Libertarians protecting the environment

Thanks for your thoughtful post, but don't you see the problems in your ideas that I've quoted? You are naive.

First, the idea of suing polluters does not depend in any way on the government enforcing anything. We're talking about civil suits, brought by citizens or large classes of citizens. Under Libertarianism, these civil suits against large corporations will mostly fail, because citizens cannot afford the kind of lawyers the rich can. Our justice system is rigged. So, this idea will not work. I see no alternative to strict government regulation of the environment.

As far as polluters going bankrupt, I don't see that at all, except in the unlikely event of them losing a lawsuit. The only financial consequences to polluters from pollution is to BOOST their bottom line. BP (British Petroleum) has a terrible reputation, but they are doing very, very well, aren't they?

Under Libertarianism, the environment will be trashed with enormous negative consequences, mostly to the poor and middle class. The rich can continue to live in their gated communities, far from the nearest coal or nuclear plant.

 

You're right that our justice system is rigged. Part of this is because of regulations that say that companies are allowed to do this-much-damage but no more.

British Petroleum has a terrible reputation, and yes they're doing very very well....because they aren't being held accountable. One of the main tenets of libertarians is the concept of property rights. You want regulations of the environment, but I say that regulating the justice system to properly enforce property rights would do a better job of regulating the environment than simply putting more regulations in place that companies can twist around to benefit themselves at our expense.

More reading on the history of property rights in the justice system, concerning environmental issues - http://mises.org/etexts/environfreedom.pdf

And a 3-part article on the effects of the BP Oil spill. This is where 'regulating' rather than enforcing property rights gets us - http://www.mygreenface.com/profiles/blogs/bps-gulf-oil-spill-one-year

 

Perhaps you know more about this than I do, but I don't see how the justice system can enforce anything. That's the role of the executive branch. Perhaps you just mean -- be fair. But to be fair, the poor must have legal representation equal to those of BP -- but that will never happen because the rich and powerful would call that "socialism".

 

What would stop wealthy corporate lawyers from twisting the justice regulations to their own benefit, just like they do now with environmental regulations? It's what they do for a living, twisting laws and regulations....... Wouldn't matter where the regulations are.

 

Kashta

The problem with this is that in fact it was government intervention in Europe that made prices rise, that was in large part a reaction to the oil shocks of the 1970’s when European governments realised they needed to cut down their intake of oil and the best means of doing that was to manipulate the market and artificially rise the price of oil through taxation.

Europeans pay a lot more than Americans do, when it comes to domestic fuel prices. Oil prices in Europe have been high for ages, when fuel in the USA was sold at $2/gallon; it was roughly priced at $5/gallon in many parts of Europe. The reason for such a marked difference is that there are mammoth oil taxes levied on oil by the governments in Europe. According to a study, the rate at which Europe gets its crude oil supplies is actually lower than the prices at which the USA gets it. So then, why is there such a telling gap in the final cost of fuel in America and the cost of fuel in Europe? The answer lies in the fact that in the US, only 10% of what the end-user pays goes to the white house, while in Europe, this percentage is roughly 70%.
http://www.europeword.com/blog/europe/the-economics-of-europe-oil-prices/

In other words you have your argument the wrong way around rather than too much government intervention - the US would have been better off with much more government intervention.

Also there was a move by many governments in Europe to improve their public transport infrastructure such as the electric powered TGV (high speed train) in France developed and state owned rail company SNCF. Which is more government intervention.

 

The major problem with regulating corporations through the courts with lawsuits for environmental crimes is you would only be able to sue after the damage was done.

 

Just what I was thinking. Most of time the regulatory analysts, 'inspectors' and what-not are just some 'good 'ol boys' from the industry they are supposed to be policing! Oil industry, financial,.. go fish...

 

Bah, too many threads...

Judges are often (depending on local laws) elected, not appointed by some regulatory agency that we have little to no control over once they've been brought into existence. Even when they're appointed, they're appointed by people we elect. Here is a breakdown of the selection processes by state. Judges may not be able to 'enforce regulations' so to speak, but can they not award damages?

With the enforcement of basic laws regarding civil and property rights, with no loopholes allowed, incidents of corruption and bribery would be much fewer, and much more visible when things go wrong. Right now we have how many regulatory agencies? Here, check this out. There may be some listed there that don't write 'rules' with the force of law (that we have no control over), but just look how many there are just on the first page. I can't seem to get to the other pages from that link, and it's getting to be time for dinner again, but am I unreasonable in thinking there are likely to be similar numbers for the rest of the alphabet? Far, far easier for the American public to keep abreast of issues concerning law, than to do the same for ATF and EPA and FDA and DEA and ACF and SEC and....well, every other individual regulatory agency.

Yes, there would be the issue of only having people sue after the fact. Damn that pesky innocent until proven guilty civil right. Of course, if a business gets sued and has to go bankrupt for engaging in harmful practices, the next business to go in that field would be mighty stupid if they were to do the same thing. Yes, some bad things would happen, especially at first...but in the long run, businesses would find themselves unable to thrive if they continued poor business practices.

Balbus, I already addressed that point and many others in my other post, and I hope we can continue the discussion there....lol I am not typing that much again for a while

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7090920&postcount=46

 

But again, you have rose-colored glasses on. You've talked about judges, but the real issue is the lawyers. There is no way that ordinary citizens can successfully sue large polluters with their teams of high-priced lawyers. (The famous Erin Brockovich case was a rare exception.) I think legal representation should be made "equal", but that idea won't go anywhere because to the right-wing, that smells of socialism.

 

And maybe that would be viable. I haven't looked into everything...I've studied both economic theories and other aspects of libertarianism, but I'd be lying if I said I knew every aspect. I guess it's time to go looking again, lol. Still, though, even if you're right, how would that be worse than what we have now? Our lawyers are already corrupt. Regulatory agencies work hand-in-hand with the companies they're supposed to regulate. Our government is systematically destroying our civil rights, because the participants in it are bought & paid for. Our law enforcement is turning into a military force that is used to terrorize and intimidate the population. None of this is all right, but all of it is endorsed and promoted by our government. How can libertarianism be any worse than that?

Socialism has its own problems....and if you're looking for environmental progress, I wouldn't trust that any more than you currently trust libertarianism. Look into the particulars. I'd look them up for you, lol but it's time to turn over the chicken

 

No, I wasn't suggesting socialism. I was just saying that anytime anyone proposes leveling the playing field between rich vs poor, the right-wing cries "socialism!" and enough idiots believe them to derail the idea.

And, as I said, I like most aspects of Libertarianism, but environmental protection is a deal-breaker for me.

 

Well I've pretty much made the case for how I think they'd be better for environmental protection than what we have now, but if you're still not convinced then I don't know what else to say. Did you look at my other post in the 'Federal Employees Donate to Ron Paul More Than Anyother GOP Nominee'? I went into a lot of detail in that one, you may find more information there on the environmental issues.

I guess I'll go do some more research. If nothing else, these conversations are helping me to clarify my own knowledge

 

You've given me a lot to chew on, and I haven't read it all yet.

 

kashta

The problem is that you wish to have a ‘pure free market’ model but there never has been and I believe there never will be a ‘pure free market’ because any move to a ‘free market’ always seems to increase the power and influence of wealth which uses that power to corrupt the system in its favour.

In environmental terms that would mean deregulation that favours the polluter and the exploiter.

The problem is that the only reply right wing libertarians seem to give is the assertion that it wouldn’t happen. That their perfect system would work perfectly in their perfect world, but the problem is that we don’t live in a perfect world.

 

Well my point was what is the point of being able to sue a company for trashing the environment after the fact. The damage was done and all the lawsuits in the world will not undo it. And the results of a lawsuit, even if the corporations lose, would probably not be enough to make it unprofitable to continue abusing the environment. Just look at sites in the northeast along the rustbelt to see the results of corporate environmental plundering. Unregulated steel plants such as Bethlehem just about destroyed the entire ecosystem of the Great Lakes in just 70 short years. It was not until government regulations starting in the 60s and 70s that this massive amount of polluting was curbed. There is no reason to believe that corporations would be any kinder to the environment if left unregulated today. The former site of Bethlehem Steel near Buffalo NY has so many toxic sites on it that the land is completely useless and no amounts of lawsuits can fix it.

 

The proprietary model is the culprit for environmental degradation. Political affiliation is powerless to transcend that model.

 

be constitutional .

Montana adopted environmental constitutional law . make it national .

The state and each person shall maintain and
improve a clean and healthful environment in
Montana for present and future generations .

 

An excellent criticism of the morality of Ron Paul in Salon:

The moral idiocy of the libertarian standard bearer

 

Then why do none of them back libertarian parties or candidates? Corporations want corporatism, not capitalism.

 

Libertarian apropos could argue that it is 'good contract' to protect the environment because:

The environment is a legal entity with its own rights which must be recognised, this entity delivers resources to us and must be protected for the sake of fair contract.

If the environment is destroyed, properties, businesses, and individuals [e.g. health] are harmed, and in every sense there is no fair exchange. In this sense even a minimalist state would 'secure' the environment.