Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?

[AyeYo]

Lol Respected ofcourse means those sellout scientists who tout what they are told to by those pushing the Global Warming Scam.  

Yea, but bro, infowars is totally legit!  Those real scientists don't know anything.  Alex Jones has all the answers.

[myrkul]

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

Practices such as clear-cutting and pollution are not long-term profitable. If you clear cut all your trees for paper, you can't make more paper next year. If you pollute the crap out of your land, you can't sell it to someone else. Private ownership of resources is the best way to ensure their conservation.

[ascent]

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

because that's really the question.

so that's the answer i want.  it should translate to any more-or-less free society.

Sadly, I think the answer is: They wouldn't.

Any economic system which places a heavy emphasis on freedom to earn money without intervention from other sources will always contain a large number of entities who choose to pick the low hanging fruit, until there are no more low hanging fruit, at which point, the fruit that is now the lowest hanging will be picked, etc.

The ultimate libertarian society that likely caused catastrophic worldwide damage existed in the late Pleistocene. The overkill hypothesis states that all megafauna extinctions in Europe and the Americas occurred due to the expanding diaspora of man. To be clear, megafauna refers to animals such as mammoths, rhinos, giant sloths, etc. Cro-magnon culture gave birth to highly efficient hunting in a realm where the megafauna had not evolved along side the hunters, and thus the megafauna did not naturally fear man. This is why the emigration of mankind into Europe and the Americas wiped out these animals. Note that Africa seems to be the only continent in which megafauna still exist, precisely because man coevolved alongside the megafauna there.

For further information:

Paul S. Martin: http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Mammoths-Extinctions-Rewilding-Environments/dp/0520252438/

Peter D. Ward: http://www.amazon.com/Call-Distant-Mammoths-Mammals-Disappeared/dp/0387985727/   

[Jaime Frontero]

Private ownership of resources is the best way to ensure their conservation.

even non-renewable resources?

i suspect not.  where is the advantage to exxon's CEO - who will get a multi-billion dollar bonus depending on sales - to conserve oil?  he'll only be in his position for five or so years, and he worked all his life to get there.  and the next guy?

we agree, more or less, on renewables.

people who own trees or water or other renewables are essentially farmers - albeit of a different sort than a food-farmer.  but yes - their advantage lies in conservation.

[ascent]

Practices such as clear-cutting and pollution are not long-term profitable.

Then why do organizations and societies engage in these activities?

[Jaime Frontero]

Practices such as clear-cutting and pollution are not long-term profitable.

Then why do organizations and societies engage in these activities?

they don't, for long.

ever been to spain?

the clear-cutting they did there for the Armada still shows...

[AyeYo]

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

because that's really the question.

so that's the answer i want.  it should translate to any more-or-less free society.

Sadly, I think the answer is: They wouldn't.

Any economic system which places a heavy emphasis on freedom to earn money without intervention from other sources will always contain a large number of entities who choose to pick the low hanging fruit, until there are no more low hanging fruit, at which point, the fruit that is now the lowest hanging will be picked, etc.

The ultimate libertarian society that likely caused catastrophic worldwide damage existed in the late Pleistocene. The overkill hypothesis states that all megafauna extinctions in Europe and the Americas occurred due to the expanding diaspora of man. To be clear, megafauna refers to animals such as mammoths, rhinos, giant sloths, etc. Cro-magnon culture gave birth to highly efficient hunting in a realm where the megafauna had not evolved along side the hunters, and thus the megafauna did not naturally fear man. This is why the emigration of mankind into Europe and the Americas wiped out these animals. Note that Africa seems to be the only continent in which megafauna still exist, precisely because man coevolved alongside the megafauna there.

For further information:

Paul S. Martin: http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Mammoths-Extinctions-Rewilding-Environments/dp/0520252438/

Peter D. Ward: http://www.amazon.com/Call-Distant-Mammoths-Mammals-Disappeared/dp/0387985727/   

Excellent point and example.  The near extention of American Mid-West animals like bison, prairie dogs, and gray wolves are other excellent examples.  According to the libertarians in this thread, the hunters will naturally realize that they're going to kill off all their supply and self-limit their own hunting.  History disagrees, because hunters hunted these animals until they couldn't find anymore.

[myrkul]

Private ownership of resources is the best way to ensure their conservation.

even non-renewable resources?

Your CEO, maybe not, unless he was paid mostly or partially in stocks. It's then in his interest to keep the company profitable long-term.
And Oil is renewable, just really, really slow...

Practices such as clear-cutting and pollution are not long-term profitable.

Then why do organizations and societies engage in these activities?

Usually, because they're not connected to its continued viability, or there is little to no accountability. For instance, China is one of the worst polluters there is.

[grue]

anyone notice this thread is full of strawmans?

In a Libertarian society people would be well educated enough in science to realize that global warming is designed as a tool to push a tax scheme, not environmental policy, and that the earth is heating because of increased solar activity, not because of human activity.

MOAR COAL!  

[ascent]

Excellent point and example.  The near extention of American Mid-West animals like bison, prairie dogs, and gray wolves are other excellent examples.  According to the libertarians in this thread, the hunters will naturally realize that they're going to kill off all their supply and self-limit their own hunting.  History disagrees, because hunters hunted these animals until they couldn't find anymore.

What's so aggravating is that they are blind to it happening all around them everyday. The "New Normal" becomes the norm, and then further depletion tomorrow brings about the "New Normal", and it continues until there is nothing. As I've pointed out, there are pressures to start exploiting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Patagonia right now. And it just continues.

[AyeYo]

Excellent point and example.  The near extention of American Mid-West animals like bison, prairie dogs, and gray wolves are other excellent examples.  According to the libertarians in this thread, the hunters will naturally realize that they're going to kill off all their supply and self-limit their own hunting.  History disagrees, because hunters hunted these animals until they couldn't find anymore.

What's so aggravating is that they are blind to it happening all around them everyday. The "New Normal" becomes the norm, and then further depletion tomorrow brings about the "New Normal", and it continues until there is nothing. As I've pointed out, there are pressures to start exploiting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Patagonia right now. And it just continues.

That's why it's also the perfect example of a real-world slippery slope.

That free markets DO NOT handle environmental issues is absolutely beyond debate.  There is historical record that proves this, dating back to the first keeping of historical records.  As you correctly pointed out, the free market will always go for the lowest hanging fruit.  Strip mining with blatant disregard for the planet is another good example of companies decimating the evironment because it is the easiest and more profitable way to do business.  It takes active government intervention to force mining businesses to be less invasive and damaging to the environment.

This is why we need government intervention in areas like alternative fuels, because the free market won't give two shits about alternative fuels until oil supply actually become a significant issue - at which point the development of alternative fuel sources will be a day late and dollar short.


Again, this stuff is undeniable.  Just look at WHY companies outsource to third-world countries.  Because you relocate to bumfuckastan, you'll be allowed to dump your waste in the local river, pollute the air as much as you want, decimate forests and local wildlife, no one will care if your facility is dangerous and kills workers, etc.  That's what the free market WANTS, and they relocate to nations that will let them do it.

[ascent]

In a libertarian/AnCap society, everyone would have equal opportunity to do whatever they want, and no ability to force people to do or not do anything.

Hence all the low hanging fruit picking.

[JoelKatz]

That free markets DO NOT handle environmental issues is absolutely beyond debate.  There is historical record that proves this, dating back to the first keeping of historical records.  As you correctly pointed out, the free market will always go for the lowest hanging fruit.  Strip mining with blatant disregard for the planet is another good example of companies decimating the evironment because it is the easiest and more profitable way to do business.  It takes active government intervention to force mining businesses to be less invasive and damaging to the environment.

Why do you care if a company strip mines their own land? And if they harm other people's land in the process, your gripe is with the legal system, not the market.

[ascent]

Why do you care if a company strip mines their own land? And if they harm other people's land in the process, your gripe is with the legal system, not the market.

I can't believe you don't understand why one should care.

[myrkul]

Why do you care if a company strip mines their own land? And if they harm other people's land in the process, your gripe is with the legal system, not the market.

I can't believe you don't understand why one should care.

Well, because it's not pretty, of course. People have a right to look at pretty land. Even if its not theirs. Especially if its not theirs.

[ascent]

Well, because it's not pretty, of course. People have a right to look at pretty land. Even if its not theirs. Especially if its not theirs.

That's one good reason. Here are a few more:

1. Perhaps the owner will die one day, and someone else would like to be the owner of it?

2. Perhaps the vegetation and ecosystem which was stripped off of it contained information in its natural complexity that current technology could not understand, but future technology will.

3. Perhaps the drainage networks that the land depends upon on either side are severely disrupted, resulting in issues downstream.

4. Perhaps it disrupts the migration routes of fauna, which has a disruptive effect on the ecology outside of the owner's jurisdiction.

5. Perhaps his mining equipment pollutes the environment, both in the air and in the water, which flows downstream.

6. Perhaps his mining equipment makes excessive noise for his neighbors.

7. And most importantly, by picking this low hanging piece of fruit, it's no longer there for prosperity. He would've been better off abstaining, and biting the bullet by developing more efficient technologies which would obviate the need to strip mine in the first place.

[myrkul]

*facepalm*

[JoelKatz]

1. Perhaps the owner will die one day, and someone else would like to the owner of it?

Do you really want to adopt the general principle that people may not damage their own property because others might like it after they die?

2. Perhaps the vegetation and ecosystem which was stripped off of it contained information in its natural complexity that current technology could not understand, but future technology will.

Sure, and perhaps not strip mining will cause damage that we cannot currently understand. If you're going to get to just make up things based on nothing, well I can make up things in the other direction too.

3. Perhaps the drainage networks that the land depends upon on either side are severely disrupted, resulting in issues downstream.

If they damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

4. Perhaps it disrupts the migration routes of fauna, which has a disruptive effect on the ecology outside of the owner's jurisdiction.

If they're allowed to damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

5. Perhaps his mining equipment pollutes the environment, both in the air and in the water, which flows downstream.

If they're allowed to damage other people's stuff, your gripe is with the legal system, not the free market.

6. Perhaps his mining equipment makes excessive noise for his neighbors.

If he's allowed to disturb other people, your gripe is with the justice system, not the free market.

7. And most importantly, by picking this low hanging piece of fruit, it's no longer there for prosperity. He would've been better off abstaining, and biting the bullet by developing more efficient technologies which would obviate the need to strip mine in the first place.

That's completely pointless. We're much better off making ourselves more prosperous so there will be a prosperity. Delaying technological innovation to conserve resources that are unlikely to even have any use in the future is completely pointless. When we solve fusion, all the coal, oil, and gas we conserved will have been for nothing. And every extra day it takes us to get there is more misery, suffering, and damage.

[Jaime Frontero]

Well, because it's not pretty, of course. People have a right to look at pretty land. Even if its not theirs. Especially if its not theirs.

That's one good reason. Here are a few more:

1. Perhaps the owner will die one day, and someone else would like to the owner of it?

2. Perhaps the vegetation and ecosystem which was stripped off of it contained information in its natural complexity that current technology could not understand, but future technology will.

3. Perhaps the drainage networks that the land depends upon on either side are severely disrupted, resulting in issues downstream.

4. Perhaps it disrupts the migration routes of fauna, which has a disruptive effect on the ecology outside of the owner's jurisdiction.

5. Perhaps his mining equipment pollutes the environment, both in the air and in the water, which flows downstream.

6. Perhaps his mining equipment makes excessive noise for his neighbors.

7. And most importantly, by picking this low hanging piece of fruit, it's no longer there for prosperity. He would've been better off abstaining, and biting the bullet by developing more efficient technologies which would obviate the need to strip mine in the first place.

all yes.

* sigh *

10-15,000 years of civilization, more or less - and we still refuse to do things without burning shit.  even though now the tech exists to conduct ourselves otherwise.

...leaving entirely aside the small matter of 'ownership'.  you can own dirt?  really?  that always kinda gave me pause...

ownership is really the right to borrow a government's capacity for violence against trespassers, no?  until some trespasser with more money than you wants something on your land.  eminent domain.  mineral rights.  water.  easements.  it's all bullshit.

there may be no greater failure of one's humanity than accepting the commodification of The Commons.

[Anonymous]

ownership is really the right to borrow a government's capacity for violence against trespassers, no?

Not if I can help it.

*cocks gun*

The government doesn't even protect us anyhow. Americans aren't entitled to it according to a court ruling.