Libertarians protecting the environment

I see there are no threads in here about protecting the environment, which supports my view that Libertarianism is extremely weak on this subject, which is a shame because I would probably vote Libertarian if I thought it wouldn't lead to environmental disaster.

 

It is because of issues like this and the way corporations work that I am so against Libertarianism...

It's pretty hard to say you want a small government that doesn't interfere in people's lives, and then interfere in people's lives, even if it is to protect them.

Is there anyone that truly believes that things would be better without the government controls on industry and corportations that there is now?

Personally, I want to see more control over these entities.

Right now, at the very least, they have to pay lip service to issues like the environment, even though it isn't nearly as effective as it should be, imagine what it would be like without.

 

this ^^^

 

Why?

 

Because they are the only party that believes in freedom, and our government has gotten so out-of-control it might be good to pare it down drastically, as long as the poor don't suffer. (Did I say that out loud?)

 

Well right wing libertarians shout a lot about ‘freedom’ and ‘government oppression’.

But if you examine their actual ideas it soon becomes clear that they’re talking about the kind of ‘free market’ freedom which invariably leads to the exploitation of those that are disadvantaged.

And the policies they would follow would actually give so much more power and influence to wealth that it would be in control to the determent of the majority of people.

You say ‘as long as the poor don't suffer’ well plain and simply it seems to me they would suffer if right wing libertarian ideas were implemented.

 

I think a lot of people are under the impression that they are losing freedoms and rights... which if you look over the last 15 years, you can definitely see why... but if you look over the last 100, or better yet, the last 1000, we actually have greater freedoms today (in 'westernized' countries), then ever before in terms of society.

Yes, we have more specific restrictions on us now... however, we don't have the local warlord holding our (and our loved ones) lives in their hands to use as their whims pull them...

The governments, for all people scream about them, are the only things that stop those with the most power from ruling absolutely as they have in the past, and still do in other places.

Are the governments corrupt and more slanted towards the elite? Of course they are... but they are less so now, then they were 100 years ago.

The problem is not that there are governments, or that they are in control... both of those things are necessary to keep us (those not in power) from being totally crushed by the ptb...

The governments have come about as a comprimise between those with power and those without... They didn't come about by an act of altruism... They came about by the masses demanding them.

The freedoms we have today, grow or shrink depending upon the demands we put on those that are now in power. When the main concern of people is the frivolous and meaningless, those in power can do as they please. So they encourage it...

They tell the people (and then the people tell each other) that speaking out and taking part in that comprimise between power and people doesn't really matter, because they are all just cogs anyway...

And the people beleive them and stay home and watch the latest antics of the latest distraction...

and then wonder why they don't get anything out of the bargaining process...

A Libitarian government (according to their doctrine), is by far the worst of these comprimises... They are saying, let's not get involved in the way people do things... there is no need for a comprimise between power and people... It leaves power, free to crush people...

The ideas behind libertarianism are great, don't get me wrong... they just don't belong in a reality that is controlled by human beings.

In my opinion anyway

 

The problem is that libertarianism is a front by massive corporations that want no limits on their greed.

It's not the greatest in many ways, ie. people who think it's a right to dump motor oil in their back yard.

But it would be fine, it we could get it understood that corporations are not people, and do not have the rights of a person. A corporation can't do what it pleases for profit in the name of individual freedom, because it's NOT an individual.

 

See, that wouldn't fix the problem at all though. All it would do is change the powers from corporations to the person who is in charge of them now.

It would change things yes... but only sideways...

 

Chronictom

I agree with a lot of what you say. To me the present right wing libertarian movement is just an extension of the same con game (backed up with a lot of wealth financed propaganda) that has been going on since the founding of the US.

The myths of ‘American values’ and the ‘American way of life’ have been repeated so often that they have become to many a reality that isn’t even questioned anymore.

So you end up with this strange dichotomy of people claiming they’re against the political and economic establishment who support actions and policies that would make the political and economic establishment stronger.

 

Mass confusion is the necessary ingredient to keep the comprimise (the government) working for the elite...

As long as they can piss people off, bore them, or just disgust them enough so that they sit back (or better yet) argue against getting involved, even with voting, the elite wins...

Either you accept the comprimise, or you don't... there is no half way that doesn't leave you crushed as if the comprimise didn't exist....

If you accept it, then you should get out and vote for the best candidate available (notice that isnt the best person for the job, that is NOT part of the comprimise)...

If you don't accept it, then you should be involved in raising a revolution to overthrow the current system....

If you aren't doing one of these two things, then you are more of a danger then anyone else.. because those who will sit back and let them and their loved ones get crushed, are by the nature of not getting invloved, GIVING PERMISSION for it to continue as it is with ZERO changes.... regardless of what it is...

Me, I see the benefits that having an organized governemt has brought us... I like the comprimise that says stephen harper (as an example) can't send some hitman out here to put a bullet in my head...

In fact, you can even say I depend on that very comprimise to save my life...

So does every person who speaks out against the government, even if they try to deny they take any part in it... If they took no part in it, they would not have the protections afforded by it and would just be killed out of hand the moment they said ANYTHING against the government...

 

I believe that free people will generally do what is right. at least that's my hope. I'm Libertarian.

 

The (imo) reality in America is that the corporations like the 2 big parties that are in. Honestly, they OWN the establishment in DC.

The federal reserve that is held so highly by liberals is a huge tax on the savings of anyone who is not wealthy. The bailouts of Bush, and then the huge bailouts of Obama?? Thats YOUR money being given to banks and Corporations, and guess what, those banks still foreclosed on millions of homes.

On a similar note, most of us want a gold standard. Whats REALLY hurting the poor these days is our fake US dollar.

Environmental protections are actually not expressly against libertarian philosophy. I support the EPA, although I think their priorities need to change and maybe shrink a bit. Be warned however, environmental regulations here just mean that mess will be made somewhere else. That plus a high minimum wage (18$ in the USA, after mandatory benefits) = jobs lost, jobs lost, jobs lost. IMO, just the serious stuff needs to be monitored.

I'll keep healthcare short and simple - not only is socialized medicine bad, health insurance is bad! Federal regulations make it so that you get paid less cash ($ replaced by insurance) if you accept healthcare from an employer, but your employer gets a tax break. Insurance paperwork drives costs up by 15% for doctors. Anyways - when most people pay cash for healthcare the cost goes down. Look at plastic surgery and lasik eye surgery. They're becoming cheap as shit, and quality is going up.

Libertarians are not conservatives. Please don't call us that. I'm libertarian and I hate Neocons. We are social liberals and economic conservatives. We are not the opposite of liberals, we are the opposite of authoritarians. -- FURTHERMORE, most real world everyday libertarians are moderates more than anything else. --

 

From what I understand about the Libertarian views on environmental issues.. it's not that they do not believe in environmentalism.. its more that they believe it would be better regulated via consumers if things such as gas/oil prices were at their "natural" pricing.. ie: no tax breaks or subsidies... forcing energy companies and such to look into more eco-friendly alternatives as gas would suddenly cost up to and above $15/gal.. instead of the cheaper option of $3-4/gal..

^^^ This taken from a 1998 study.. so imagine the inflation of today...

Also it comes back to not understanding the whole scheme of things... It would be up to individual states to regulate these issues and not the fed.. Do you think it makes sense for the Fed to tax and regulate companies that are all over the US and let the fed decide where this money should go? Or should it be up to the state to tax these companies so the money can at least go back into the state? seems that state regulation would make more sense

I guess as a whole I do not know what to think about off-shore drilling and ANWR.. but to think it's ok to drill in the middle east and destroy their land... but it's just "not right" to drill within the US territory is just hypocritical.. and well typical of the average American thought process.. let's just be slaves to the middle east oil reserves and continue financing them while we go more and more into debt.. would at least seem logical to keep that money within our borders

 

I had forgotten about this thread... lol

A couple of points here... This idea of seperate levels of governement is really fucked up... Each level of government should be made up of the levels below it, coming back to the people, not seperate forms of it...

Letting the market regulate things... Yeah, unfortunately, that never works. People don't make purchasing decisions based on whats best for the environment, they make them (for the majority) based on what they can afford. As for the idea of a 'true market value' any market value is based soley upon what people will pay for it. To try to guess what the market value of oil would be in a different world, is just that, pure guess...

See a lot of talking about this is just too abstract to handle... You can't just pick one part of our world and say, change that and it will be fixed... Although removing corporate structures and making sure people were directly responsible for the actions of their companies would help about the most (I think)... Even that though... as it is, big business would quickly find a way to recoup and still be in control, it would just a bit more open...

Some of the things that could help, are fought against because of the nature of the system we have... As an example... universal currency... that would be a really really really good thing for us... Unfortunately, that way leads to a world wide government, and because the governments as we have them are so corrupt, we fear that idea...

I'm either not stoned enough, or too stoned for this right now... lol

 

But in the end.. what has been shown to work? Capitalism? Marxism? Socialism?.. "___?"(insert random "ism" that has also failed)... None of them.. So I really don't understand why so many people shoot down the idea of a free-market society.. Is there a good possibility that it may too fail like all other "isms".. Sure.. But I doubt it'll be the end of all things to come..

True value is just that.. True Value.. if you take away the money that is being given to oil companies to make gas cheaper.. then gas is no longer cheaper... Do you think Exxon.. BP.. Mobil.. etc... wanna take that big of a hit? Hell no.. they are money making machines.. and will just boost prices... at a certain point you can only put so much straw on a camels back before it breaks.. you really think a majority of people would pay over $10 for a gallon of gas? In this economy? hell no

I do agree with you though that Libertarianism is very abstract.. Extreme? maybe.. but we're about to deal with extremes either way in this country.. So why not try an extreme that could change things for the better? Am I willing to take that risk? YES.. why? Because nothing else has worked so far.. it's time for a change.. a real change. not just some monkey in a suit saying "change change change" and then staying the same same same

 

As I understand it, Libertarians have only one idea about protecting the environment: those that are affected by pollution sue the offenders. Of course, this would never work in America, because the rich and powerful polluters can afford the best lawyers.

Correct me if I am wrong. I have asked this question a number of times and no one has given me a reasonable answer.

So, I could never vote for a Libertarian.

 

Libertarians are pretty weak on anything aren't they? I mean from what I know about it it's basically about just not having a govt. doing things or stoppping people doing things. I'd call myself a Libertarian to a certain extent but pure Libertarianism seems to be based on the idea a co. woldn't cut corners or do anything that's damagin to the environement becuase it's bad for buisness. That's just not going to happen. Buisnesses will just be ruthless and we need a govt. to stop that as much as possible...withinn reason of course.

 

That's just utterly ridiculous. If it wasn't for the govt. we'd still be at the mercy of snakeoil salesmen and all that kinda shit.

 

I have to jump in here, even though this thread is kind of old.

Corporation 'personhood' is a joke. I'm assuming you all agree on that, so I'll leave it at that.

Libertarianism (not necessarily the political class, but the philosophy) doesn't say that we want NO government, but that the role of government should be limited to protecting rights...such as property rights. So yeah, being able to sue corporations for polluting your air, water, land, would be viable IF the government would actually enforce it, rather than stacking the odds in the favor of the large rich companies.

Our economy is heavily based on petroleum products, and a lot of that has to do with the government-imposed price controls, wars, incentives, you name it. I complain just like everyone else when gas gets higher, yet if we hadn't been controlling and manipulating the prices for so long, and it costed as much in the US as elsewhere in the world, it's much more likely that people would have done more research into more economical/renewable sources of energy. We certainly wouldn't have been as cavalier about how much oil we use in transport, heat, pesticides, fertilizers, etc, etc. It would have cost too much. Government intervention into the oil companies made possible a GREAT deal of our pollution problems today.

Then we get into regulations...

There is such a huge revolving door connection between big corporations and the agencies that regulate them, that it's hard to see how they're a good thing. Regulations tell us that it's okay to have a certain percentage of rat feces in food. Companies can put out pollution, as long as it doesn't go past a certain amount. BP Oil can have shoddy safety practices, because they KNOW they have a cap on the amount of money they can get sued for ($75 million). Meanwhile, people have lost their livelihoods, have had their property ruined, and they have no recourse, because of government regulations that work opposite from what the people assume...they don't protect US. If they did, these big rich corporations wouldn't be lobbying to get them implemented. What they do, is to protect the biggest companies from repercussions, and protect them from competition.

Environmentalism and the free market aren't incompatible. I am emphatically in favor of both. One of the biggest contributors to our problems with the environment is the way we produce food. Excluding Alaska, over 40% of US land is used to grow crops and pasture. Most of the crops go to feed cows that we eat. Agriculture accounts for about 70% of species endangerment in the United States, according to the US Dept of Agriculture. We just love eating cows. In 2002, George Wuerthner wrote:

We use petroleum-based products to till the ground, then to sow the seeds, then we use more petroleum-based products to fertilize the crops, and to take care of pests, then the crops have to be harvested, then they have to be transported across large distances to make it to the store (or to the rancher who raises the cows in CAFO's, which are also incredibly harmful to the environment). This is all made much more lucrative by government intervention into the oil industry (like BP Oil). If we were relying on the free market, the high cost of oil would urge us to find other ways of producing food, and quite likely would encourage us to find other sources of protein than cows, since the 'normal' way of growing cows only yields about 75 lbs of edible meat per acre per year.

And government is good for the environment?

There ARE people who are looking to find ways to do things economically as well as environmentally-friendly, without needing government regulations or incentives to do so. I'm one of them. And there is a viable solution to our obsession with cows and our problems with food production. That solution is Aquaponics. I won't go into a lot of detail in this post (lol I could go on for hours about how wonderful it is), but as an overview -

Aquaponics is the melding of aquaculture (fish farming) and hydroponics in a way that utilizes the fish waste to provide necessary nutrients to growing plants (via bacterial breakdown), which in turn filter the water that is then returned to the fish tank. It is a recirculating system which produces inherently organic food (since pesticides for plants would kill the fish and hormones/medicines for fish would kill the plants), uses 1/10 the water that traditional farming does, and can be set up anywhere that has sun (or grow lights). Poor soil conditions in an area do not matter. Urban areas work just as well as farm areas.

If a whole acre were used in an aquaponics setup, yield numbers are roughly 100,000 lbs of vegetables, as well as 35,000 lbs of edible flesh (using tilapia - other fish have different growth rates). Compare that to the 75 lbs of edible cow flesh. And yet our government supports the cow farming, in an age where farming practices are doing major harm to our environment, and people are going hungry.

It's not advocated by the government. In fact, in a recent group of international scientists and researchers (government funding, anyone?), they didn't even bring it up. They did, however, bring up aquaculture, which, while it is an improvement on cow farming, uses up a lot of energy to filter the water, and also has the added bonus of having to find somewhere to put all the fish waste. The free market has already come up with a better, more environmentally-friendly solution, and yet big government is still looking to support big business.

Bah...so much for not going into a lot of detail. Back to libertarian government -

Government as an entity always seeks to claim more power. Allowing it to regulate businesses above and beyond strict legislation of property rights is just asking for trouble. It might seem naive to think that the free market will regulate itself, because rich businesses will always look for loopholes...but if there are consistent consequences from health claims, or property damage claims (frakking comes to mind...another regulated business), especially when those consequences are both financial and reputational, any business stupid enough to skimp on safety measures or miserly enough to not take measures to limit its pollution will go bankrupt. And as prices go up due to scarcity or greed, other avenues will be looked into, to close the gap and give less expensive alternatives.

Here's an interesting read that focuses on certain railroad companies in the 19th century, I highly recommend it as an example of the free market vs incentivized production - http://mises.org/daily/2317