land to preserve, etc. then you are postulating that nobody cares of pollution, the environment, etc. This is not the case.

Plus, again, pollution can be handled by whatever legal system exists.

And when the private owner is long gone and there's no buddy for the legal system to take on?

But to clarify....

Are you suggesting that it would be within libertarian bounds to create laws directly restricting what a person could do on their property? Such as destroy mountains to get at the coal?

[Objectivist]

I very specifically noted that I wasn't talking about climate change, global warming, etc. There are many other environmental issues facing the world, and I'm focusing on those.

Why? they are non-issues.

One landslide can destroy a mountain lake and the life contained in it.

A volcano can put out more damage than a small country.

A tsunami can lay waste to millions of people and life forms.

Th Ocean has seeps that release oil into the environment naturally and in very large quantities.

SO what exactly did you want to stop?

[DocHolliday]

Walter Block on private property environmentalism: http://www.blubrry.com/scotthortonshow/419547/antiwar-radio-walter-block/



I just listened to the Walter Block radio interview, and he has some good ideas.

I generally agree with the tragedy of the commons.

But here's the thing....

He has a point about there being no shortage of cows, because people eat cows and corporations can make a profit.

But corporations don't make a profit on, say, bonobos, our closet genetic ancestors that are starting to go extinct.

Why would they bother to preserve them on their own private property?

[DocHolliday]

Of course nature builds up and it destroys.

But mankind does it on a scale unheard of in nature.

We're in the process of wiping out most of the other species on the planet.

Nature is not nearly so efficient.

And if nature burns down a rainforest, it regrows.

If man hacks down a rainforest, it stays hacked down.

Our influences on this planet are not benign.


Why? they are non-issues.

One landslide can destroy a mountain lake and the life contained in it.

A volcano can put out more damage than a small country.

A tsunami can lay waste to millions of people and life forms.

Th Ocean has seeps that release oil into the environment naturally and in very large quantities.

SO what exactly did you want to stop?

[Objectivist]

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.

[Objectivist]

Of course nature builds up and it destroys.

But mankind does it on a scale unheard of in nature.

We're in the process of wiping out most of the other species on the planet.

Nature is not nearly so efficient.

And if nature burns down a rainforest, it regrows.

If man hacks down a rainforest, it stays hacked down.

Our influences on this planet are not benign.

I think you need to educate yourself on global history, we've been around for a split second on the timeline of planetary evolution, which is 4.5 BILLION years in the making.
We haven't done much in the short time we've been here compared to the Earth in all its majesty.

[ClayTrainor]

Nature is not nearly so efficient.

And if nature burns down a rainforest, it regrows.

If man hacks down a rainforest, it stays hacked down.

Our influences on this planet are not benign.

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.

[TinCanToNA]

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.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?

[dr. hfn]

this is a really important topic if we want to appeal to the left and environmentalists

[Epic]

Yes, it seems a ridiculous question, doesn't it? But yet here Meriden stands, very polluted because, despite the social optimality of the factories at the time, today we're stuck with tons of polluted ground.

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?



Are you suggesting that it would be within libertarian bounds to create laws directly restricting what a person could do on their property? Such as destroy mountains to get at the coal?

Pollution can be construed as a private property violation, but doing "bad" things to one's own land is not a private property violation. I am just going by the libertarian ethic. I assume you are familiar with it.

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.

[BenIsForRon]

I support this behavior because it abides by the libertarian ethic.

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.

[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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YPLIhXaz84)
YouTube - Forestry that Works, part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QShW5s2NvU)
YouTube - Forestry that Works, part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTuGO2Yv7oY)
YouTube - Forestry that Works, part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7-DYC5H9is)
YouTube - Forestry that Works, part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfvNVQWQijk)

[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 (http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-Second-Home-Scale-Permaculture/dp/1603580298/ref=pd_cp_b_1) 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk).



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.

[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...

[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. :D

[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. :D

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. :D

[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

[awake]

Ok, I believe biodiversity is important, just as important as free exchange between humans in our natural system of specie sustainability; the question is how do you begin to protect biodiversity?

[TGGRV]

Actually taxing people for pollution isn't against libertarianism, as long as the tax money goes to the people who are affected by pollution.

[BenIsForRon]

Ok, I believe biodiversity is important, just as important as free exchange between humans in our natural system of specie sustainability; the question is how do you begin to protect biodiversity?

You have to become aware of what activities reduce biodiversity, then try to curb those activities. There are many ways to work towards that goal.

[legion]

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.

What do you want to do about it? We live in the United States. Should we invade Brazil because they are cutting down forests?

Brazil's problems are caused by poor records and unsure governmental policy which does not make clear who owns what land. The governments policies are always changing on ownership, so of course there aren't going to be any stewards because they can't be sure if they'll own that spot of property next week.