In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
Douglas Bashford
Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
they just don't understand simple economic principals?
--Doug
Lazarus Long
bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
bp> From: bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford)
bp> Subject: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the
bp> dollar Organization: S.A.F.E.
bp> Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
bp> and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
bp> were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
bp> highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
The alternative...state ownership of the land hardly has been
environmentally sound over the years. WHich publicly owned
river burst into flames. How many privately owned waters are
contaminated? very few. Since it is in the economic interest
of the owner to have a stream or river that is productive.
bp> A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
bp> they just don't understand simple economic principals?
WHich economic principles... did you, in your college career,
hear tell of the tragedy of the commons.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... Anything free is worth what you pay for it.
rrt...@ibm.net
In <4tobnb$8...@alpine.psnw.com>, bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford) writes:
I accidentally sent a reply to this without any response...Sorry. Here's the one
with a response.
>Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>
>A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>they just don't understand simple economic principals?
Here are some simple economic principles: An institutional setting
involving private property provides more incentives for conservation than
common or public property. That is why libertarians are in favor of repealing
environmental regulations--if they are replaced with private ownership of
resources that are now public, conservation, not depletion, would be the result.
This is why we have more trees in the U.S. now than thirty years ago.
Logging firms plant more trees than they cut down each year. This is in spite of
the fact that forest service policy has been to build free logging roads for
what would otherwise be inaccessible lumber.
Markets are forward looking--people who can own a species and profit from
it do not kill the species off. People who cannot legally profit from a species hunt
it to extinction--as has happened in Africa. Compare Kenya and Zimbabwe. Kenya's
policy has been to ban elephant hunting. The result has been a dramatic fall in
the number of elephants, as no one has any incentive to manage the herd--any
elephant one poacher doesn't kill is one someone else will. Zimbabwe, on the other
hand, has turned elephant herd management over to tribes and villages. The result
has been an actual increase in the elephant population--such a large increase that
the government has considered (and by now possibly begun) killing off elephants
because the population is TOO large.
There is a large body of literature now on Free Market Environmentalism.
Check it out--some of it is good reading.
Mike Hammock
Adam Ierymenko
In article <4tobnb$8...@alpine.psnw.com>,
bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford) writes:
>
>Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>
>A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>they just don't understand simple economic principals?
>
I see a looooooonnnng thread coming...
Ok. First we have to ask what constitutes destruction of the Earth. In
the Objectivist opinion, destruction of the Earth is activity
which makes it less hospitable to humans. (In other words, the term
'environment' is not used in it's normal contextless usage.)
So, activities that harm the Earth in this way constitute a violation of
others' rights. For example, lets say you release a pollutant that gives
people cancer or kills off woodlands or just plain smells bad. You own that
pollutant, you released it, so you are responsible for whatever it does. If
it kills someone, then you might be held responsible for negligent
manslaughter. If it destroys someone's property then you're responsible for
that. So, there is a definite legal reason to control your pollution.
There are other topics I'm not going to get into at this time:
"Expolitation" of resources
Extinctions of animal species
Destruction of wild environments
--
* "When your world is getting bigger and funnier, your intelligence
is increasing; when it's getting smaller and nastier you're
aimed in the wrong direction."
- Robert Anton Wilson
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQENAzGsu28AAAEH/3AV9ABDxbNMTaZE5gC/17oA+oUQPDt5umvanh4zfe4lhBDq
M7OyKUyJgXOlgT6Sn8/izdCskB81VTpQGfTYM8WHJczyOSZDjlI5+XquMl6uSbgn
KiK//6gBDH1TDkzy05E3Mz5t7LtkDIg6epkaRVt3e+14TinV215oDKmgqtWO3Mnv
9qmlItfshlURMUO8lC0ZTQ6zWHLWFbDvY1yW1yQOqUpdhMV7sLwx7ItxaAanz83e
bKqsLs2mgGlGsajz1hhSYYrdZFbwHmOiOi/hFIYHqHYieqRcxgJ+whsCbrRVwj7+
eA+fDgodqrDSUaZy6od9fCtTgbXiViHztG821u0ABRG0DkFkYW0gSWVyeW1lbmtv
=zH1V
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Glen Raphael
bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford) wrote:
> Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
> and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
> were anti-environmental.
By which you mean that they LIKE smog and brown water? That they hate
trees and cuddly animals with sad eyes? Nah... They just have different
ideas about how best to protect the environment than you do.
> A Rich Boy's dream.
Rich boys favor the status quo, where they can use their money to
influence policy to benefit themselves at the expense of others and at the
expense of the environment. Rich boys don't much care for libertarianism
or for private conservation efforts like those of the Nature Conservancy.
(of which I am a member) Rich boys can always pusha personal exemption
through all the red tape. It is the poor boys, and those who love nature,
who lose out big under the status quo and can only dream of the
improvements libertarian ideas would bring.
> Or is it that
> they just don't understand simple economic principals?
No, it's more likely that libertarians *do* understand economic
principles. Principles like tragedy of the commons, public choice theory,
and the idea of programs that combine concentrated benefits with diffuse
costs. Libertarianism is essentially the politics implied by modern
economics. If you don't understand libertarianism yet, read an economics
textbook (any book at all) or take an economics course. Or if that seems
too much like work, try a popularization like David Friedman's _Hidden
Order: The Economics of Everyday Life_.
Glen Raphael
--
Glen Raphael
rap...@pobox.com
visit Liberals and Libertarians:
http://www.batnet.com/liberty/liberal/
Lazarus Long
a...@axiom.access.one.net pontificated in a message to All:
aa> From: a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
aa> Subject: Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the
aa> dollar Organization: OneNet Communications HUB News Server
aa> In article <4tobnb$8...@alpine.psnw.com>,
aa> bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford) writes:
>
>Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>
>A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>they just don't understand simple economic principals?
>--Doug
>
aa> I see a looooooonnnng thread coming...
aa> Ok. First we have to ask what constitutes destruction of the Earth.
aa> In the Objectivist opinion, destruction of the Earth is activity
aa> which makes it less hospitable to humans. (In other words, the term
aa> 'environment' is not used in it's normal contextless usage.)
aa> So, activities that harm the Earth in this way constitute a
aa> violation of others' rights. For example, lets say you release a
aa> pollutant that gives people cancer or kills off woodlands or just
aa> plain smells bad. You own that pollutant, you released it, so you
aa> are responsible for whatever it does. If it kills someone, then you
aa> might be held responsible for negligent manslaughter. If it
aa> destroys someone's property then you're responsible for that. So,
aa> there is a definite legal reason to control your pollution.
aa> There are other topics I'm not going to get into at this time:
aa> "Expolitation" of resources
aa> Extinctions of animal species
aa> Destruction of wild environments
Add another topic... the difference between libertarians and
Objectivists. There is no = sign between the two.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... Libertarians are strange..they want to support themselves!
John E. Harrington
William Bacon wrote:
> You might wish to do more research. Most libertarians that I know
> aren't anti-environmental. They prefer to see a market-based approach
> to environmental problems. The "tragedy of the commons" doesn't occur
> when there are no commons.
Most libertarians I know aren't quick enough to understand the
massive, sad, laughably absurd paradox of their beliefs.
---
John Harrington (po...@hotmail.com)
-- visit my Stravinsky page at --
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1807/strav.html
"The worst of all deceptions is self-deception." -Plato
Adam Ierymenko
In article <3200F2...@hotmail.com>,
"John E. Harrington" <po...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> You might wish to do more research. Most libertarians that I know
>> aren't anti-environmental. They prefer to see a market-based approach
>> to environmental problems. The "tragedy of the commons" doesn't occur
>> when there are no commons.
>
>Most libertarians I know aren't quick enough to understand the
>massive, sad, laughably absurd paradox of their beliefs.
>
So, you mind posting what this laughably sad paradox is? Or do you just
like to ad hominem attack people who disagree with you?
William Bacon
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996 19:20:42 GMT, bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford)
wrote:
>
>Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>
>A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>they just don't understand simple economic principals?
You might wish to do more research. Most libertarians that I know
rrt...@ibm.net
In <4tobnb$8...@alpine.psnw.com>, bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford) writes:
>
>Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>
>A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>they just don't understand simple economic principals?
>
>
>
Mark Hornberger
rrt...@ibm.net wrote:
>In <4tobnb$8...@alpine.psnw.com>, bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford) writes:
>>
>>Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>>and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>>were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>>highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
Libertarians are not anti-environmental; we just believe that there is
a different way to go about it. In Richard Epstein's book _Takings_
he delineates the way for the courts to enforce trespass, which till
now has been largely ignored by the courts. The idea being that if
Company A has a chemical plant that pollutes your groundwater, you
have grounds for suing their pants off. Government doesn't want it
that way, because then the congresspeople don't get the credit for
saving you from pollution. Government now would rather collectivize
the expense of pollution through taxation, rather that having the
people who are responsible for each problem pay for that problem. I'm
no enviro lawyer, but I have two eyes, and I can see that government's
environmental record is abysmal compared to private industry's. The
Department of Defense has dozens of sites that are so polluted they
would give you bad dreams if you knew the extent of the problem. But
government isn't too fond of making the law apply to itself as well as
the peons. I know it's a sticky subject with no clear answer, but I
believe that the Libertarian solution would be better (at least to
try?) than the current government approach where if you pay a fine -
to government - then it's okay. If you have a govt. that truly
respects property rights, then it would be easier to sue for
environmental damage. Things like gasoline and motor oil might be
more expensive, but the increase in cost would only represent that
product's environmental impact. --Mark Hornberger
Douglas Bashford
Yep, 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote
In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
>bp> Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>bp> and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>bp> were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>bp> highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
> The alternative...state ownership of the land hardly has been
> environmentally sound over the years. WHich publicly owned
> river burst into flames. How many privately owned waters are
> contaminated? very few.
So you guys say. However, you are dealing in numbers too small
for statistical anaylisis. Anecdotal evidence. Rather than ask
WHICH river, ask what percent. I believe there are over 400 toxic
waste sites. What percent of those were public lands? Very few.
>Since it is in the economic interest
> of the owner to have a stream or river that is productive.
That may or may not be the case. If you are a mill, likely you
find free waste dumping more profitable than swiming and fishing.
If you are Joe Public, the converse is true, particularly on your
(public) land.
>bp> A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>bp> they just don't understand simple economic principals?
> WHich economic principles... did you, in your college career,
> hear tell of the tragedy of the commons.
Garret Hardin's 1968 essay? It rings a bell. Have you
read any of his more recent books? Say? *Living Within Limits*?
--Doug bash...@psnw.com
Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html
Douglas Bashford
Yep, a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote on 1 Aug 1996
Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>In article <4tobnb$8...@alpine.psnw.com>,
> bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford) writes:
>>
>>Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>>and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>>were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>>highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>>
>>A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>>they just don't understand simple economic principals?
>>--Doug
>>
>I see a looooooonnnng thread coming...
>Ok. First we have to ask what constitutes destruction of the Earth. In
>the Objectivist opinion, destruction of the Earth is activity
>which makes it less hospitable to humans. (In other words, the term
>'environment' is not used in it's normal contextless usage.)
Well, you guys might be more objective and sound more scientific if
you replaced "human individuals" with "human species", it is of far
greater importance than the individual, but it
seems that would wreck some of your emotional and subjective
attachments. In science, "human individuals" is nearly a contextless
concept submerged in the primary assumption of species, particularly
since we are a social species. It does not seem valid for a
philosophy to be based on an assumption (individual) that is itself
based on another assumption: species. That is the long way of saying
it is not scientific (nor objective) to be based in unarticulated
assumptions. If you made that MAJOR change I would probably not
strongly object to your definition since it could be absorbed into
the concept of biological interconnectivity of the biosphere. Our
species can no longer be separated from the biosphere. But enough
flim-flam.
>So, activities that harm the Earth in this way constitute a violation of
>others' rights. For example, lets say you release a pollutant that gives
>people cancer or kills off woodlands or just plain smells bad. You own that
>pollutant, you released it, so you are responsible for whatever it does. If
>it kills someone, then you might be held responsible for negligent
>manslaughter. If it destroys someone's property then you're responsible for
>that. So, there is a definite legal reason to control your pollution.
So you say. Ok, let's assume you guys get your way, and all
environmental regulations are repealed. This means it is legal
to pollute, as long as nobody gets damaged. Now let's say you
are Joe Blow, and you and your family are getting sick and you
think it might be ground water you are pumping. Since there are
no public sewage laws, you know many of your neighbors prefer
the outhouse. And you know the giant factory up the street uses
a lot of chemicals. And since there are no zoning laws, you have a
funny feeling about the huge slaughter-house that moved down the
street last year. Well, you just spent a week sick in bed, from
what you suspect is polluted water, and your boss is kinda pissed off
at you. What do you do now? I believe the logical answer is to
start buying bottled water. Is this correct?
>There are other topics I'm not going to get into at this time:
>"Expolitation" of resources
>Extinctions of animal species
>Destruction of wild environments
I think this one may hold us for awhile.
Douglas Bashford
Yep, rrt...@ibm.net wrote on 1 Aug 1996 03:50:04 GMT about:
Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>In <4tobnb$8...@alpine.psnw.com>, bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford) writes:
>I accidentally sent a reply to this without any response...Sorry. Here's the one
>with a response.
>>Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>>and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>>were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>>highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>>
>>A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>>they just don't understand simple economic principals?
> Here are some simple economic principles: An institutional setting
>involving private property provides more incentives for conservation than
>common or public property. That is why libertarians are in favor of repealing
Whoa! Ya, I know the cliche's. That is NOT a fact. What IS a fact
is that in private hands, conservation may or may not provide the
greatest value. Furthermore, in this context, "value" means
short-term value. It may be far more profitable to dump toxins, or
mow down a forest in the short-term, then sell the denuded or polluted
land. That Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a function of interest
rate. Furthermore, in the context of public land, the same behavior
measured in the long-term (no selling a used-up stink-hole to buy a
new forest up the road) may show this destructive behavior to NOT be
profitable.
>environmental regulations--if they are replaced with private ownership of
>resources that are now public, conservation, not depletion, would be the result.
Your logic?
> This is why we have more trees in the U.S. now than thirty years ago.
>Logging firms plant more trees than they cut down each year. This is in spite of
>the fact that forest service policy has been to build free logging roads for
>what would otherwise be inaccessible lumber.
You are describing Public Lands policy. Your logic?
The "free logging roads" welfare for the Rich is a pet Republican
project supported by Wise Use and related pseudo-property-rights
people.
> Markets are forward looking--people who can own a species and profit from
>it do not kill the species off. People who cannot legally profit from a species hunt
We need only look to the floundering fish market to see that isn't
true. "That's because the fish are not private property", you say?
You conjour up images of small tree-farmers who have an interest in
the trees? An interest in tree farming is not an interest in forest
growing. Some of the highest yield tree farms harvest every seven
years. That is hardly a forest. Some of the most profitable firms
hop from one forest community to another raping the land and
destroying entire forestry economies that are generations old.
>it to extinction--as has happened in Africa. Compare Kenya and Zimbabwe. Kenya's
>policy has been to ban elephant hunting. The result has been a dramatic fall in
I won't dispute this anecdotal evidence. In many cases, wise and
regulated Market forces can work wonders for the environment.
> There is a large body of literature now on Free Market Environmentalism.
>Check it out--some of it is good reading.
> Mike Hammock
All American environmentalism is free-market. One wonders
what it is you are talking about.
-- What we desire is to increase per capita wealth and freedom,
we don't care a damn about "stimulating the economy".
Growthmania kills what it promises. Ecology can deliver it.
Brandon D. Ray
In a previous article, po...@hotmail.com (John E. Harrington) says:
>William Bacon wrote:
>> You might wish to do more research. Most libertarians that I know
>> aren't anti-environmental. They prefer to see a market-based approach
>> to environmental problems. The "tragedy of the commons" doesn't occur
>> when there are no commons.
>
>Most libertarians I know aren't quick enough to understand the
>massive, sad, laughably absurd paradox of their beliefs.
>
Then why don't you explain it to us, John....give it your best shot. I'm
sure all us poor, uneducated libertarians will be ever so greatful to
drink from the font of your wisdom.
>---
> John Harrington (po...@hotmail.com)
> -- visit my Stravinsky page at --
> http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1807/strav.html
>"The worst of all deceptions is self-deception." -Plato
>
--
******************************************************************************
Vote for Harry Browne for President!
http://www.harrybrowne96.org 1 (800) 682 1776
In 1996, vote your hopes, not your fears.
Lazarus Long
bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
bp> From: bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford)
bp> Subject: Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the
bp> dollar Organization: S.A.F.E.
bp> Yep, 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long)
bp> wrote
bp> In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
>bp> Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>bp> and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>bp> were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>bp> highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
> The alternative...state ownership of the land hardly has been
> environmentally sound over the years. WHich publicly owned
> river burst into flames. How many privately owned waters are
> contaminated? very few.
bp> So you guys say. However, you are dealing in numbers too small for
bp> statistical anaylisis. Anecdotal evidence. Rather than ask WHICH
bp> river, ask what percent. I believe there are over 400 toxic waste
bp> sites. What percent of those were public lands? Very few.
Oh? I wasn't aware that the U.S military was considered private
land, here I thought that it was Federal Government land(public
Land). Or did the U.S contract out it's military to Acme
Security. A great number of toxic sites are located on federal
land.
So much for the government protecting the evironment.
>Since it is in the economic interest
> of the owner to have a stream or river that is productive.
bp> That may or may not be the case. If you are a mill, likely you find
bp> free waste dumping more profitable than swiming and fishing. If you
bp> are Joe Public, the converse is true, particularly on your (public)
bp> land.
However, your downstream neighbours who also own portions of
the river may get upset, and damages through tort action for a
river cleanup could cause a dip in your income.
>bp> A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>bp> they just don't understand simple economic principals?
> WHich economic principles... did you, in your college career,
> hear tell of the tragedy of the commons.
BTW, you didn't answer which economic principles are not
understood by libertarians.
bp> Garret Hardin's 1968 essay? It rings a bell. Have you
bp> read any of his more recent books? Say? *Living Within Limits*?
Actually the tragedy of the commons has been known for quite
some time.
Brad Hatch
It's truly amazing just how black and white your logic is. Both
arguments have elements of truth to them. Bashford is correct that
government intervention has done a lot to stop the increase of pollution
through regualation but Long is correct in that the government through
corporate welfare does build roads for private logging companies. Thats
what state sponsord capitalism is all about. He is also correct in that
the US military is probably the biggest pollutor in the country. What is
left out of the argument is the fact that the military has assistance
from private corporations. After all the main purpose of the US military
is to funnel money and technology into the hands of private corporations,
sort of a defacto industrial policy. For instance, north of Denver is the
Rocky Flats nuclear plant. It's an environmental desaster that has been
run by US corporations with governmetn money. The last being Rockwell
International. The problem with libertarian ideology is that it ignores
the fact that free markets have never existed and that government
intervention has always been used to make them work.
jw
>bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford) wrote:
>
>> Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
[...]
>> A Rich Boy's dream.
Wild nature is a Rich Boy's toy. That's OK -
except when the Rich Boys of Sierra Club
and other rich boys' clubs try not to pay
for their toy, but to make others pay.
Lazarus Long
ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu pontificated in a message to All:
el> It's truly amazing just how black and white your logic is. Both
el> arguments have elements of truth to them. Bashford is correct that
el> government intervention has done a lot to stop the increase of
el> pollution through regualation but Long is correct in that the
el> government through corporate welfare does build roads for private
el> logging companies. Thats what state sponsord capitalism is all
el> about. He is also correct in that the US military is probably the
Which is why libertarians are against State sponsored capitalism. Perhaps you
should do a little reading on the subject and see for yourself what the
libertarian position is on economics rather than guessing.
el> last being Rockwell International. The problem with libertarian
el> ideology is that it ignores the fact that free markets have never
el> existed and that government intervention has always been used to
el> make them work.
Now there is a logical statement.. Free Markets have never
existed and government intervention has been used to make them
work.
If a free market has never existed, how has the intervention of
the state been required to make this non-existent market work?
Amazing...
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... Anarcho Socialists...why use facts? Rhetoric and slogans are enough
Mike Conway
j
>
> Wild nature is a Rich Boy's toy. That's OK -
> except when the Rich Boys of Sierra Club
> and other rich boys' clubs try not to pay
> for their toy, but to make others pay.
In what sense is environmentalism trying to 'make others pay'....
I'm real interested.....
Bryan Griffin
In article <4tobnb$8...@alpine.psnw.com>, bash...@psnw.com (Douglas
Bashford) wrote:
> Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
> and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
> were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
> highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>
> A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
> they just don't understand simple economic principals?
> --Doug
I'd suggest that most libertarians know something about economics,
one good example being Nobel Prize winning Economist Milton Friedman.
The problem is that just as with other problems such as helping the
poor, most of the general public is usually exposed mostly to the
approach of using the government to solve the problem vs. finding
ways to let the private sector take care of it. Many of us
feel that the government tends to be the worst place to turn to
help the environment. The more socialized countries tend to have
had the worst environmental records. Here is an introductory pamphelet
from the ISIL (International society for individual liberty),
"http://www.isil.org", which gives some pointers for further reading:
Unfortunately many people haven't heard of free market environmentalism,
which is essentially the study of libertarian environmentalism.
> The Pollution Solution
>
> by Dr. Mary Ruwart
>
> ISIL EDUCATIONAL PAMPHLET SERIES
>
>
>
> We all want a safe, pollution-free environment -- and with hope in our
> hearts many of us have
> turned to government rules and regulations to protect ourselves and our
> loved ones from the
> horrors of a ravaged world. Yet pollution of our air and water still
> threatens. In South America the
> rainforests are cleared so rapidly that some of us may live to see them
> vanish from the earth. In
> Africa, big game animals are hunted to extinction. Where has our
> environmental strategy failed?
> What can we do to make things right again?
>
>
>
> The Greatest Threat Of All
>
> TOXIC WASTE: Ironically, the greatest toxic polluter of our nation's
> environment is the very
> government we've turned to for protection. The greatest polluter is the
> U.S. military. Pentagon
> spokesperson Kevin Doxey told the National Academy of Sciences in 1991
> that, "We have found
> some 17,400 contaminated sites at 1,850 installations, not including
> formerly used sites." The
> "contamination" consists of toxic solvents used to de-ice military planes,
> byproducts of the
> manufacture of nerve gas and mustard gas, and radioactive debris. In 1988,
> the Department of
> Energy estimated that it would take 50 years and $100 billion to clean up
> a mere 17 of these sites.
> How can we expect the greatest polluter of all time to effectively halt
> pollution by business and
> industry?
>
> RADIOACTIVE WASTE: Even when the courts recognize that our government is
> guilty of
> killing people with pollution, victims have had no recourse. In 1984, a
> Utah court ruled that 10 out
> of 24 cases of cancer brought to its attention were due to negligence of
> the U.S. military in
> association with nuclear weapons testing. The Court of Appeals ruled that
> even though the U.S.
> government was responsible, it would not have to compensate its victims.
> The government enjoys
> "sovereign immunity" -- it does not have t o right its wrongs. How can a
> "polluter pays" policy
> work if the greatest polluter of all cannot be held liable?
>
> NUCLEAR POWER ACCIDENTS: Liability is the key to protecting the
> environment. When
> those who pollute our air, land, and water are held accountable for the
> damage they do, would-be
> polluters are likely to be far more cautious. For example, in the late
> 1950s, private insurance
> companies refused to insure nuclear power plants, because the enormous
> risks associated with a
> possible accident were unacceptably high. Consequently, power companies
> refused to consider
> nuclear power. Congress, however, passed a law (the Price Anderson Act) to
> limit the amount
> victims of a nuclear power plant disaster could claim to a maximum of $560
> million. Of this
> amount, over 80% would come from taxes. Once the power companies were able
> to enjoy limited
> liability for any damage they might cause, nuclear power plants
> proliferated. Instead of protecting
> the public, our government passed laws to protect special-interest profits.
>
> RAINFORESTS: Unfortunately, the above story is not an isolated incident.
> Governments of all
> countries have shown a strong tendency to sell out their nation's
> environmental bounty to special
> interest groups. Third World dictators have routinely driven natives from
> their rainforest homes so
> that those favored by the regime could clear the mighty forests. The cost
> of such callousness was
> vividly portrayed in the movie MEDICINE MAN, in which Sean Connery played
> a scientist who
> found a cure for cancer in the rainforest. He watched helplessly as the
> natives who befriended him
> were driven from their forest home. The rainforest, along with the cancer
> cure, were both
> destroyed. The U.S. government frequently directs "foreign aid" to Third
> World power-brokers to
> pay for rainforest devastation. U.S. taxpayer dollars are literally
> fuelling the fire of the
> slash-and-burn attacks on the tropical woodlands.
>
> IT'S ONLY NATURAL: Betrayals such as those described above hardly seem
> possible at first,
> but further reflection illustrates that they are only the natural outcome
> of political management.
> Special interests reap great profits from building nuclear power plants
> while facing little liability,
> dumping toxic waste without having to clean it up, using radioactive
> materials without being
> responsible for the consequences, or harvesting forests for which they
> didn't have to pay. When
> they offer government officials part of this profit to betray the public
> interest, the temptation is
> often too overwhelming to resist. If an elected official refuses to be
> bought, special interests simply
> fund his or her opponent in the next election. Few honest politicians can
> survive against such odds.
> Consequently, the special interests win virtually every time. Indeed, it's
> a wonder that our
> environment has not been totally devastated long before now!
>
>
>
> The Easy Way Out
>
> The answer to environmental protection may be gleaned by observing special
> interest behavior.
> Let's take the example of the paper companies who log America's national
> forests. The U.S.
> Forest Service, with our tax dollars, builds three to four times as many
> logging roads as hiking
> trails, so that vast sweeps of our precious forests can be felled by paper
> companies with little cost
> and only token replanting.
>
> However, on lands which they own privately, the paper companies suddenly
> become staunch
> environmentalists! They replant so that their own forest acreage increases
> each year -- while the
> national ones dwindle. In the South, International Paper makes as much as
> 30% of its profits from
> recreational uses of its forests.
>
> Why is there so much difference between how paper companies treat their
> own land and the way
> they treat public property? When a paper company is allowed to log a
> national forest, it has little
> incentive to harvest in a responsible and sustainable manner. After all,
> the paper company has no
> guarantees that it will be allowed access to the same forest again.
> Without ownership, long-term
> planning and care of forests just doesn't make economic sense.
>
> Owners, on the other hand, profit from long-range planning because they
> will eventually reap the
> fruits of their conservation efforts. Even if they don't wish to keep a
> property, selling it becomes
> more profitable when it is well cared for, and this includes forest property.
>
> With this in mind, we can propose a two-part strategy for environmental
> protection which can turn
> each person's greed into a desire to nurture Mother Nature: 1) individual
> ownership of the
> environment and 2) personal liability for damage caused to the property of
> others.
>
> OWNING A PIECE OF THE EARTH: The British long ago learned how to stop
> pollution of
> their rivers. Fishing rights in British streams and rivers are a private
> good that can be bought and
> sold. For the last century, polluters have been routinely dragged into the
> courts by angry owners
> and forced to rectify any damage they may have caused. Every owner on
> these rivers has in fact
> become an environmental protector -- because each stands to profit from
> nurturing the
> environment.
>
> In the Gulf of Mexico, shrimp fishermen once claimed parts of the ocean as
> their property in the
> time-honored practice of homesteading. They formed a voluntary association
> to keep the waters
> productive and to avoid overfishing -- until the U.S. government took over
> as caretaker in the early
> 1900s.
>
> Just as the U.S. government took over the fisheries, so too have Third
> World governments taken
> over the rainforests and handed them over to special interests. An
> important element in protecting
> the rainforests is to respect the homesteading rights of the native
> peoples who have consistently
> exhibited a history of sustainable use. Conservation publications, such as
> Cultural Survival,
> recognize that upholding the property rights of native peoples is
> absolutely crucial to saving the
> rainforests.
>
> Private ownership encourages preservation of endangered species as well.
> For example, Zimbabwe
> respects the homesteading claims of natives to the elephants on their
> land. Like other private
> property, elephants and their products can be legally sold. As a result,
> the natives jealously protect
> their valuable elephants from poachers. The natives have every incentive
> to raise as many elephants
> as possible so they can sponsor safaris and sell elephant ivory, hide, and
> meat. As a result, the
> elephant population h as increased from 30,000 to 43,000 over the past ten
> years. People will
> protect the environment when they own it and can profit from it.
>
> On the other hand, when governments try to shepherd wild animal herds,
> disaster is the predictable
> result. For example, the Kenyan government claims ownership of all
> elephants, and hunting has
> been banned in Kenya. While Zimbabwe's herds thrived, elephants in Kenya
> have declined 67%
> over the last decade.
>
> Environment that is "unowned," suffers a condition described by Dr.
> Garrett Hardin in a 1968
> paper as "the tragedy of the commons." He revealed that property that
> belongs to "everyone" is the
> responsibility of no one. Ocean fish, for example, are considered to
> belong to anyone who catches
> them; consequently, everyone tries to catch as many as they can today,
> before a competitor gets
> them tomorrow. If the ocean could be homesteaded, as with the shrimp
> fisheries described above,
> owners would have an incen tive to make sure the fish population was
> maintained and even
> expanded.
>
> MAKING POLLUTERS PAY: If someone pollutes or destroys that piece of the
> earth owned
> by another, he or she should be required to restore it. In practice, this
> could be so expensive that a
> polluter could be bankrupted by his or her own carelessness. If corporate
> officers were made
> personally responsible for deliberate acts of pollution, they would have
> little incentive to poison the
> air, land or water. Making polluters, not taxpayers, responsible for the
> damage they do takes the
> profit out of pollution.
>
>
>
> The Bottom Line
>
> Privatizing the environment gives owners the incentive to protect it.
> Making sure that polluters --
> not taxpayers -- compensate their victims is the best deterrent. We can
> save the earth by making
> greed work for, instead of against us. What could be more natural?
>
>
> RECOMMENDED READING
>
> Healing Our World (Ruwart) ................................... $14.95
> Free Market Environmentalism (Anderson) ...................... $14.95
> Economics & The Environment (Block Ed.) ...................... $19.95
> Freedom In Our Time (Conservation & Capitalism) .............. $2.95
>
>
> For these and other books and tapes write: Freedom's Forum Books, 1800
> Market Street, San
> Francisco, California 94102. Add $2.50 P & H for 1st book and $1.00 for
> each additional item.
>
>
>
> Additional (hard) copies of this attractive two-color pamphlet are
> available for 5 cents each
> (minimum order $1.00). Price includes shipping.
>
> This pamphlet is produced as a public service by the International Society
> for Individual Liberty. If
> you would like to receive free literature about ISIL's activities around
> the world, and receive a
> sample copy of the World Freedom Bulletin newsletter and book catalog,
> please write:
>
> INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
> 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102 USA
> Tel: (415) 864-0952 Fax: (415) 864-7506
>
rrt...@ibm.net
In <4trm0h$5...@alpine.psnw.com>, bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford) writes:
>Whoa! Ya, I know the cliche's. That is NOT a fact. What IS a fact
>is that in private hands, conservation may or may not provide the
>greatest value. Furthermore, in this context, "value" means
>short-term value. It may be far more profitable to dump toxins, or
>mow down a forest in the short-term, then sell the denuded or polluted
>land. That Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a function of interest
>rate. Furthermore, in the context of public land, the same behavior
>measured in the long-term (no selling a used-up stink-hole to buy a
>new forest up the road) may show this destructive behavior to NOT be
>profitable.
trees are never cut down, or that forests are managed exactly the way you
want them to be. Cutting down some trees and replanting is efficient use.
Clearcutting is not. Let me clear that the value (or more appropriately, utility)
that is being maximized is that of consumers and business. There may be people
who benefit simply from knowing that forests exist untouched, but I don't think
including their preferences as part of public policy will lead to desireable outcomes.
I won't devote any time to that issue, but we can if you'd like.
It may be profitable to dump pollution on your own land. But so what?
Anyone who buys it won't pay much for a poison pit. A used up stink hole won't
buy a forest down the road. You may argue that buyers of land are normally too
stupid to check for the quality of the land first, but I don't buy that hypothesis. It
is only profitable if you decide that the loss in value of the land is made up for by
getting rid of the pollution there. A profit seeking business would therefore dump
waste on land that already had low value--which is not forest land.
You bring up another good point--the interest rate. We must decide, somehow,
how we are going to use resources. Markets contain mechanisms that are forward
looking--prices and interest rates. Both provide information about the future and
present value of products. Does government have a superior mechanism for evaluating
future and present value? What is it?
>>environmental regulations--if they are replaced with private ownership of
>>resources that are now public, conservation, not depletion, would be the result.
>
>Your logic?
As I have already said, conserving and managing a valuable resource is
more profitable than depleting it. Let me give a sort of parable. Have you ever read
"The Lorax" by Dr. Seuss? It is exactly the sort of story that most environmentalists
believe in, but it is exactly wrong. In the story, a greedy man, the Once-ler, chops down
all of a rare species of tree, and then finds himself, to his own surprise, out of business.
The story is clearly wrong. Georgia Pacific plants 3 trees (I've heard bigger numbers, but
that's my conservative number) for every one they cut down--to do otherwise would
be to ignore potential future revenue. Businesses are not known for leaving dollar bills
lying around on the ground, and they also don't ignore a chanceto make money down
the road.
>> This is why we have more trees in the U.S. now than thirty years ago.
>>Logging firms plant more trees than they cut down each year. This is in spite of
>>the fact that forest service policy has been to build free logging roads for
>>what would otherwise be inaccessible lumber.
>
>You are describing Public Lands policy. Your logic?
>The "free logging roads" welfare for the Rich is a pet Republican
>project supported by Wise Use and related pseudo-property-rights
>people.
I don't understand your point here. The free logging roads are a stupid,
anti-market policy. It causes logging companies to cut down trees in areas that
would otherwise be to expensive to get to, and would be left untouched. Perhaps
you misunderstood me and we actually agree on this.
>> Markets are forward looking--people who can own a species and profit from
>>it do not kill the species off. People who cannot legally profit from a species hunt
>
>We need only look to the floundering fish market to see that isn't
>true. "That's because the fish are not private property", you say?
>You conjour up images of small tree-farmers who have an interest in
>the trees? An interest in tree farming is not an interest in forest
>growing. Some of the highest yield tree farms harvest every seven
>years. That is hardly a forest. Some of the most profitable firms
>hop from one forest community to another raping the land and
>destroying entire forestry economies that are generations old.
As I already pointed out, there is at least one reason to maintain a forest
ecology: "tourists". International Paper makes ten million dollars a year (that number
is a few years old--it should be a bit larger now) from hunters and campers that
use its woodlands. On the contrary, I don't know of a single firm that jumps from
one community to the next--there's too much money to be made in growing on
one plot of land and chopping it down. Also, the costs of moving are large. An
interest in tree farming is an interest in forests. The trees take a while to grow,
you know. A bunch of trees growing is a place where animals live, and that's called
a forest. The trees have to be left alone for twenty years or more (another example
of the forward looking nature of markets), during which time plenty of exciting
ecological action is occurring. Or perhaps you think that the logging companies sit
out in the forest with guns and shoot any animal that bothers their trees. Okay, so
that was uncalled for. It still makes a point.
>I won't dispute this anecdotal evidence. In many cases, wise and
>regulated Market forces can work wonders for the environment.
Agreed.
>All American environmentalism is free-market. One wonders
>what it is you are talking about.
On the contrary, most of American environmentalism is not market oriented.
If you have children, you know what they are being taught in school about the
environment--it is not free market environmentalism. "The State of the World" is used
much more often by schools (college and high school) than "The True State of the Planet"
or any market literature. Paul Erlich gets cited more on television, while Julian Simon
is usually scoffed at or not mentioned at all (although CNN did a nice piece on him
on their environmental show--but then they went back to "reduce, reuse, recycle, save
the earth).
Please note that I'm not suggesting there is some sort of anti-free market
conspiracy. I'm just saying that our view is not well publicized.
Mike Hammock
Lazarus Long
bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
bp> All American environmentalism is free-market. One wonders
bp> what it is you are talking about.
It is? Have you taken over from Webster's, the job of defining
words?
Government intervention is not free market.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
Mark Hornberger
Mike Conway <mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu> wrote:
When a contractor buys land for, say $500,000 in anticipation of
building a multi-million dollar mall on it, and then an
environmentalist group manages to secure an injunction against the
building (by having the land declared a wetland, or finding an unusual
rat camping out, etc), the value of the contractor's land would
plummet like a rock. He can't build anything on it, nor can anyone
else. Not only is he SOL, but so are the would-be workers who
wouldn't been able to put food on the table with the jobs the building
would've supplied. So both the contractor and the workers have paid
through the nose, while the environmental group gets to feel that they
saved the world, while they're out only the court costs of filing the
injunction. Would this qualify as "making others pay" for the agenda
of the environmentalists? In my view, yes. I don't see how anyone
could say otherwise, with any credibility.
And as how the government has decided that a regulation or injunction
that destroys the value of your land doesn't qualify as a "taking"
under the 5th Amendment, the contractor doesn't have any recourse at
all. --Mark Hornberger
jw
In <4tr9m2$h...@news.one.net> a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
writes:
>>> aren't anti-environmental. They prefer to see a market-based
approach
>>> to environmental problems. The "tragedy of the commons" doesn't
occur
>>> when there are no commons.
>>
>>Most libertarians I know aren't quick enough to understand the
>>massive, sad, laughably absurd paradox of their beliefs.
A flowery but rather confused slur:
(1) A "massive, sad paradox" of somebody's whole belief
system would hardly be something that calls for a "quick"
understanding.
(2) "Most" libertarians known to the author don't understand
that their beliefs are "laughably absurd"?
*Most* don't - but *some* do? - and they still hold
those beliefs? How come?
>So, you mind posting what this laughably sad paradox is? [...]
Yeah, and be "quick enough" about it! :-)
Douglas Bashford
CC: Usenet and 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com,
rap...@liberty.batnet.com,po...@hotmail.com
Yep, 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote
on 02 Aug 96 01:40:31 about:
In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
>bp> From: bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford)
>bp> Yep, 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long)
>>bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
[...]
>>bp> A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>>bp> they just don't understand simple economic principals?
> BTW, you didn't answer which economic principles are not
> understood by libertarians.
Did my previous post help out? Here are some more.
Allow me to repost, it seems you missed this one:
So you say. Ok, let's assume you guys get your way, and all
environmental regulations are repealed. This means it is legal
to pollute, as long as nobody gets damaged. Now let's say you
are Joe Blow, and you and your family are getting sick and you
think it might be ground water you are pumping. Since there are
no public sewage laws, you know many of your neighbors prefer
the outhouse. And you know the giant factory up the street uses
a lot of chemicals. And since there are no zoning laws, you have a
funny feeling about the huge slaughter-house that moved down the
street last year. Well, you just spent a week sick in bed, from
what you suspect is polluted water, and your boss is kinda pissed off
at you. What do you do now? I believe the logical answer is to
start buying bottled water. Is this correct?
>> ... did you, in your college career,
>> hear tell of the tragedy of the commons.
"The Tragedy of the Commons"
>bp> Garret Hardin's 1968 essay? It rings a bell. Have you
>bp> read any of his more recent books? Say? *Living Within Limits*?
Hardin remains on the cutting edge of economic thinking, some
say he has been blacklisted by the Rich Boy economic cult.
Here is a neat little idea from that book:
... "Our economy isn't growing fast enough!" - Our "economists".
* Sustained economic growth is impossible because it is tied to
* physical consumption (wealth). Why impossible?? 5% annual growth
* in the consumption of 2 grams any substance will become a "hole"
* with a mass of 800 trillion planet earths in only 2,000 years.
* Thus long term economic growth is impossible. This is but one
* of many fallacies in ALL orthodox economic foundations. - G. Hardin
Of course, the typical response to this is that perhaps most
of the economy is not dependent on consumption. That is like
saying since only a fraction of the economy is agriculture, the
economy is not dependent on it.
However, I will change my opinion if a single society can be
named that drastically increased standard of living without
drastically increased consumption.
Douglas Bashford
Yep, 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote
on 02 Aug 96 01:40:31 about:
In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
>bp> From: bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford)
>bp> Subject: Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the
>bp> dollar Organization: S.A.F.E.
>bp> Yep, 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long)
>bp> wrote
>bp> In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>>bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
>>bp> Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>>bp> and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>>bp> were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>>bp> highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>> The alternative...state ownership of the land hardly has been
>> environmentally sound over the years. WHich publicly owned
>> river burst into flames. How many privately owned waters are
>> contaminated? very few.
>bp> So you guys say. However, you are dealing in numbers too small for
>bp> statistical analysis. Anecdotal evidence. Rather than ask WHICH
>bp> river, ask what percent. I believe there are over 400 toxic waste
>bp> sites. What percent of those were public lands? Very few.
> Oh? I wasn't aware that the U.S military was considered private
> land, here I thought that it was Federal Government land(public
> Land). Or did the U.S contract out it's military to Acme
> Security. A great number of toxic sites are located on federal
> land.
> So much for the government protecting the evironment.
I was not aware that Libertarians wanted to privatize the
Military. But the National and State Forests and Parks. Your
argument is non sequitur, bordering on red herring.
>>Since it is in the economic interest
>> of the owner to have a stream or river that is productive.
>bp> That may or may not be the case. If you are a mill, likely you find
>bp> free waste dumping more profitable than swimming and fishing. If you
>bp> are Joe Public, the converse is true, particularly on your (public)
>bp> land.
> However, your downstream neighbours who also own portions of
> the river may get upset, and damages through tort action for a
> river cleanup could cause a dip in your income.
If they can prove damages. That might be expensive. Very expensive.
And if those damages once proven, can not be mitigated, say by more
cheaply trucking in water at the factory's expense. Or what ever.
How much is a fishing hole worth in dollars? The market value of the
fish plus admission fees of a nearby fishing park? So how do I,
Joe Public collect? Oh, that's right! I'm not in the picture
any more, you stole my fishing hole, and sold it to some Rich Boy.
>>bp> A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>>bp> they just don't understand simple economic principals?
>> WHich economic principles... did you, in your college career,
>> hear tell of the tragedy of the commons.
> BTW, you didn't answer which economic principles are not
> understood by libertarians.
"private wealth, common good". That is shorthand for "private
wealth v. the common good." For example, if drinking water were
privatized (a common good) and sold at a penny a gallon, it would
make a few people very rich, but it would damage me, and impoverish
society. I could not afford to freely wash my car, nor take long
showers for example. For another example, that would turn many
Western U.S cities into ghost towns, including this one.
The list in the common good is a long one. Generally these
are things deemed too important for civilization
to be tossed into the whims of the Market. Many (like water) are
foundational to our economic system, others (again water) have
non-economic value, -- another concept Libertarians seem to have
trouble with.
>bp> Garret Hardin's 1968 essay? It rings a bell. Have you
>bp> read any of his more recent books? Say? *Living Within Limits*?
> Actually the tragedy of the commons has been known for quite
> some time.
Well, The Tragedy of Commons is generally credited to it's author
in most Econ texts that I'm aware of.
>... Libertarians are strange..they want to support themselves!
Some might call that delusional or myopic. But egoistic is
a term I think all parties will agree on.
--Doug
Lazarus Long
bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
bp> From: bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford)
bp> Subject: Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the
bp> dollar Organization: S.A.F.E.
>bp> So you guys say. However, you are dealing in numbers too small for
>bp> statistical analysis. Anecdotal evidence. Rather than ask WHICH
>bp> river, ask what percent. I believe there are over 400 toxic waste
>bp> sites. What percent of those were public lands? Very few.
> Oh? I wasn't aware that the U.S military was considered private
> land, here I thought that it was Federal Government land(public
> Land). Or did the U.S contract out it's military to Acme
> Security. A great number of toxic sites are located on federal
> land.
> So much for the government protecting the evironment.
bp> I was not aware that Libertarians wanted to privatize the
bp> Military. But the National and State Forests and Parks. Your
bp> argument is non sequitur, bordering on red herring.
Not really. Public land is public land... and the government
which is "supposedly" better at protecting the environment has
many of those hot spots on their land.
>>Since it is in the economic interest
>> of the owner to have a stream or river that is productive.
>bp> That may or may not be the case. If you are a mill, likely you find
>bp> free waste dumping more profitable than swimming and fishing. If you
>bp> are Joe Public, the converse is true, particularly on your (public)
>bp> land.
> However, your downstream neighbours who also own portions of
> the river may get upset, and damages through tort action for a
> river cleanup could cause a dip in your income.
bp> If they can prove damages. That might be expensive. Very
Not really. You have a factory upstream discharging waste.. you
take a water sample and ship it to a lab. Lab sends back a list
of chemicals present in sample. You check and find that said
chemicals are used in the manufacture of the goods that the
factory produces. Bingo.
bp> expensive. And if those damages once proven, can not be mitigated,
bp> say by more cheaply trucking in water at the factory's expense. Or
Nope, because you file in your suit to have your property restored
and damages removed.
bp> what ever. How much is a fishing hole worth in dollars? The market
bp> value of the fish plus admission fees of a nearby fishing park? So
bp> how do I, Joe Public collect? Oh, that's right! I'm not in the
bp> picture any more, you stole my fishing hole, and sold it to some
bp> Rich Boy.
Engaging in Hubenisms?
If it was your fishing hole and was stolen, why didn't you
pursue the case in court? was the fishing hole taken over state
lines? Smuggled out to Saudi Arabia. If you are going to engage
in absurdities, I can play that game as well.
>>bp> A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>>bp> they just don't understand simple economic principals?
>> WHich economic principles... did you, in your college career,
>> hear tell of the tragedy of the commons.
> BTW, you didn't answer which economic principles are not
> understood by libertarians.
bp> "private wealth, common good". That is shorthand for "private
bp> wealth v. the common good." For example, if drinking water were
bp> privatized (a common good) and sold at a penny a gallon, it would
bp> make a few people very rich, but it would damage me, and impoverish
bp> society. I could not afford to freely wash my car, nor take long
bp> showers for example. For another example, that would turn many
bp> Western U.S cities into ghost towns, including this one.
If it was sold for more than the market would bear, the
market size would be very small, and some other enterprising
person would come along and sell for 1/2 cent per gallon and
reach a larger market. In turn, someone would come along and
sell it even cheaper ...and so on...until the sale price got
close too the cost of delivery
bp> The list in the common good is a long one. Generally these
bp> are things deemed too important for civilization
bp> to be tossed into the whims of the Market. Many (like water) are
bp> foundational to our economic system, others (again water) have
bp> non-economic value, -- another concept Libertarians seem to have
bp> trouble with.
Water has an economic value. It's value changes according to
availability. Try comparing land with no accessible water to
land with a proven water supply and see the difference in value.
>bp> Garret Hardin's 1968 essay? It rings a bell. Have you
>bp> read any of his more recent books? Say? *Living Within Limits*?
> Actually the tragedy of the commons has been known for quite
> some time.
bp> Well, The Tragedy of Commons is generally credited to it's author in
bp> most Econ texts that I'm aware of.
>... Libertarians are strange..they want to support themselves!
bp> Some might call that delusional or myopic. But egoistic is
bp> a term I think all parties will agree on.
Some, who care to take it for what it means, would understand
that it means that libertarians don't want others to be forced
to support them.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... WHining Alert...socialist inanity detected.
James Hammerton
Douglas Bashford (bash...@psnw.com) wrote:
[snip]
> All American environmentalism is free-market.
No, this is wrong. Most environmentalists want to use government
regulation to protect the environment -- this is most blatantly not
free market. Free market environmentalism seeks to protect the
environment by using private property rights and defining pollution as
a violation of such rights unless it is restricted to the polluter's
own property. If you want to pollute someone elses land/water you have
to bargain with them. The market will then regulate pollution as it
regulates everything else. This approach is rarely espoused by
environmentalists, but it is one that IMHO deserves more attention.
James
--
James Hammerton, PhD Student, School of Computer Science,
University of Birmingham | Email: J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk
WWW Home Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah
Connectionist NLP WWW Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/CNLP/cnlp.html
Brad Hatch
2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:
>ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu pontificated in a message to All:
>
>el> It's truly amazing just how black and white your logic is. Both
>el> arguments have elements of truth to them. Bashford is correct that
>el> government intervention has done a lot to stop the increase of
>el> pollution through regualation but Long is correct in that the
>el> government through corporate welfare does build roads for private
>el> logging companies. Thats what state sponsord capitalism is all
>el> about. He is also correct in that the US military is probably the
>
>Which is why libertarians are against State sponsored capitalism. Perhaps you
>should do a little reading on the subject and see for yourself what the
>libertarian position is on economics rather than guessing.
>
>
>el> last being Rockwell International. The problem with libertarian
>el> ideology is that it ignores the fact that free markets have never
>el> existed and that government intervention has always been used to
>el> make them work.
>
> Now there is a logical statement.. Free Markets have never
> existed and government intervention has been used to make them
> work.
>
> If a free market has never existed, how has the intervention of
> the state been required to make this non-existent market work?
>
> Amazing...
>
>http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
>
>Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
>
>
>
My point being that your absolute free market without government
intervention is a myth. Trade barriers have always been used to protect
markets in the advanced industrialised nations. Subsidies to bussiness
is a reality and have always played a part in industrialisation. In the
US, military spending is used as our industrial policy. The national
defense hi-way act was responsible for building the infrustructure so
that trade through trucking was improved. High technology such as
computors and aerospace are developed with military money and then handed
over to private industry. US funded universties have provided a majority
of the ground breaking research in bio-tech and medicine. I could also
go into detail on how the militaries in the US and Western Europe were
used to open up new markets. I know that libertarians frown on this.
The CATO institute has done some good work in exposing corporate welfare
in the form of export subsidies and agriculturel subsidies, but I think
that they will tone it down and focus more of their attention on after
welfare queens so as not to lose their corporate funding.
Brad
Brad Hatch
To elaborate even further, I see no evidence that laissez-faire
capitalism has ever existed or that there is a possibility of its
existing without some form of public subsidy to provide it with the
infustructure to exist. This infrustructure is also needed to protect
the environment from the excess of capitalism.
Lazarus Long
ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu pontificated in a message to All:
el> My point being that your absolute free market without government
el> intervention is a myth. Trade barriers have always been used to
el> protect markets in the advanced industrialised nations. Subsidies
Not a myth....but rather a perversion of capitalism..and quite
the understandable one. Who wouldn't turn down the aid of the
state and the use of other people's money for your own gain.
el> to bussiness is a reality and have always played a part in
el> industrialisation. In the US, military spending is used as our
el> industrial policy. The national defense hi-way act was responsible
el> for building the infrustructure so that trade through trucking was
el> improved. High technology such as computors and aerospace are
el> developed with military money and then handed over to private
el> industry. US funded universties have provided a majority of the
el> ground breaking research in bio-tech and medicine. I could also go
el> into detail on how the militaries in the US and Western Europe were
el> used to open up new markets. I know that libertarians frown on
el> this. The CATO institute has done some good work in exposing
el> corporate welfare in the form of export subsidies and agriculturel
el> subsidies, but I think that they will tone it down and focus more
el> of their attention on after welfare queens so as not to lose their
el> corporate funding.
So your final argument is a guess on what you think free
market proponents will do... Funny, but they have been very
critical of some of the largest corporate welfare cases, and
haven't seen the need to tone down any of their arguments.
In fact, the arguments have been getting stronger each year.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... Wealth Redistribution...an ideological basis for theft
Lazarus Long
While ducking the question of his illogical statement,
ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu pontificated in a message to All:
el> To elaborate even further, I see no evidence that laissez-faire
el> capitalism has ever existed or that there is a possibility of its
el> existing without some form of public subsidy to provide it with the
el> infustructure to exist. This infrustructure is also needed to
el> protect the environment from the excess of capitalism.
First you have to elaborate, before you can elaborate further.
Laissez-faire economics would not have subsidies. Actually, my
dear boy, companies have long provided their own infrastructure
when needed. Even not so laissez-faire companies such as the two
major fur traders, the NorthWester's and the Hudson Bay Co. built
their own trading posts and brought in various trades and
professions to create towns around the posts.
Other examples exist of companies building roads, railroads and
electrical generation for their own use.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... "Never let your studies interfere with your education."
m...@surf-ici.com
Douglas Bashford wrote:
>
> CC: Usenet and 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com,
> rap...@liberty.batnet.com,po...@hotmail.com
>
>
> >bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
> >bp> From: bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford)
> [...]
> >>bp> A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
> >>bp> they just don't understand simple economic principals?
>
> * Sustained economic growth is impossible because it is tied to
> * physical consumption (wealth). Why impossible?? 5% annual growth
> * in the consumption of 2 grams any substance will become a "hole"
> * with a mass of 800 trillion planet earths in only 2,000 years.
> * Thus long term economic growth is impossible. This is but one
> * of many fallacies in ALL orthodox economic foundations. - G. Hardin
You aren't dealing with reality.
I leave it to others to point out the economic lunacy of the above.
I will just ask, "How can you do better with an unfree world?"
If freedom will lead to consuming "800 TRILLION" times the
mass of the earth for a single natural resource. Then I ask you
how much freedom will have to be given up, how much power
do you want, to reduce human consumption to the point where
we will only consume the entire mass of just one earth?
By the way, humans have been around for far more than 2000 years
and we started out consuming more than 2 grams a year. And we
have had considerable economic and population growth since
homo-sapien first appeared, Why haven't we consumed the earth
800 trillion times over?
Somewhere in there I think you've got a problem in your theory.
mahie
--
Harry Browne's Web site: http://www.harrybrowne96.org
Steven D. Litvintchouk
In article <bwg-020896...@news.frii.com> b...@bwg.com (Bryan Griffin) writes:
> Unfortunately many people haven't heard of free market environmentalism,
> which is essentially the study of libertarian environmentalism.
>
> [detailed analysis deleted]
> >
> > However, on lands which they own privately, the paper companies suddenly
> > become staunch
> > environmentalists! They replant so that their own forest acreage increases
> > each year -- while the
> > national ones dwindle.
> >
> > Owners, on the other hand, profit from long-range planning because they
> > will eventually reap the
> > fruits of their conservation efforts. Even if they don't wish to keep a
> > property, selling it becomes
> > more profitable when it is well cared for, and this includes forest property.
> >
> > With this in mind, we can propose a two-part strategy for environmental
> > protection which can turn
> > each person's greed into a desire to nurture Mother Nature: 1) individual
> > ownership of the
> > environment and 2) personal liability for damage caused to the property of
> > others.
I can see how this could work for renewable resources such as coastal
waters and land that yields crops and forests for profit. But how
would the following two situations be dealt with:
1. Air pollution: No one currently pays for the use of the *air* when
they pollute it. Would we grant "air licenses" analogous to "fishing
rights"? How would this work, when the prevailing winds will blow air
pollution in countless untraceable directions? For example, if I find
that the air around me is polluted, which of the thousands of drivers
of cars and trucks passing by every day should I sue?
2. Non-renewable resources: When a mining company strip-mines land
that they own, or otherwise pollutes their land in the course of mining,
what incentive to they have to restore the land? They still own it,
but restoring the land to its former state won't yield any more
minerals to be mined.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk "There seems to be no mainframe
Email: s...@mitre.org explanation for the PC world
Disclaimer: As far as I am aware, in which we're living."
the opinions expressed herein -- President Bill Clinton
are not those of my employer.
John E. Harrington
jw wrote:
>
> In <4tr9m2$h...@news.one.net> a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
> writes:
> >
> >In article <3200F2...@hotmail.com>,
> >>> You might wish to do more research. Most libertarians that I know
> >>> aren't anti-environmental. They prefer to see a market-based
> approach
> >>> to environmental problems. The "tragedy of the commons" doesn't
> occur
> >>> when there are no commons.
> >>
> >>Most libertarians I know aren't quick enough to understand the
> >>massive, sad, laughably absurd paradox of their beliefs.
>
> A flowery but rather confused slur:
>
> (1) A "massive, sad paradox" of somebody's whole belief
> system would hardly be something that calls for a "quick"
> understanding.
>
I meant quick in the sense of intelligent, not fast.
> (2) "Most" libertarians known to the author don't understand
> that their beliefs are "laughably absurd"?
> *Most* don't - but *some* do? - and they still hold
> those beliefs? How come?
Some libertarians are quite cognizant of the consequences of their
beliefs, but simply don't give a damn about anyone else but themselves,
and, to their credit, are quite happy to admit it.
Most enjoy a kind of fuzzy-headed idealism about the proposed
libertarian paradise, where everyone supposedly is "free" to "choose".
>
> >So, you mind posting what this laughably sad paradox is? [...]
>
> Yeah, and be "quick enough" about it! :-)
That unregulated markets, despite the clear example of history,
lead to strong economies and a preferable society. Specious, however
untrue.
Our own nation, for example, became a mightly global super power during
a period when taxation, especially on the richest 5%, was
unprecedentedly high, union activity near saturation (i.e. in all the
trades where it was needed) and governmental regulation of business
entrenched and constantly fortified. On the other hand, the two
times in our century when laissez faire politics held sway, we ended
up with depression or recession.
Of course lib'ns always like to play slippery slope games. All the
thought requisite is to call your opponent a communist or a socialist
(without apparently understanding the simple meaning of those terms),
evoke the failure of the Soviet Union (undisputed, BTW, though I'm
quite sure that won't discourage anyone), retell a few glib anecdotes
about the horrors of bureaucracy and then to wildly assert
that because I support the regulation of pesticides or the assurance
of basic worker rights that I therefore believe in total governmental
control of the means of production. In the libertarian world, black
and white are the primary colors, grey rarely seen.
I should say, though, as a reformed libertarian myself, that some
of us do come around.
--
---
Igor Stravinsky (po...@hotmail.com)
Douglas Bashford
Yep, rrt...@ibm.net wrote on 1 Aug 1996 03:50:04 GMT about:
Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
Yep, kelly...@ebbs.cts.com wrote on Fri, 2 Aug 96 about:
Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scr
>>
>> Yep, rrt...@ibm.net wrote on 1 Aug 1996 03:50:04 GMT about:
>> Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>>
>>>In <4tobnb$8...@alpine.psnw.com>, bash...@psnw.com (Douglas Bashford) write
>>
>>>I accidentally sent a reply to this without any response...Sorry. Here's t
>>one
>>>with a response.
>>
>>>>Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>>>>and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>>>>were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>>>>highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>>>>
>>>>A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>>>>they just don't understand simple economic principals?
>>
>>> Here are some simple economic principles: An institutional setting
>>>involving private property provides more incentives for conservation than
>>>common or public property.
>>
>>Whoa! Ya, I know the cliche's. That is NOT a fact. What IS a fact
>>is that in private hands, conservation may or may not provide the
>>greatest value. Furthermore, in this context, "value" means
>>short-term value. It may be far more profitable to dump toxins, or
>>mow down a forest in the short-term, then sell the denuded or polluted
>>land. That Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a function of interest
>>rate. Furthermore, in the context of public land, the same behavior
>>measured in the long-term (no selling a shaved forest to buy a
>>new forest up the road) may show this destructive behavior to NOT be
>>profitable.
IOW, public lands are managed for the long-term, for centuries.
And the bottom line is not maximum short-term profit.
The bottom line in National Forests is muliple-use.
>>
>>> That is why libertarians are in favor of repeal of
>>>environmental regulations--if they are replaced with private ownership of
>>>resources that are now public, conservation, not depletion, would be the
>>> result.
>>
>>Your logic?
>Who has the mopney to buy all of this land? Large corporations that turn
>forests into tree farms. The little guy would sure have a hard time
>preserving large tracts of habitat necessary to ensure no fragmentation
>occurs, resulting in great losses of species diversity. Land would end up
>favoring only adaptive species, and private interests would preserve only
>large, huntable animals because it brings them profit. Ranchers would
>preserve land for cows and sheep (bye bye bighorn). Native animals
>necessary to the health of the ecosystem but not good for private profit
>would receive no protection.
>Do you people know anything about the science of habitat ecology?? Do you
>actually believe the earth does not sustain all life? Is nature just a damn
>tree and hunting farm to you people?
>kelly...@ebbs.cts.com
I believe something like that is how most people feel
about Libertarians and the environment.
So how do the Libertarians respond to this?
As I said, I very
much like many of their ideas, but environment nixed them,
and that was long before I became an "environmentalist".
I just enjoyed hunting and fishing, and the freedom to
roam and explore my vast public lands. A great freedom to
shoot cans, or swim naked, or sleep any damned where I want,
to do what ever the hell I want, just don't burn it down.
That freedom is one of the things that makes this country
great. -- Yet you guys want to sell all this off. --
Put fences around it -- checkerboard it with barbed wire.
You claim you guys love Freedom? I can't buy that kind of freedom.
Do you care?
You can't sell America. You cheapen her when you try and sell her.
Shame on you.
--Doug
Douglas Bashford
Yep, "John E. Harrington" <po...@hotmail.com> wrote on Thu, 01 Aug
Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
Yep, kelly...@ebbs.cts.com wrote on Fri, 2 Aug 96 23:19:00 PST
Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scr
>>In a previous article, po...@hotmail.com (John E. Harrington) says:
>>>William Bacon wrote:
>>>> You might wish to do more research. Most libertarians that I know
>>>> aren't anti-environmental. They prefer to see a market-based approach
>>>> to environmental problems. The "tragedy of the commons" doesn't occur
>>>> when there are no commons.
You Libertarians might keep in mind that the below is
how much of the world sees you. Yet in defense, you only
offer untested theory (faith), or often tested-as-wrong
facts (dogma) as evidence. Any comments to the below?
>Bull. They want no regulations protecting the environment against
>corporations that pollute. They want to sell off all governemnt land,
>except post offices. If you want to go for a hike, the libertarian says
>"Buy the property." If you want biological diversity, buy it. In the
>libertarian's mind, there is no such thing as protecting non-adaptive
>species.
> Habitat fragmentation and loss are the two major culprits in the
>loss of species and biodiversity. Libertarians omit that fact, and prefer
>to have economists, not ecologists managing for diversity. National Parks
>to them are simply lands with no financial value, unless they are run as
>businesses with the bottom line being profit. The value of wildlife to them
>is determined by whether or not someone has a "use" for it, like hunting,
>fishing, or viewing pleasure. The term "watershed" holds no meaning, nor
>does the word "ecosystem." A forest is nothing but board feet, and there is
>no such thing as a forest beneath the trees. The term "pollution" has no
>meaning unless it cuts into profits.
Libertarians? is this all true?
>Use all the fact terms you wish, but the libertarian philosophy aims to gut
>decades of environmental prtotection and decades of research detailing the
>value of intact ecosystems and the important species who live there.
>I listen to libertarian talk show hosts often. The message is clear: They
>feel that industry does not pollute, the ESA should be abolished, and
>ALL federal lands set aside for wildlife should be sold to the highest
>bidder. I wonder who has that kind of money??
>Kelly...@ebbs.cts.com
I didn't know there were Libertarian talk shows. I must admit,
it's easy to get the same impression of them on the Net.
--Doug
Douglas Goodridge
>No, this is wrong. Most environmentalists want to use government
>regulation to protect the environment -- this is most blatantly not
>free market. Free market environmentalism seeks to protect the
>environment by using private property rights and defining pollution as
>a violation of such rights unless it is restricted to the polluter's
>own property. If you want to pollute someone elses land/water you have
>to bargain with them. The market will then regulate pollution as it
>regulates everything else. This approach is rarely espoused by
>environmentalists, but it is one that IMHO deserves more attention.
Then based on this paragraph, I can reasonably come to the conclusion
that free market environmentalism is most definitely not the way to
go. Why? Because the idea that one's own property can be polluted to
his heart's content doesn't take into account the idea that a person
may only live a short time, but that property he polluted may remain
polluted long after he is dead and gone. What happens then?
dougg
Douglas Bashford
Yep, rrt...@ibm.net wrote on 2 Aug 1996 about:
Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>(Douglas Bashford) writes:
>> rrt...@ibm.net wrote:
>>> Here are some simple economic principles: An institutional setting
>>>involving private property provides more incentives for conservation than
>>>common or public property.
>>Whoa! Ya, I know the cliche's. That is NOT a fact. What IS a fact
>>is that in private hands, conservation may or may not provide the
>>greatest value. Furthermore, in this context, "value" means
>>short-term value. It may be far more profitable to dump toxins, or
>>mow down a forest in the short-term, then sell the denuded or polluted
>>land. That Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a function of interest
>>rate. Furthermore, in the context of public land, the same behavior
>>measured in the long-term (no selling a used-up stink-hole to buy a
>>new forest up the road) may show this destructive behavior to NOT be
>>profitable.
In otherwords, public land is managed for the long-term, private
for the short-term.
> In private hands, resources are efficiently used.
That is a far cry from "provides more incentives for conservation",
isn't it? "Used" as in "consumed".
> That's not to say that
>trees are never cut down, or that forests are managed exactly the way you
>want them to be. Cutting down some trees and replanting is efficient use.
>Clearcutting is not.
Have you ever read a USNF Forest Plan? I have. They weigh about ten
pounds. Clearcutting is most efficient, if fiber yield is your only
goal. It seems this is your only goal.
> Let me clear that the value (or more appropriately, utility)
>that is being maximized is that of consumers and business. There may be people
>who benefit simply from knowing that forests exist untouched, but I don't think
>including their preferences as part of public policy will lead to desirable outcomes.
>I won't devote any time to that issue, but we can if you'd like.
Why don't you address the multiple use concept of National Forests?
These include hunting, fishing, cattle grazing, recreation, mining,
wildlife, education, and several others. IOW, the Mighty Dollar is
not maximized.
Why don't you address the fact that you want to steal my public
land, my heritage. Then sell it to the highest bidder, so that he
can try and sell fragments of it back to me at a profit? That
I will lose. Me, and a whole lot of other people you will be
stealing from today and in the future. . For what? So you can
turn a quick buck? That's rat shit.
When you try and steal my public land, I will meet you with
my shotgun. Why don't you address that? You want want to
steal our greatest possession, and our unborn children's.
You want to steal part of what makes America great to the
highest bidder for a quick buck. Shame on you guys. Shame.
> It may be profitable to dump pollution on your own land. But so what?
Shame on you. So I guess you guys really don't belive in cleaning
up your own mess. Leave it for the next generation to deal with.
Treat the land like disposable toilet paper if if you can afford it.
Shame on you.
>Anyone who buys it won't pay much for a poison pit. A used up stink hole won't
>buy a forest down the road.
You are out of your league guy. That's exactly how Pacific Lumber
now makes its living. I used to own stock in them. I detail that
in another post in this packet/thread.
In the case of waste pits, you seem to be missing a MAJOR point.
It may very well be economically proffitable to buy some land,
turn it into a stink-pit, then PAY somebody to take it off your
hands. For the exact SAME reason we pay people to haul off our
other wastes, or why we flush toilet paper we paid good money for.
> You may argue that buyers of land are normally too
>stupid to check for the quality of the land first, but I don't buy that hypothesis. It
>is only profitable if you decide that the loss in value of the land is made up for by
>getting rid of the pollution there. A profit seeking business would therefore dump
>waste on land that already had low value--which is not forest land.
Sigh...
> You bring up another good point--the interest rate. We must decide, somehow,
>how we are going to use resources. Markets contain mechanisms that are forward
>looking--prices and interest rates. Both provide information about the future and
>present value of products. Does government have a superior mechanism for evaluating
>future and present value? What is it?
Interest rate? Forward-looking?
At 5% compounded interest, two grams would grow to a mass of 800
trillion planet earths in 2,000 years. So if it were statistically
proven that some behavior would likely cause, say a nuke meltdown
in 2,000 years, and fry 50 million people, I believe your CBA
says it's ok to fry them if you can earn a penny today. Are those
figures in error? So? is there a "superior mechanism for evaluating
future and present value?", you ask?? Like duh. Have you guys
ever heard of morality and common sense? Like, clean up your own
mess? Like cleaning up your own mess should be a cost of
doing business? Like cleaning up your mess should not be subsidized
by the taxpayer, nor the environment? Like responsibility for your
actions? Ya, I have a better mechanism, all right. It's called
common decency, enforced if needed, by environmental law.
>>>environmental regulations--if they are replaced with private ownership of
>>>resources that are now public, conservation, not depletion, would be the result.
>>
>>Your logic?
> As I have already said, conserving and managing a valuable resource is
>more profitable than depleting it. Let me give a sort of parable. Have you ever read
>"The Lorax" by Dr. Seuss? It is exactly the sort of story that most environmentalists
>believe in, but it is exactly wrong. In the story, a greedy man, the Once-ler, chops down
>all of a rare species of tree, and then finds himself, to his own surprise, out of business.
>The story is clearly wrong. Georgia Pacific plants 3 trees (I've heard bigger numbers, but
>that's my conservative number) for every one they cut down--to do otherwise would
>be to ignore potential future revenue. Businesses are not known for leaving dollar bills
>lying around on the ground, and they also don't ignore a chanceto make money down
>the road.
A nice parable. The problem is, you seem to be talking from pure
faith, and have a poor understand of human history. In fact,
humans have duplicated Once-ler countless times. The recent passenger
pigeon is an example. The beaver was only narrowly saved by a drop
in demand. The Hawaiians extinguished 200 species of birds. There is
an island off New England where the soil still stinks from rotting
carcasses of extinct birds destroyed for the buck. You guys, you know
what your problem is? You have this grand world-view that has utterly
no basis in reality. It's all just gee-whiz, and by-golly theory.
And it reeks of irresponsibility.
>>> This is why we have more trees in the U.S. now than thirty years ago.
I trust you saw the other post with the forest acreage table
suggesting otherwise?
>>>Logging firms plant more trees than they cut down each year. This is in spite of
>>>the fact that forest service policy has been to build free logging roads for
>>>what would otherwise be inaccessible lumber.
>>
>>You are describing Public Lands policy. Your logic?
>>The "free logging roads" welfare for the Rich is a pet Republican
>>project supported by Wise Use and related pseudo-property-rights
>>people.
> I don't understand your point here. The free logging roads are a stupid,
>anti-market policy. It causes logging companies to cut down trees in areas that
>would otherwise be to expensive to get to, and would be left untouched. Perhaps
>you misunderstood me and we actually agree on this.
Many of your arguments are close to ditto-head's, -- just testing.
>>> Markets are forward looking--people who can own a species and profit from
>>>it do not kill the species off. People who cannot legally profit from a species hunt
>>
>>We need only look to the floundering fish market to see that isn't
>>true. "That's because the fish are not private property", you say?
>>You conjour up images of small tree-farmers who have an interest in
>>the trees? An interest in tree farming is not an interest in forest
>>growing. Some of the highest yield tree farms harvest every seven
>>years. That is hardly a forest. Some of the most profitable firms
>>hop from one forest community to another raping the land and
>>destroying entire forestry economies that are generations old.
> As I already pointed out, there is at least one reason to maintain a forest
>ecology: "tourists". International Paper makes ten million dollars a year (that number
>is a few years old--it should be a bit larger now) from hunters and campers that
>use its woodlands. On the contrary, I don't know of a single firm that jumps from
>one community to the next--there's too much money to be made in growing on
>one plot of land and chopping it down.
There are several. I already named Pacific Lumber. You talk again
from a position of untested theory. Since your theory is wrong, it
would now be logical to modify or abandon it. In the name of common
sense, decency, and responsibility, I suggest the latter.
> Also, the costs of moving are large. An
>interest in tree farming is an interest in forests. The trees take a while to grow,
>you know. A bunch of trees growing is a place where animals live, and that's called
>a forest. The trees have to be left alone for twenty years or more (another example
>of the forward looking nature of markets), during which time plenty of exciting
>ecological action is occurring. Or perhaps you think that the logging companies sit
>out in the forest with guns and shoot any animal that bothers their trees. Okay, so
>that was uncalled for. It still makes a point.
In fact they use air- applied poisoned bait and herbicides.
Even the USFS has been doing that in places.
>>I won't dispute this anecdotal evidence. In many cases, wise and
>>regulated Market forces can work wonders for the environment.
>Agreed.
>>All American environmentalism is free-market. One wonders
>>what it is you are talking about.
> On the contrary, most of American environmentalism is not market oriented.
>If you have children, you know what they are being taught in school about the
>environment--it is not free market environmentalism. "The State of the World" is used
>much more often by schools (college and high school) than "The True State of the Planet"
>or any market literature. Paul Erlich gets cited more on television, while Julian Simon
>is usually scoffed at or not mentioned at all (although CNN did a nice piece on him
>on their environmental show--but then they went back to "reduce, reuse, recycle, save
>the earth).
> Please note that I'm not suggesting there is some sort of anti-free market
>conspiracy. I'm just saying that our view is not well publicized.
> Mike Hammock
Try six hours a day of free-market propaganda beamed into
every home in America. Or does network TV have another purpose
besides pushing consumption and turning a buck?
Lazarus Long
bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
>>In a previous article, po...@hotmail.com (John E. Harrington) says:
>>>William Bacon wrote:
>>>> You might wish to do more research. Most libertarians that I know
>>>> aren't anti-environmental. They prefer to see a market-based approach
>>>> to environmental problems. The "tragedy of the commons" doesn't occur
>>>> when there are no commons.
bp> You Libertarians might keep in mind that the below is
bp> how much of the world sees you. Yet in defense, you only
bp> offer untested theory (faith), or often tested-as-wrong
bp> facts (dogma) as evidence. Any comments to the below?
Trolling or do you bother to look up information?
>Bull. They want no regulations protecting the environment against
>corporations that pollute. They want to sell off all governemnt land,
>except post offices. If you want to go for a hike, the libertarian says
>"Buy the property." If you want biological diversity, buy it. In the
>libertarian's mind, there is no such thing as protecting non-adaptive
>species.
Nice collection of Hubenisms.
> Habitat fragmentation and loss are the two major culprits in the
>loss of species and biodiversity. Libertarians omit that fact, and prefer
>to have economists, not ecologists managing for diversity. National Parks
>to them are simply lands with no financial value, unless they are run as
>businesses with the bottom line being profit. The value of wildlife to them
>is determined by whether or not someone has a "use" for it, like hunting,
>fishing, or viewing pleasure. The term "watershed" holds no meaning, nor
>does the word "ecosystem." A forest is nothing but board feet, and there is
>no such thing as a forest beneath the trees. The term "pollution" has no
>meaning unless it cuts into profits.
More Hubenisms.
bp> Libertarians? is this all true?
Nope.
bp> I didn't know there were Libertarian talk shows. I must admit, it's
bp> easy to get the same impression of them on the Net.
bp> --Doug
Depends...there are several good sources on free market
environmentalism available on the web.
I suggest the folowing sites for starters.
http://www.heartland.org and http://www.cei.org
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... Hubenism: A deliberate mistatement, to twist the meaning or context
Lazarus Long
do...@comtch.iea.com pontificated in a message to All:
dc> From: do...@comtch.iea.com (Douglas Goodridge)
dc> Newsgroups:
dc> alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.con
dc> servatism,alt.politics.economics,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.pol
dc> itics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.misc,talk.en
dc> vironment,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.economics.austrian-school
dc> Subject: Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the
dc> dollar Organization: CompuTech
dc> On Sun, 4 Aug 1996 14:56:37 GMT, ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James
dc> Hammerton) wrote:
>No, this is wrong. Most environmentalists want to use government
>regulation to protect the environment -- this is most blatantly not
>free market. Free market environmentalism seeks to protect the
>environment by using private property rights and defining pollution as
>a violation of such rights unless it is restricted to the polluter's
>own property. If you want to pollute someone elses land/water you have
>to bargain with them. The market will then regulate pollution as it
>regulates everything else. This approach is rarely espoused by
>environmentalists, but it is one that IMHO deserves more attention.
dc> Then based on this paragraph, I can reasonably come to the
dc> conclusion that free market environmentalism is most definitely not
dc> the way to go. Why? Because the idea that one's own property can
dc> be polluted to his heart's content doesn't take into account the
dc> idea that a person may only live a short time, but that property he
dc> polluted may remain polluted long after he is dead and gone. What
dc> happens then?
Certainly he can pollute his own property... but then, can he
sell that polluted property? He or his inheritors would be liable for any
pollution that made its way onto his neighbours property.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... I must create a system myself or be enslaved by another man's.
Brad Hatch
2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:
>While ducking the question of his illogical statement,
>ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu pontificated in a message to All:
>
>el> To elaborate even further, I see no evidence that laissez-faire
>el> capitalism has ever existed or that there is a possibility of its
>el> existing without some form of public subsidy to provide it with the
>el> infustructure to exist. This infrustructure is also needed to
>el> protect the environment from the excess of capitalism.
>
> First you have to elaborate, before you can elaborate further.
> Laissez-faire economics would not have subsidies. Actually, my
> dear boy, companies have long provided their own infrastructure
> when needed. Even not so laissez-faire companies such as the two
> major fur traders, the NorthWester's and the Hudson Bay Co. built
> their own trading posts and brought in various trades and
> professions to create towns around the posts.
> Other examples exist of companies building roads, railroads and
> electrical generation for their own use.
>
>
>http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
>
>Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
>
>
>
Actually I do agree with you on this. The Cato institute has increased
their criticism of corporate welfare. But in the past it always appeared
as though they were only interested in attacking government spending in
programs that benifit poor Americans. They are one of the few think
tanks with any consistency. I'm just worried that this may change when
this stance begins to threaten their corporate backers.
Brad Hatch
2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:
>While ducking the question of his illogical statement,
>ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu pontificated in a message to All:
>
>el> To elaborate even further, I see no evidence that laissez-faire
>el> capitalism has ever existed or that there is a possibility of its
>el> existing without some form of public subsidy to provide it with the
>el> infustructure to exist. This infrustructure is also needed to
>el> protect the environment from the excess of capitalism.
>
> First you have to elaborate, before you can elaborate further.
> Laissez-faire economics would not have subsidies. Actually, my
> dear boy, companies have long provided their own infrastructure
> when needed. Even not so laissez-faire companies such as the two
> major fur traders, the NorthWester's and the Hudson Bay Co. built
> their own trading posts and brought in various trades and
> professions to create towns around the posts.
> Other examples exist of companies building roads, railroads and
> electrical generation for their own use.
>
>
>Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
>http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
>
>Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
>
>... "Never let your studies interfere with your education."
>
>
No one is saying that firms don't ever provide some of their own
infrustructure. I'm sure you can come up with even more andecdotes to
support your postition. What your missing is the role government plays
in the trading system as a whole. I'm sure the Hudson Bay company did
all the things you say it did. What your ignoring is the role the British
government played. First they stole the land from the French with a
puplic funded military. This military also drove Indians off their lands
for expansion. The Hudson Bay company and the Northwesters were able to
make the investments in infrustructure with help from the British
government which inacted maximum salary laws in England to keep wages low
so the rich could accumulate capital necessary to make these investments.
I don't know a lot about these 2 companies but I come up with these
examples of their use of governement to expand British trade into the new
world. I'm sure there are other examples that your not aware of because
your not looking for them. Don't feel bad, selective perception effects
us all. We have a tendencey to see those facts that support our own
world view and ignore the rest. In other words, your letting your
idiology get in the way.
Lazarus Long
bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
bp> I believe something like that is how most people feel
bp> about Libertarians and the environment.
bp> So how do the Libertarians respond to this?
bp> As I said, I very
bp> much like many of their ideas, but environment nixed them,
bp> and that was long before I became an "environmentalist".
bp> I just enjoyed hunting and fishing, and the freedom to
bp> roam and explore my vast public lands. A great freedom to
bp> shoot cans, or swim naked, or sleep any damned where I want, to do
bp> what ever the hell I want, just don't burn it down.
Much of the forest land in Maine is privately owned yet is
open to hiking and other uses. What's your point?
bp> That freedom is one of the things that makes this country
bp> great. -- Yet you guys want to sell all this off. --
bp> Put fences around it -- checkerboard it with barbed wire.
Who mentioned barbed wire? Engaging in Hubenisms?
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... Hubenism: A deliberate mistatement, to twist the meaning or context
Lazarus Long
bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
bp> Why don't you address the fact that you want to steal my public
bp> land, my heritage. Then sell it to the highest bidder, so that he
bp> can try and sell fragments of it back to me at a profit? That I
bp> will lose. Me, and a whole lot of other people you will be stealing
bp> from today and in the future. . For what? So you can turn a quick
bp> buck? That's rat shit.
bp> When you try and steal my public land, I will meet you with
bp> my shotgun. Why don't you address that? You want want to
bp> steal our greatest possession, and our unborn children's.
bp> You want to steal part of what makes America great to the
bp> highest bidder for a quick buck. Shame on you guys. Shame.
Your public land? Just see how much you are allowed to do on that public land.
You find a nice looking spot..can you build a nice cabin there, even if you
allow others to use it in your absence?
> It may be profitable to dump pollution on your own land. But so what?
bp> Shame on you. So I guess you guys really don't belive in cleaning
bp> up your own mess. Leave it for the next generation to deal with.
bp> Treat the land like disposable toilet paper if if you can afford it.
bp> Shame on you.
More Hubenisms?
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for.
LisaO
An example will make clear how Libertarians are much better for
the environment and in fact much tougher on business than
Democrats and Republicans.
Consider the rash of mining operations made possible by new
technology. For example, last year a Canadian company was
awarded a claim on $10 Billion of Gold on Federal land, which
they will extract using a new technology: open pit cyanide
heap leeching. Now you might say: "well, $10 Billion works out
to $200/household. I could use $200 long about now, and the mine
is in the middle of nowhere, and their scientists say its
perfectly safe, so heck, its no skin off my nose. Let 'em mine."
Or you might say: "dumping cyanide and strip mining!! I don't care
if you pay me $100,000, I don't care if I never have to pay
federal income tax again, NO, you can't do it."
But actually, the Democrats and Republicans have offered you
neither of these choices. What they did was to sell the mining
rights to the company for $5 an acre, so you get nothing at all.
And not only that, the mining claim they awarded has to be
used immediately- so the company can not, for example, do
further research to try and find a safer extraction technique.
They are forced to begin operations immediately.
Harry Browne would auction the land, getting market value,
and then hold the companies and their employees totally and
*personally* liable for any way their toxic chemicals harm
others. Think that might make their scientists careful about
their claims? Which way do you think is better? What
the Democrats and Republicans deliver, or the Libertarian
approach?
These mining operations are not some exception. The Democrats
and Republicans subsidize special interests, usually corporate
fat cats, in raping every resource: ranchlands, forests, mining,
etc. etc.
And they always insist that the fat cat being subsidized rape
the environment in some specific way, immediately, or lose his
subsidy. You can't take their subsidy for ranchlands and use
the land for recreation, you have to overgraze it by law.
Harry Browne wants to end this special interest feeding frenzy.
He proposes to end all subsidies to special interests, all
unconstitutional federal programs, and use the savings to both
balance the federal budget and end the federal income, and
payroll taxes. Its a great deal, especially for the environment.
--
Harry Browne for President.
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org
The Harry Browne 800 Number: 1-800-682-1776
To get on Harry's email list:
send a message to announce...@HarryBrowne96.org with
"subscribe" in the subject line
----------------
My opinions, not my employer's.
Adam Ierymenko
In article <320634...@hotmail.com>,
>beliefs, but simply don't give a damn about anyone else but themselves,
>and, to their credit, are quite happy to admit it.
>
>Most enjoy a kind of fuzzy-headed idealism about the proposed
>libertarian paradise, where everyone supposedly is "free" to "choose".
>
I don't think there is any such thing as paradise, but I do believe in a
world in which one is "free" to "choose."
Here are a few things I'd like to be free to choose:
- What I'm allowed to read and say
- What I can do with my own body
- What kind of business I can start (provided it is not criminal)
- What I do with my own money
- Who I associate with
- Where I am allowed to travel
- How much I'm allowed to own
I'd like to hear a logical argument that I shouldn't be free to choose any
of those things.
>>
>> >So, you mind posting what this laughably sad paradox is? [...]
>>
>> Yeah, and be "quick enough" about it! :-)
>
>That unregulated markets, despite the clear example of history,
>lead to strong economies and a preferable society. Specious, however
>untrue.
>
>Our own nation, for example, became a mightly global super power during
>a period when taxation, especially on the richest 5%, was
>unprecedentedly high, union activity near saturation (i.e. in all the
>trades where it was needed) and governmental regulation of business
>entrenched and constantly fortified. On the other hand, the two
>times in our century when laissez faire politics held sway, we ended
>up with depression or recession.
>
Don't confuse state capitalism (which is what existed around the turn of
the century) with libertarian capitalism. In state capitalism, the state
gives monopolies to companies who have political pull and sponsors those
industries which have the most friends in congress. State capitalism is also
heavily regulated, only by cartel rather than by beurocracy.
What libertarians advocate is something that has never existed before.
>Of course lib'ns always like to play slippery slope games. All the
>thought requisite is to call your opponent a communist or a socialist
>(without apparently understanding the simple meaning of those terms),
>evoke the failure of the Soviet Union (undisputed, BTW, though I'm
>quite sure that won't discourage anyone), retell a few glib anecdotes
>about the horrors of bureaucracy and then to wildly assert
>that because I support the regulation of pesticides or the assurance
>of basic worker rights that I therefore believe in total governmental
>control of the means of production. In the libertarian world, black
>and white are the primary colors, grey rarely seen.
>
Grey is a mixture of black and white. Grey can be seperated into it's
components.
On the regulation of pesticides, I suggest you read a little on libertarian
views about the environment. If you release something, you are libable for
whatever it does (summary in short). On 'worker rights,' there are only one
kind of rights: human rights. They are the same for everyone regardless of
your relative position in regard to others. Changing your social position in
regard to others does not give you more or less rights, nor does it give the
other person more or less rights. (An understanding of what I mean by the
term 'right' is necessary to understand my position here. Since you were
an ex-libertarian I assume you know what I mean.)
BTW, I'm not asserting that you're a communist. :)
>I should say, though, as a reformed libertarian myself, that some
>of us do come around.
>
Perhaps it's good that you are a reformed libertarian, depending upon what
kind of libertarian you were. If you were one of these grunting right-winger
conspiricy nuts then maybe you're smarter now.
--
* "When your world is getting bigger and funnier, your intelligence
is increasing; when it's getting smaller and nastier you're
aimed in the wrong direction."
- Robert Anton Wilson
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQENAzGsu28AAAEH/3AV9ABDxbNMTaZE5gC/17oA+oUQPDt5umvanh4zfe4lhBDq
M7OyKUyJgXOlgT6Sn8/izdCskB81VTpQGfTYM8WHJczyOSZDjlI5+XquMl6uSbgn
KiK//6gBDH1TDkzy05E3Mz5t7LtkDIg6epkaRVt3e+14TinV215oDKmgqtWO3Mnv
9qmlItfshlURMUO8lC0ZTQ6zWHLWFbDvY1yW1yQOqUpdhMV7sLwx7ItxaAanz83e
bKqsLs2mgGlGsajz1hhSYYrdZFbwHmOiOi/hFIYHqHYieqRcxgJ+whsCbrRVwj7+
eA+fDgodqrDSUaZy6od9fCtTgbXiViHztG821u0ABRG0DkFkYW0gSWVyeW1lbmtv
=zH1V
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Douglas Bashford
Yep, b...@bwg.com (Bryan Griffin) wrote on Fri, 02 Aug 1996
Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>In article <4tobnb$8...@alpine.psnw.com>, bash...@psnw.com (Douglas
>Bashford) wrote:
>> Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>> and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>> were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>> highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>>
>> A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>> they just don't understand simple economic principals?
>> --Doug
> I'd suggest that most libertarians know something about economics,
>one good example being Nobel Prize winning Economist Milton Friedman.
> The problem is that just as with other problems such as helping the
>poor, most of the general public is usually exposed mostly to the
>approach of using the government to solve the problem vs. finding
>ways to let the private sector take care of it.
There is an interesting new field called ecological economics
that that deals with this. If I were to attempt to nutshell it,
I'd say that it was based on the fact that in the long-term a
good economy is utterly dependent on a healthy environment.
Perhaps the major difference between it and standard economics
is that it does not tend to devalue the future at current interest
rate as quickly as is done in the norm. In other words, long-term
gain is more highly valued than in standard economics.
>ways to let the private sector take care of it.
However, I would use that as an example of not understanding basic
economic (or ecological?) principals. The private sector can help,
and environmentalism need not constantly be in the private sector's
face, but broadly, it can only be done with external regulation. Yet
the private sector may in some cases be the best solution by far.
> Many of us
>feel that the government tends to be the worst place to turn to
>help the environment. The more socialized countries tend to have
>had the worst environmental records. Here is an introductory pamphelet
>from the ISIL (International society for individual liberty),
>"http://www.isil.org", which gives some pointers for further reading:
> Unfortunately many people haven't heard of free market environmentalism,
>which is essentially the study of libertarian environmentalism.
You guys have a long row to hoe here on the net among
environmentalists. This is in part because just about every rabid
anti-environmentalist to come charging thru the enviro newsgroups has
been either a dittohead parrot or a Libertarian pseudo-tuff-guy.
What I mean is, even the Commies sound good in theory.
>> The Pollution Solution
Since I claimed Libs are anti-environmentalists, let's
see if I have any problems with this.
>>
>> by Dr. Mary Ruwart
>>
>> ISIL EDUCATIONAL PAMPHLET SERIES
>>
>>
>>
>> We all want a safe, pollution-free environment -- and with hope in our
>> hearts many of us have
>> turned to government rules and regulations to protect ourselves and our
>> loved ones from the
>> horrors of a ravaged world. Yet pollution of our air and water still
>> threatens. In South America the
>> rainforests are cleared so rapidly that some of us may live to see them
>> vanish from the earth. In
>> Africa, big game animals are hunted to extinction. Where has our
>> environmental strategy failed?
>> What can we do to make things right again?
>>
>>
>>
>> The Greatest Threat Of All
>>
I have a MAJOR problem with Government = military.
>> TOXIC WASTE: Ironically, the greatest toxic polluter of our nation's
>> environment is the very
>> government we've turned to for protection. The greatest polluter is the
>> U.S. military. Pentagon
>> spokesperson Kevin Doxey told the National Academy of Sciences in 1991
>> that, "We have found
>> some 17,400 contaminated sites at 1,850 installations, not including
>> formerly used sites." The
>> "contamination" consists of toxic solvents used to de-ice military planes,
>> byproducts of the
>> manufacture of nerve gas and mustard gas, and radioactive debris. In 1988,
>> the Department of
>> Energy estimated that it would take 50 years and $100 billion to clean up
>> a mere 17 of these sites.
>> How can we expect the greatest polluter of all time to effectively halt
>> pollution by business and
>> industry?
>>
>> RADIOACTIVE WASTE: Even when the courts recognize that our government is
>> guilty of
>> killing people with pollution, victims have had no recourse. In 1984, a
>> Utah court ruled that 10 out
>> of 24 cases of cancer brought to its attention were due to negligence of
>> the U.S. military in
>> association with nuclear weapons testing. The Court of Appeals ruled that
>> even though the U.S.
>> government was responsible, it would not have to compensate its victims.
>> The government enjoys
>> "sovereign immunity" -- it does not have t o right its wrongs. How can a
>> "polluter pays" policy
>> work if the greatest polluter of all cannot be held liable?
>>
>> NUCLEAR POWER ACCIDENTS: Liability is the key to protecting the
>> environment. When
>> those who pollute our air, land, and water are held accountable for the
>> damage they do, would-be
>> polluters are likely to be far more cautious. For example, in the late
Agree. But it is not "the key". There is no "key" that I am
aware of.
>> 1950s, private insurance
>> companies refused to insure nuclear power plants, because the enormous
>> risks associated with a
>> possible accident were unacceptably high. Consequently, power companies
>> refused to consider
>> nuclear power. Congress, however, passed a law (the Price Anderson Act) to
>> limit the amount
>> victims of a nuclear power plant disaster could claim to a maximum of $560
>> million. Of this
>> amount, over 80% would come from taxes. Once the power companies were able
>> to enjoy limited
>> liability for any damage they might cause, nuclear power plants
>> proliferated. Instead of protecting
>> the public, our government passed laws to protect special-interest profits.
>>
>> RAINFORESTS: Unfortunately, the above story is not an isolated incident.
>> Governments of all
>> countries have shown a strong tendency to sell out their nation's
>> environmental bounty to special interest groups.
True. What is the Libertarian solution here?
>> Third World dictators have routinely driven natives from
>> their rainforest homes so
>> that those favored by the regime could clear the mighty forests. The cost
Understand that in these typically hyper-capitalistic nations, the
"those favored by the regime" was often unfettered economic
development and expansionism.
>> of such callousness was
>> vividly portrayed in the movie MEDICINE MAN, in which Sean Connery played
>> a scientist who
>> found a cure for cancer in the rainforest. He watched helplessly as the
>> natives who befriended him
>> were driven from their forest home.
The only Lib solution I see here is that perhaps not driving
out the natives would accidently have also saved the forest?
What am I missing?
>>The rainforest, along with the cancer
>> cure, were both
>> destroyed. The U.S. government frequently directs "foreign aid" to Third
>> World power-brokers to
>> pay for rainforest devastation. U.S. taxpayer dollars are literally
>> fuelling the fire of the
>> slash-and-burn attacks on the tropical woodlands.
So de-funding "foreign aid" is your cure for the rainforest??
>>
>> IT'S ONLY NATURAL: Betrayals such as those described above hardly seem
>> possible at first,
>> but further reflection illustrates that they are only the natural outcome
>> of political management.
Are you suggesting that there should be a separation between
state and economic religion? It is an idea to consider.
>> Special interests reap great profits from building nuclear power plants
>> while facing little liability,
>> dumping toxic waste without having to clean it up, using radioactive
>> materials without being
>> responsible for the consequences, or harvesting forests for which they
>> didn't have to pay. When
>> they offer government officials part of this profit to betray the public
>> interest, the temptation is
>> often too overwhelming to resist. If an elected official refuses to be
>> bought, special interests simply
>> fund his or her opponent in the next election. Few honest politicians can
>> survive against such odds.
What laws would Libertarians have honest politicians pass?
>> Consequently, the special interests win virtually every time. Indeed, it's
>> a wonder that our
>> environment has not been totally devastated long before now!
>>
>>
>>
>> The Easy Way Out
>>
>> The answer to environmental protection may be gleaned by observing special
>> interest behavior.
>> Let's take the example of the paper companies who log America's national
>> forests. The U.S.
>> Forest Service, with our tax dollars, builds three to four times as many
>> logging roads as hiking
>> trails, so that vast sweeps of our precious forests can be felled by paper
>> companies with little cost
>> and only token replanting.
False. Forests are fully replanted by the USFS. Yet sometimes
(as locally) even rather heroic attempts at replanting clearcuts
fail.
>>
>> However, on lands which they own privately, the paper companies suddenly
>> become staunch environmentalists!
Bullshit. They turn forests into tree farms. Drive thru Oregon
or Washington sometime . Mile after mile of treefarms, all planted
in sterile neat rows.
>> They replant so that their own forest acreage increases
>> each year -- while the
>> national ones dwindle. In the South, International Paper makes as much as
>> 30% of its profits from
>> recreational uses of its forests.
>>
>> Why is there so much difference between how paper companies treat their
>> own land and the way they treat public property?
You mean why are National Forests, fully functional forests, and the
others are sterile fucked-up treefarms? My guess is, because the
National Forests are there for the common good first, and the fiber
farms are there to produce paper. Like duh. Simple economics.
One economy values profit, the other, the common good.
I have nothing against fiber farms, I am an old tree farmer myself
(citrus). But do not confuse a farm with a forest.
>> When a paper company is allowed to log a
>> national forest, it has little
>> incentive to harvest in a responsible and sustainable manner. After all,
Bullshit. Ever read a USNF Forest Plan? The incentive comes
directly from Congress, and (as I have seen) sometimes even the
President. Not from, as in the Case with Pacific Lumber who
mows down private forests, sells them, and moves to the next.
I used to own stock in them. They were quite responsible
and practiced sustainable yield on their vast land holdings. But,
being in the private sector, they were purchased in a junk bond
leveraged buyout, and now destroy multi-generational timber economies
like dominos. Like other companies in this new cheap-cash is King
economy, they were chopped up and sold for parts.
That, my friends is why you do NOT put the common good in the
hands and whims of the private sector. Simple economics.
>> the paper company has no
>> guarantees that it will be allowed access to the same forest again.
>> Without ownership, long-term
>> planning and care of forests just doesn't make economic sense.
>>
>> Owners, on the other hand, profit from long-range planning because they
>> will eventually reap the
>> fruits of their conservation efforts. Even if they don't wish to keep a
>> property, selling it becomes
>> more profitable when it is well cared for, and this includes forest property.
This is so far out in LaLa Land, it does not deserve a response.
Again, utter lack of simple economic principals. The day of the
small farmer is drawing to a close. Don't paint any pictures
of "Little House On The Prairie" here.
>>
>> With this in mind, we can propose a two-part strategy for environmental
>> protection which can turn
>> each person's greed into a desire to nurture Mother Nature: 1) individual
>> ownership of the
>> environment
Individual? Do you kill the board of directors? So a Bill Gates
now owns it? What? Prohibit corporations? Or is this just an
appeal to the oh-so-sweet "Little House On The Prairie" mentality?
>> and 2) personal liability for damage caused to the property of
>> others.
>>
>> OWNING A PIECE OF THE EARTH: The British long ago learned how to stop
>> pollution of
>> their rivers. Fishing rights in British streams and rivers are a private
>> good that can be bought and
>> sold. For the last century, polluters have been routinely dragged into the
>> courts by angry owners
>> and forced to rectify any damage they may have caused. Every owner on
>> these rivers has in fact
>> become an environmental protector -- because each stands to profit from
>> nurturing the
>> environment.
This has possibilities. And major problems. For example, if
Union Carbide wants to waste a river, all it need do is purchase
the fish downstream? This is environmental protection? And what of
my right
to reap the common good, and go fishing or swimming? Pay to use
a pool you say? Fact is, you just gave away MY rights and sold
them to the highest bidder.
While we are on the subject of MY rights to use MY public
lands, you had better understand that when you come to steal
them from me, I will shoot you. Understand?
>>
>> In the Gulf of Mexico, shrimp fishermen once claimed parts of the ocean as
>> their property in the
>> time-honored practice of homesteading. They formed a voluntary association
>> to keep the waters
>> productive and to avoid overfishing -- until the U.S. government took over
>> as caretaker in the early
>> 1900s.
This may be an area where privatizing fishing rights is most useful.
>>
>> Just as the U.S. government took over the fisheries, so too have Third
>> World governments taken
>> over the rainforests and handed them over to special interests. An
>> important element in protecting
>> the rainforests is to respect the homesteading rights of the native
>> peoples who have consistently
>> exhibited a history of sustainable use. Conservation publications, such as
>> Cultural Survival,
>> recognize that upholding the property rights of native peoples is
>> absolutely crucial to saving the
>> rainforests.
[cough]
>>
>> Private ownership encourages preservation of endangered species as well.
>> For example, Zimbabwe
>> respects the homesteading claims of natives to the elephants on their
>> land. Like other private
>> property, elephants and their products can be legally sold. As a result,
>> the natives jealously protect
>> their valuable elephants from poachers. The natives have every incentive
>> to raise as many elephants
>> as possible so they can sponsor safaris and sell elephant ivory, hide, and
>> meat. As a result, the
>> elephant population h as increased from 30,000 to 43,000 over the past ten
>> years. People will
>> protect the environment when they own it and can profit from it.
>>
>> On the other hand, when governments try to shepherd wild animal herds,
>> disaster is the predictable
>> result. For example, the Kenyan government claims ownership of all
>> elephants, and hunting has
>> been banned in Kenya. While Zimbabwe's herds thrived, elephants in Kenya
>> have declined 67%
>> over the last decade.
There have indeed been very successful areas here. However,
I now see this publication as an attempt to distort reality,
as a propaganda tool. If it has credence, it certainly is not
environmental.
>>
>> Environment that is "unowned," suffers a condition described by Dr.
>> Garrett Hardin in a 1968
>> paper as "the tragedy of the commons." He revealed that property that
>> belongs to "everyone" is the
>> responsibility of no one. Ocean fish, for example, are considered to
>> belong to anyone who catches
>> them; consequently, everyone tries to catch as many as they can today,
>> before a competitor gets
>> them tomorrow. If the ocean could be homesteaded, as with the shrimp
>> fisheries described above,
>> owners would have an incen tive to make sure the fish population was
>> maintained and even
>> expanded.
Hardin continues to hold these views today, and indeed, many of them
are good ideas. But he does not hold the view that this is "the key".
Here is something paraphrased from his most recent book:
... "Our economy isn't growing fast enough!" - Our "economists".
* Sustained economic growth is impossible because it is tied to
* physical consumption (wealth). Why impossible?? 5% annual growth
* in the consumption of 2 grams any substance will become a "hole"
* with a mass of 800 trillion planet earths in only 2,000 years.
* Thus long term economic growth is impossible. This is but one
* of many fallacies in ALL orthodox economic foundations. - G. Hardin
800 trillion planet earths??
Of course, the typical response to this is that perhaps most
of the economy is not dependent on consumption. That is like
saying since only a fraction of the economy is agriculture, the
economy is not dependent on it.
However, I will change my opinion if a single society can be
named that drastically increased standard of living without
drastically increased consumption.
800 trillion planet earths???
>>
>> MAKING POLLUTERS PAY: If someone pollutes or destroys that piece of the
>> earth owned
>> by another,
And if that destroyed piece of earth is owned by self,
it is ok? And the only disincentive to destroying the earth
is resale value? And if that company finds the value of
a toxic waste site is higher than the resale loss? So a
factory need not clean up its own mess, it only need take
a real estate loss?
The nearest toxic waste site is over two hours away, and
it charges a pretty penny to dump there. So I could buy
some cheap cheap land on "that side of town" and make a
bundle couldn't I? Then pay someone $100 to take it off
my hands before it started leaking? OH BOY! Or seal it
so it didn't leak until after I was dead? The possibilities
are endless! WE CAN ALL GET RICH!
>> earth owned
>> by another,
>> he or she should be required to restore it. In practice, this
>> could be so expensive that a
>> polluter could be bankrupted by his or her own carelessness. If corporate
>> officers were made
>> personally responsible for deliberate acts of pollution, they would have
>> little incentive to poison the
>> air, land or water. Making polluters, not taxpayers, responsible for the
>> damage they do takes the
>> profit out of pollution.
Again, partially correct.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Bottom Line
>>
>> Privatizing the environment gives owners the incentive to protect it.
No. It gives them the incentive to use it in the most profitable
manner possible. Simple economics. That might not be by protecting
it. Look at any mall. Why, we could fill Yosemite with McDonalds! And
malls! We'll all get rich!
>> Making sure that polluters --
>> not taxpayers -- compensate their victims is the best deterrent. We can
>> save the earth by making
>> greed work for, instead of against us. What could be more natural?
Well, you might do a little reading in a biology book
to find that out. I would start by studying an
interesting social species. Like...Homo sapiens?
>>
>>
>> RECOMMENDED READING
>>
>> Healing Our World (Ruwart) ................................... $14.95
>> Free Market Environmentalism (Anderson) ...................... $14.95
>> Economics & The Environment (Block Ed.) ...................... $19.95
>> Freedom In Our Time (Conservation & Capitalism) .............. $2.95
>>
>>
>> For these and other books and tapes write: Freedom's Forum Books, 1800
>> Market Street, San
>> Francisco, California 94102. Add $2.50 P & H for 1st book and $1.00 for
>> each additional item.
>> please write:
>>
>> INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
>> 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102 USA
>> Tel: (415) 864-0952 Fax: (415) 864-7506
>>
well, I guess I was correct:
>> Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>> and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>> were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>> highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>>
>> A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>> they just don't understand simple economic principals?
>> --Doug
It seems like a combination of Man-against-Nature combined
with "just don't understand simple economic principals".
Or a more charitable analysis is that they just don't
give a rat's ass for the environment, they mean well,
but understand the issues so poorly that they only seem
to hate nature. Being utterly environmentally ignorant,
they accidently bought a bad bill of goods. The above
paper is horseshit.
Actually, there is a way to do it, with only minor
changes. You guys aught to visit my wpage, you might
find something useful.
Lazarus Long
ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu pontificated in a message to All:
el> Actually I do agree with you on this. The Cato institute has
el> increased their criticism of corporate welfare. But in the past it
el> always appeared as though they were only interested in attacking
el> government spending in programs that benifit poor Americans. They
el> are one of the few think tanks with any consistency. I'm just
el> worried that this may change when this stance begins to threaten
el> their corporate backers.
That appearance was deceiving.. A check through their website
shows studies and presentations to congress on corporate
welfare going back into th early eighties.
Worry about it IF it happens. If they do change their stance,
they will blow their credibility, which they have worked hard
at attaining. Their analysis of Archer Daniels Midland
probably didn't win them any friends as with their call for
dropping of tariffs on Japanese goods, including electronic
components.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... "When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." Fredric Bastiat
Lazarus Long
ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu pontificated in a message to All:
el> No one is saying that firms don't ever provide some of their own
el> infrustructure. I'm sure you can come up with even more andecdotes
el> to support your postition. What your missing is the role
el> government plays in the trading system as a whole. I'm sure the
el> Hudson Bay company did all the things you say it did. What your
el> ignoring is the role the British government played. First they
el> stole the land from the French with a puplic funded military. This
Better take a course in history, dear lad. The French did hold
most of what was called Lower Canada and a portion of Upper
Canada. However the British did hold portions of the southern
portion of Upper Canada...having gained a foothold there
through expansion northwards from the 13 colonies.
The French never could establish a permanent presence in Upper
Canada due to the raids by the Iroquois. The only large
garrison that they held was in the present town of Midland
Ontario, which was raided and the priests and Huron bands that
lived with the French were butchered. That ended the French
presence in Upper Canada.
el> military also drove Indians off their lands for expansion. The
Actually you will find that the HBC and the Norwester's
advanced into the frontier ahead of the military.
The military had very little to do with the expansion of the
fur trade. It wasn't until the Riel Rebellion...after the
confederation, that the military arrived in the west in
significant numbers. For close to 50 years, the HBC and the
Norwesters ran virtual empires in the west.
el> Hudson Bay company and the Northwesters were able to make the
el> investments in infrustructure with help from the British government
el> which inacted maximum salary laws in England to keep wages low so
el> the rich could accumulate capital necessary to make these
el> investments. I don't know a lot about these 2 companies but I come
el> up with these examples of their use of governement to expand
el> British trade into the new world. I'm sure there are other
The Norwester's were not a british concern. They were a group
of French and English fur traders based in Quebec who
competed with the HBC. They had no government aid, and were
frequently the target of legislation enacted by the
government at the request of the HBC. Many of the Norwesters
were metis and native Americans. The takeover by decree of the
Norwester's fur areas in the Manitoba-Saskatchewan area sowed
the seeds of the Riel Rebellion.
el> examples that your not aware of because your not looking for them.
el> Don't feel bad, selective perception effects us all. We have a
el> tendencey to see those facts that support our own world view and
el> ignore the rest. In other words, your letting your idiology get in
el> the way.
How condescending.... and how demonstrative of your poor
knowledge of history. Come back soon...but stop by a library
and find out about the topic. A library? That is a large
building that contains books.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
.. You can thank me later, for correcting the factual errors in your post
Douglas Bashford
Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996 (Douglas Bashford)wrote:
>Well, back in college I went to a Libertarian meeting,
>and I was thinking of joining until I decided that they
>were anti-environmental. They want to sell nature to the
>highest bidder, and repeal all environmental regulations.
>
>A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>they just don't understand simple economic principals?
>- "John E. Harrington" <po...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> You might wish to do more research. Most libertarians that I know
>>> aren't anti-environmental.
I believe this. Yet it seems like they haven't given it
>>> They prefer to see a market-based approach
>>> to environmental problems. The "tragedy of the commons" doesn't occur
>>> when there are no commons.
>>
>>Most libertarians I know aren't quick enough to understand the
>>massive, sad, laughably absurd paradox of their beliefs.
>>
Yep, a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote on 1 Aug 1996:
>So, you mind posting what this laughably sad paradox is? Or do you just
>like to ad hominem attack people who disagree with you?
Well, with some Libertarian's help, I'd rather defend my own words:
A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
they just don't understand simple economic principals?
As I said, I've attended a several hour long recruiting meeting,
and had extensive interactions with them on the Net, but I, like
most people do not know enough precise absolutes for a detailed
analysis. In this thread/mail package I analyzed what was presented
to me as a Libertairian environmental pamphlet. It only served
to verify what I said. (But in fairness, I think it is just a
recruiter's propaganda pamphlet.) There I attempted to address several
MAJOR factual errors, and what did seem to me to be "absurd paradox".
It made some good points, had some good ideas, but overall, it read
more like a Rich Boy's wish list. Overall, the issues and solutions
were comicly oversimplified.
What are the "absurd paradox of their beliefs"?? Let me
toss out some rough questions and ideas, and hopefully a knowledgeable
Libertarian can help us polish our definitions while enlightening
the readers of the true Libertarian beliefs. I wouldn't want
to accidently spend much time arguing against straw men.
1) Do Libertarians belive that the law-abiding human individual takes
precedence, has primacy, over society, civilization, nature and the
human species? (in conflict resolution)
2) Do Libertarians believe in privatizing the common good?
(These are things mainstream economists find too important to
society (as very
cheap/available,) to toss to the whims of the Market.) These
goods include clean (ground) water, air, rivers, freeway systems,
parks, nature, and a long list. In my opinion, historically most
of these were so plentiful as to be utterly free, and are
foundational to our economic and societal well being. In modern
times these foundational needs have expanded to include things
often called "infrastructure", such as our highly regulated
utilities. Walking (transportation) was freely available, now
driving is believed to have more utility to society if kept
freely available.
3) Do Libertarians believe in economic "greed is good"?
How about, as the pamphlet said, selfishness is good,
plus it is good for the environment? The pamphlet said:
>>-- We can save the earth by making greed work for,
>>-- instead of against us. What could be more natural?
If these impressions are true, I find point 3) to be workable,
but combined with point 1), unworkable. To not be absurd, in
point 1), "human individual" needs to become "human species".
Point 2) is an economic absurdity if we value anything resembling
the democratic capitalism we now have. It is perhaps workable
in hyper-capitalistic economies such as found in highly stratified
Latin American economies. The nutshell reasoning is that privatizing
the common good enriches a few individuals at the cost of society
for a net loss in utility (goodness or raw value).
4) Please expand on this idea: a market in the long term
is utterly dependent on external regulation. Why?
>A Rich Boy's dream. Do they hate Nature? Or is it that
>they just don't understand simple economic principals?
Brad Hatch
>
>regulation to protect the environment -- this is most blatantly not
>free market. Free market environmentalism seeks to protect the
>environment by using private property rights and defining pollution as
>a violation of such rights unless it is restricted to the polluter's
>own property. If you want to pollute someone elses land/water you have
>to bargain with them. The market will then regulate pollution as it
>regulates everything else. This approach is rarely espoused by
>environmentalists, but it is one that IMHO deserves more attention.
>
>
>--
> James Hammerton, PhD Student, School of Computer Science,
> University of Birmingham | Email: J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk
> WWW Home Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah
> Connectionist NLP WWW Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/CNLP/cnlp.html
>
Not much more. Their are very few situations where someone can pollute
their own property without damaging someone elses property or health.
Pollution seeps into the water table, the air and can be an eyesore to
others. Besides there is something repugnant about the idea that someone
can be distructive just because of the notion of property rights. Under
this notion a wealthy person could purchase a rare and beautiful Renoit
painting and then deficate on it or just destroy it so no one else can
enjoy it. It also implies that those who own property have more rights
than anyone else. The property and the rights that go with it can be
enherited. This sounds a bit like royalty, something I'm not
particularly fond of.
Brad
Douglas Bashford
Yep, ma...@cyberstation.net (Mark Hornberger) wrote on Sat, 03 Aug
Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>Mike Conway <mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu> wrote:
>>> Wild nature is a Rich Boy's toy. That's OK -
>>> except when the Rich Boys of Sierra Club
>>> and other rich boys' clubs try not to pay
>>> for their toy, but to make others pay.
>>In what sense is environmentalism trying to 'make others pay'....
>>I'm real interested.....
>When a contractor buys land for, say $500,000 in anticipation of
>building a multi-million dollar mall on it, and then an
>environmentalist group manages to secure an injunction against the
>building (by having the land declared a wetland, or finding an unusual
>rat camping out, etc), the value of the contractor's land would
>plummet like a rock. He can't build anything on it, nor can anyone
>else. Not only is he SOL, but so are the would-be workers who
I can understand your problem. And this does need to be addressed.
But you have left a few things out. These things are the way these
things operate in the real world. Which is nothing like the scenario
you have painted. In short, you are squealing Chicken Little; "the
sky is falling." One can hardly blame the public for this, there is a
well organized propaganda mill out there.
An example. For years here in California, the Army Corps of Engineers
was bad-rapped exactly as you did because they are the ones who can
condemn land from improvements as a wetland. If you have been
following the environmental threads, you will recall this was a very
popular and rather successful propaganda ploy used by the
vested-interest anti-environmental Rich Boy "Wise Use"
pseudo-property-rights-movement. And even the real property-
rights-movement eventually embraced it. And a whole lot of other
well-intentioned and understandably worried people.
The environmentalists could not really defend against these wild-eyed
claims that evil enviros and Big Government were out to GET you. Now
inject reality.
About six months ago, a study was done on this issue. It turns out
that the Corps had reviewed about 5,000 wetlands. It forbid
development on five. Those were all large developments, not the
little guy, as the very well-funded "Wise Use" pseudo-property-rights-
movement had been squealing. In summery, the "Wise Use" people, and
their hirelings in Washingtoon shout "the sky is falling" based on
anecdotal high-profile and rare cases. Not on statistics. An example
is the Tipton kangaroo rat, where the millionaire farmer against
orders plowed virgin land killing kangaroo rats, and destroying their,
and the endangered kit fox, and endangered leopard lizard's habitat.
Oh!?! You never heard these details? This is the first time you ever
heard of the kit fox? Or that he had been warned? Funny how the Wise
Use propaganda mill forgot to mention that, isn't it? If you have
heard of these, congratulations, you have bypassed the propaganda mill
and are well informed. If not, chances are you may not have a true
picture of this whole "takings" issue. In fact, unless one pays close
attention, most people just get the Rich Boy's version. Fear sells.
But we don't want to side-step the issue you raised. I just
wanted to put it in context of the real world. De-value anecdotal
evidence, and seek statistics. Seek reality. Always be on guard
against propaganda when emotional anecdotal evidence is presented.
It can only be useful in context of statistics.
>wouldn't been able to put food on the table with the jobs the building
>would've supplied. So both the contractor and the workers have paid
>through the nose, while the environmental group gets to feel that they
>saved the world, while they're out only the court costs of filing the
>injunction. Would this qualify as "making others pay" for the agenda
>of the environmentalists? In my view, yes. I don't see how anyone
>could say otherwise, with any credibility.
I'm afraid I must agree with you. That is not right. And the
solution that hits everybody between the eyes is that they should be
re-embursed for their losses. And there is a good chance they would
be. Why? They could win in court as an exception to the law in such
an extreme case.
>And as how the government has decided that a regulation or injunction
>that destroys the value of your land doesn't qualify as a "taking"
>under the 5th Amendment, the contractor doesn't have any recourse at
>all. --Mark Hornberger
The reason there is not a law passed that if an endangered species
is found, you get automatically re-imbursed, is to prevent an abuse of
the law, (as you know happens with new laws) by farmers stampeding the
courts with fake losses just because they found a key endangered
species there. Indeed, it could cause land speculators to seek out
endangered species habitat, buy it, and then claim they were going to
build a mall there. Then soak the taxpayers for it. What a deal! As
you might guess, this is exactly what the Rich Boys and their
hirelings in Washingtoon are seeking.
So. What do we do? Well, the Man-against-Nature types and land
speculators have no doubt what we should do. I don't think the
solution is easy, to just allow current private property protection
take up the slack.
Yes, this means that your mall builder will have to front the court
costs. And perhaps lose. I just don't see an easy solution for these
real and rare cases. But we are looking.
--Doug
Jim McCulloch
Lazarus Long wrote:
> How condescending.... and how demonstrative of your poor
> knowledge of history. Come back soon...but stop by a library
> and find out about the topic. A library? That is a large
> building that contains books.
Normally paid for by your tax dollar.
--Jim McCulloch
Jeffrey D. Iverson
John E. Harrington wrote:
>
> jw wrote:
> >
> > In <4tr9m2$h...@news.one.net> a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
> > writes:
> > >
> > >In article <3200F2...@hotmail.com>,
> > >>> You might wish to do more research. Most libertarians that I know
> > approach
> > >>> to environmental problems. The "tragedy of the commons" doesn't
> > occur
> > >>> when there are no commons.
> > >>
> > >>Most libertarians I know aren't quick enough to understand the
> > >>massive, sad, laughably absurd paradox of their beliefs.
> >
> >
> > (1) A "massive, sad paradox" of somebody's whole belief
> > system would hardly be something that calls for a "quick"
> > understanding.
> >
>
> I meant quick in the sense of intelligent, not fast.
>
> > (2) "Most" libertarians known to the author don't understand
> > that their beliefs are "laughably absurd"?
> > *Most* don't - but *some* do? - and they still hold
> > those beliefs? How come?
>
> beliefs, but simply don't give a damn about anyone else but themselves,
> and, to their credit, are quite happy to admit it.
>
> Most enjoy a kind of fuzzy-headed idealism about the proposed
> libertarian paradise, where everyone supposedly is "free" to "choose".
Why do you say "supposedly"?
Would you prefer a world where, indeed, everyone is free to choose, or
one in which none are free to choose?
> >
> > >So, you mind posting what this laughably sad paradox is? [...]
> >
> > Yeah, and be "quick enough" about it! :-)
>
> That unregulated markets, despite the clear example of history,
> lead to strong economies and a preferable society. Specious, however
> untrue.
There has never been an unregulated market, and this country is only one
that has even come close to it, and that ended around years ago.
> Our own nation, for example, became a mightly global super power during
> a period when taxation, especially on the richest 5%, was
> unprecedentedly high, union activity near saturation (i.e. in all the
> trades where it was needed) and governmental regulation of business
> entrenched and constantly fortified. On the other hand, the two
> times in our century when laissez faire politics held sway, we ended
> up with depression or recession.
Both depression and recession are products of a mixed economy, a mix of
freedom and controls. There was a time when railroads crisscrossed the
nation and virtually none of them were built with government money. Not
until airline regulation did airlines start dropping like flies only to
be bailed out by bankruptcy courts. In a free market, Chrysler would
have disappeared and the successful auto manufacturers would have grown
to fill the gap.
> Of course lib'ns always like to play slippery slope games. All the
> thought requisite is to call your opponent a communist or a socialist
> (without apparently understanding the simple meaning of those terms),
> evoke the failure of the Soviet Union (undisputed, BTW, though I'm
> quite sure that won't discourage anyone), retell a few glib anecdotes
> about the horrors of bureaucracy and then to wildly assert
> that because I support the regulation of pesticides or the assurance
> of basic worker rights that I therefore believe in total governmental
> control of the means of production. In the libertarian world, black
> and white are the primary colors, grey rarely seen.
If white and black represent good and bad, how much bad are you willing
to mix in to the good to arrive at your shade of grey? How much bad will
you allow? I say none, and so I fight it every day.
> I should say, though, as a reformed libertarian myself, that some
> of us do come around.
I'm not a libertarian, though I like a lot of what they stand for,
perhaps you didn't understand it the way I do.
Jeffrey D. Iverson
Steven D. Litvintchouk wrote:
>
> In article <bwg-020896...@news.frii.com> b...@bwg.com (Bryan Griffin) writes:
>
> > which is essentially the study of libertarian environmentalism.
> >
> > >
> > > However, on lands which they own privately, the paper companies suddenly
> > > become staunch
> > > each year -- while the
> > > national ones dwindle.
> > >
> > > will eventually reap the
> > > fruits of their conservation efforts. Even if they don't wish to keep a
> > > property, selling it becomes
> > > more profitable when it is well cared for, and this includes forest property.
> > >
> > > protection which can turn
> > > each person's greed into a desire to nurture Mother Nature: 1) individual
> > > ownership of the
> > > others.
>
> waters and land that yields crops and forests for profit. But how
> would the following two situations be dealt with:
>
> 1. Air pollution: No one currently pays for the use of the *air* when
> they pollute it. Would we grant "air licenses" analogous to "fishing
> rights"? How would this work, when the prevailing winds will blow air
> pollution in countless untraceable directions? For example, if I find
> that the air around me is polluted, which of the thousands of drivers
> of cars and trucks passing by every day should I sue?
If some company came up with a way to clean up air pollution I'd wager
that they'd have a very valuable product, currently there is little
incentive as it is not considered a crisis to enough people.
> 2. Non-renewable resources: When a mining company strip-mines land
> that they own, or otherwise pollutes their land in the course of mining,
> what incentive to they have to restore the land? They still own it,
> but restoring the land to its former state won't yield any more
> minerals to be mined.
The only incentive I can think of is reputation. If they go long enough
without restoring the lands they mine, eventually some people would
boycott their product or byproducts and, like South Africa, they would
eventually come around or go out of business.
Lazarus Long
ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu pontificated in a message to All:
el> From: Brad Hatch <ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu>
el> Newsgroups:
el> alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.con
el> servatism,alt.politics.economics,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.pol
el> itics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.misc,talk.en
el> vironment,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.economics.austrian-school
el> Subject: Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the
el> dollar Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
el> 80523
el> ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) wrote:
>Douglas Bashford (bash...@psnw.com) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> All American environmentalism is free-market.
>
>No, this is wrong. Most environmentalists want to use government
>regulation to protect the environment -- this is most blatantly not
>free market. Free market environmentalism seeks to protect the
>environment by using private property rights and defining pollution as
>a violation of such rights unless it is restricted to the polluter's
>own property. If you want to pollute someone elses land/water you have
>to bargain with them. The market will then regulate pollution as it
>regulates everything else. This approach is rarely espoused by
>environmentalists, but it is one that IMHO deserves more attention.
>
>James
>
>--
> James Hammerton, PhD Student, School of Computer Science,
> University of Birmingham | Email: J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk
> WWW Home Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah
> Connectionist NLP WWW Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/CNLP/cnlp.html
>
el> Not much more. Their are very few situations where someone can
el> pollute their own property without damaging someone elses property
el> or health. Pollution seeps into the water table, the air and can
el> be an eyesore to others.
That is the whole point. It is virtually impossible to pollute
your land without infringing on someone else's property
rights. Therefore, the strict enforcement of property rights
would protect the environment.
el>Besides there is something repugnant
el> about the idea that someone can be distructive just because of the
el> notion of property rights. Under this notion a wealthy person
el> could purchase a rare and beautiful Renoit painting and then
el> deficate on it or just destroy it so no one else can enjoy it. It
So bid higher if you want it.
el> also implies that those who own property have more rights than
el> anyone else. The property and the rights that go with it can be
el> enherited. This sounds a bit like royalty, something I'm not
el> particularly fond of.
Guess what. Property already can be inherited.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... You can thank me later, for correcting the factual errors in your post
Lazarus Long
mccu...@mail.utexas.edu pontificated in a message to All:
mm> Lazarus Long wrote:
> How condescending.... and how demonstrative of your poor
> knowledge of history. Come back soon...but stop by a library
> and find out about the topic. A library? That is a large
> building that contains books.
mm> Normally paid for by your tax dollar.
Yep. Does McCulloch recall who financed many of the original
Public Libraries? <Hint> Not the State.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for.
Jeffrey D. Iverson
Douglas Bashford wrote:
>
> Yep, "John E. Harrington" <po...@hotmail.com> wrote on Thu, 01 Aug
> Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>
> Yep, kelly...@ebbs.cts.com wrote on Fri, 2 Aug 96 23:19:00 PST
>
> >>>> aren't anti-environmental. They prefer to see a market-based approach
> >>>> to environmental problems. The "tragedy of the commons" doesn't occur
> >>>> when there are no commons.
>
>
> >corporations that pollute. They want to sell off all governemnt land,
> >except post offices. If you want to go for a hike, the libertarian says
> >"Buy the property." If you want biological diversity, buy it. In the
> >libertarian's mind, there is no such thing as protecting non-adaptive
> >species.
I believe Sting and his group have purchased a portion of the South
American rain forest, the size of Switzerland. So the term "buy the
property" works for some. If you want to save the environment, educate
people and tell them why it is important, but don't force them to do
something they don't understand.
> > Habitat fragmentation and loss are the two major culprits in the
> >loss of species and biodiversity. Libertarians omit that fact, and prefer
> >to have economists, not ecologists managing for diversity. National Parks
> >to them are simply lands with no financial value, unless they are run as
> >businesses with the bottom line being profit. The value of wildlife to them
> >is determined by whether or not someone has a "use" for it, like hunting,
> >fishing, or viewing pleasure. The term "watershed" holds no meaning, nor
> >does the word "ecosystem." A forest is nothing but board feet, and there is
> >no such thing as a forest beneath the trees. The term "pollution" has no
> >meaning unless it cuts into profits.
Frankly, I'd prefer that national parks run at a profit, it would
eliminate one strain on the rest of the economy. Why would you oppose
this? I lived in Wisconsin with a house and ten acres of woods, I
wouldn't sell my trees to the lumber company because I enjoyed *my*
trees, neither did my neighbors for the same reason, and that was all
done without any government pressure, so it's possible to save the
forest without trampling on rights.
> Libertarians? is this all true?
I'm not a Libertarian, I'm an Objectivist.
> >Use all the fact terms you wish, but the libertarian philosophy aims to gut
> >decades of environmental prtotection and decades of research detailing the
> >value of intact ecosystems and the important species who live there.
>
> >I listen to libertarian talk show hosts often. The message is clear: They
> >feel that industry does not pollute, the ESA should be abolished, and
> >ALL federal lands set aside for wildlife should be sold to the highest
> >bidder. I wonder who has that kind of money??
> >Kelly...@ebbs.cts.com
>
> I didn't know there were Libertarian talk shows. I must admit,
> it's easy to get the same impression of them on the Net.
> --Doug
Jim McCulloch
In article <581_960...@rational.vaxxine.com>,
2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:
> > Come back soon...but stop by a library
> > and find out about the topic. A library? That is a large
> > building that contains books.
>
> mm> Normally paid for by your tax dollar.
>
> Yep. Does McCulloch recall who financed many of the original
> Public Libraries? <Hint> Not the State.
Does Mr. Long know that the first public library in the United States was
founded in 1803, some 30 odd years before Andrew Carnegie was born? Does
he know the first tax-supported library in the United States, the Library
of Congress, was founded in 1800? Does he know that public libraries
became common in the United States, at least in the North, before the
Civil War, long before Mr. Carnegie's Homestead Wergild was applied to the
founding of public libraries?
So what is the point, Mr. Long--that the only good public library is a
Carnegie Public Library, or The Gospel of Wealth is the only book you
need?
--Jim McCulloch
Don Baccus
In article <562_960...@rational.vaxxine.com>,
Lazarus Long <2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com> wrote:
> Much of the forest land in Maine is privately owned yet is
> open to hiking and other uses. What's your point?
And much private forest land in Oregon is not. So, what's yours?
The point, of course, is that public access is at the whim of
the owner when the resource is privatized.
> Who mentioned barbed wire? Engaging in Hubenisms?
Come out to Oregon, I'll show you what happens when you ignore
"no trespassing" signs.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <do...@rational.com>
Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza
Lazarus Long
bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
bp> The only Lib solution I see here is that perhaps not driving out the
bp> natives would accidently have also saved the forest? What am I
bp> missing?
You are slowly getting the picture, dear boy. Think fast...
what is one of the major points of libertarianism...respect of
property rights.
>>The rainforest, along with the cancer
>> cure, were both
>> destroyed. The U.S. government frequently directs "foreign aid" to Third
>> World power-brokers to
>> pay for rainforest devastation. U.S. taxpayer dollars are literally
>> fuelling the fire of the
>> slash-and-burn attacks on the tropical woodlands.
bp> So de-funding "foreign aid" is your cure for the rainforest??
A part of the cure.
bp> What laws would Libertarians have honest politicians pass?
Few laws as possible.
bp> Bullshit. They turn forests into tree farms. Drive thru Oregon or
bp> Washington sometime . Mile after mile of treefarms, all planted in
bp> sterile neat rows.
Go to Maine. See the North Maine Woods. DUH!!!!!!!!!!
>> They replant so that their own forest acreage increases
>> each year -- while the
>> national ones dwindle. In the South, International Paper makes as much as
>> 30% of its profits from
>> recreational uses of its forests.
>>
>> Why is there so much difference between how paper companies treat their
>> own land and the way they treat public property?
bp> You mean why are National Forests, fully functional forests, and the
bp> others are sterile fucked-up treefarms? My guess is, because the
bp> National Forests are there for the common good first, and the fiber
bp> farms are there to produce paper. Like duh. Simple economics.
bp> One economy values profit, the other, the common good.
bp> I have nothing against fiber farms, I am an old tree farmer myself
bp> (citrus). But do not confuse a farm with a forest.
No one is.
>> Owners, on the other hand, profit from long-range planning because they
>> will eventually reap the
>> fruits of their conservation efforts. Even if they don't wish to keep a
>> property, selling it becomes
>> more profitable when it is well cared for, and this includes forest
property.
bp> This is so far out in LaLa Land, it does not deserve a response.
bp> Again, utter lack of simple economic principals. The day of the
bp> small farmer is drawing to a close. Don't paint any pictures of
bp> "Little House On The Prairie" here.
Take a look at Maine. I realise that you have a fanatics
attitude, but do you carry your subjectivity and tunnel vision
into your day job. As a biologist do you ignore data that
doesn't fit the theory and only select what fits?
There are companies with poor records and others with
excellent ones.
>> With this in mind, we can propose a two-part strategy for environmental
>> protection which can turn
>> each person's greed into a desire to nurture Mother Nature: 1) individual
>> ownership of the
>> environment
bp> Individual? Do you kill the board of directors? So a Bill Gates
bp> now owns it? What? Prohibit corporations? Or is this just an
bp> appeal to the oh-so-sweet "Little House On The Prairie" mentality?
Wonderful, rather than thinking about the question and making a
rational query, you resort to a Hubenism.
>> and 2) personal liability for damage caused to the property of
>> others.
>>
>> OWNING A PIECE OF THE EARTH: The British long ago learned how to stop
>> pollution of
>> their rivers. Fishing rights in British streams and rivers are a private
>> good that can be bought and
>> sold. For the last century, polluters have been routinely dragged into the
>> courts by angry owners
>> and forced to rectify any damage they may have caused. Every owner on
>> these rivers has in fact
>> become an environmental protector -- because each stands to profit from
>> nurturing the
>> environment.
bp> This has possibilities. And major problems. For example, if Union
bp> Carbide wants to waste a river, all it need do is purchase the fish
bp> downstream? This is environmental protection? And what of my right
bp> to reap the common good, and go fishing or swimming? Pay to use a
bp> pool you say? Fact is, you just gave away MY rights and sold them
bp> to the highest bidder.
If it can be purchased.... remember that others probably live
downstream and may not wish to sell. They may prefer to fish and
canoe on the river. Perhaps they are environmentalists. Are you
saying that if the Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth, or
Greenpeace would sell out their property to Union Carbide?
bp> While we are on the subject of MY rights to use MY public
bp> lands, you had better understand that when you come to steal them
bp> from me, I will shoot you. Understand?
Ohhh were you not referring, at the top of this post, to pseudo
tuff libertarians? Hmmm, sounds like a real macho threat from
an environmentalist to me.. But then, environmentalists have a
long record of violence.
>> In the Gulf of Mexico, shrimp fishermen once claimed parts of the ocean as
>> their property in the
>> time-honored practice of homesteading. They formed a voluntary association
>> to keep the waters
>> productive and to avoid overfishing -- until the U.S. government took over
>> as caretaker in the early
>> 1900s.
bp> This may be an area where privatizing fishing rights is most useful.
Another example is Willapa Bay in Washington State.
BTW, when it comes to Environmentalists practicing what they preach..
A recent issue of Liberty Magazine had this item in their
"Reflections" Column.
Nature boy, spare that tree
"Too many of us are still locked into the mindset that says the way to make
money off a piece of land is to mine it, drill it or log it," wrote Jon Roush,
president of the Wilderness Society, in a letter to the New York Times in
January. His point was that preservation, not "extractive industry or
agriculture," leads to a healthy economy, since tourists and new industries are
attracted to places with forests intact.
Roush should know all about the mindset, since he has it. Not too long ago, he
sold 400,000 board feet of wood from his ranch in the Bitterroot Valley of
Montana to Plum Creek Timber Company. That's not necessarily bad, but logging
while categorically condemning logging seems hypocritical.
Roush is not the first environmentalist to attack logging while doing it
himself. In 1993, William Arthur, the northwest regional director of the Sierra
Club, cut 70% (or 85,000 board feet) of the standing timber on his property. At
the time, the Sierra Club was suing the Forest Service over its management of
Colville National Forest, which surrounds Arthur's property. Also that year,
Arthur was a witness at Bill Clinton's "Forest Summit," urging that more land
be preserved to protect the spotted owl.
These two actions typify the arrogance of the environmental
movement. The Nation, which originally broke the Jon Roush story, said that
"the head of the Wilderness Society logging old growth in the Bitterroot Valley
is roughly akin to the head of Human Rights Watch torturing a domestic
servant." That's harsh, but these guys do seem to take their private property
rights for granted while actively trying to eliminate those of others.
Jonathan Adler points out in his book Environmentalism at the Crossroads that
in 1989 the Wilderness Society pushed for a
doubling of federally protected wilderness and in 1992 it urged the federal
government to buy $1 million worth of private land.
Roush and Arthur remind me of the high-level Soviet nomenklatura who bought
their goods in hard currency stores but expected others to stand in line at
GUM.
--Jane S. Shaw
Yeah...trust the environmentalists...they only have the good of all in mind.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... I like animals...roasted, stewed or pan fried!!
Lazarus Long
do...@rational.com pontificated in a message to All:
dr> From: do...@rational.com (Don Baccus)
dr> Newsgroups:
dr> alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democ
dr> rats.d,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.ec
dr> onomics,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.pol
dr> itics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.misc,talk.e
dr> nvironment,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.cabal,alt.economics.austrian-sch
dr> ool,ca.politics,tx.politics,ny.politics
dr> Subject: Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the
dr> dollar Organization: Rational Software Corporation
dr> In article <562_960...@rational.vaxxine.com>,
dr> Lazarus Long <2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com> wrote:
> Much of the forest land in Maine is privately owned yet is
> open to hiking and other uses. What's your point?
dr> And much private forest land in Oregon is not. So, what's yours?
dr> The point, of course, is that public access is at the whim of the
dr> owner when the resource is privatized.
SO? that is the whole point of having private property.
Controlled access also limits the amount of impact on the
environment.
> Who mentioned barbed wire? Engaging in Hubenisms?
dr> Come out to Oregon, I'll show you what happens when you ignore "no
dr> trespassing" signs.
Of course. BUT the previous poster was implying that all
privately owned land was unavailable to the public. Which is
not true.
Lazarus Long
mccu...@mail.utexas.edu pontificated in a message to All:
> > Come back soon...but stop by a library
> > and find out about the topic. A library? That is a large
> > building that contains books.
>
> mm> Normally paid for by your tax dollar.
>
> Yep. Does McCulloch recall who financed many of the original
> Public Libraries? <Hint> Not the State.
mm> Does Mr. Long know that the first public library in the United
mm> States was founded in 1803, some 30 odd years before Andrew Carnegie
Yep.
mm> was born? Does he know the first tax-supported library in the
mm> United States, the Library of Congress, was founded in 1800? Does
mm> he know that public libraries became common in the United States, at
mm> least in the North, before the Civil War, long before Mr. Carnegie's
mm> Homestead Wergild was applied to the founding of public libraries?
mm> So what is the point, Mr. Long--that the only good public library is
mm> a Carnegie Public Library, or The Gospel of Wealth is the only book
mm> you need?
Nope, As usual the moron from Austin misses the point...that
not all libraries need spring from the government. That they
and other "public services" have been provided in the past by
the private sector. You see, dear boy, not all things need to
be provided from the mammaries of the state.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... For Reply..send a self abused stomped elephant to...
Brad Hatch
2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:
>ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu pontificated in a message to All:
>
>el> Actually I do agree with you on this. The Cato institute has
>el> increased their criticism of corporate welfare. But in the past it
>el> always appeared as though they were only interested in attacking
>el> government spending in programs that benifit poor Americans. They
>el> are one of the few think tanks with any consistency. I'm just
>el> worried that this may change when this stance begins to threaten
>el> their corporate backers.
>
> That appearance was deceiving.. A check through their website
> shows studies and presentations to congress on corporate
> welfare going back into th early eighties.
>
> Worry about it IF it happens. If they do change their stance,
> they will blow their credibility, which they have worked hard
> at attaining. Their analysis of Archer Daniels Midland
> probably didn't win them any friends as with their call for
> dropping of tariffs on Japanese goods, including electronic
> components.
Your probably right. I receive most of my information about the Cato
institute from the mainstream media which has a tendency to puplish
anything that agrees with mainstream oppinion. The issue of corporate
subsidies was never an issue until Robert Reich made a big deal about
just recently.
Brad Hatch
2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:
>ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu pontificated in a message to All:
>
>
> and find out about the topic. A library? That is a large
> building that contains books.
>
>http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
>
>Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
>
>
>
Oh oh, I hit a sensitive nerve here. I thought that you might have more
of a thick skin, especially the way you go out of your way to insult
socialists, an anarchists on the left.
Glen Raphael
In article <4u5is8$2...@alpine.psnw.com>, bash...@psnw.com (Douglas
Bashford) wrote:
> Yep, "John E. Harrington" <po...@hotmail.com> wrote on Thu, 01 Aug
> > In the
> >libertarian's mind, there is no such thing as protecting non-adaptive
> >species.
A ridiculous cartoon characterization. THIS libertarian supports the
Nature Conservancy and similar private efforts to preserve and protect
species.
> >The term "watershed" holds no meaning, nor
> >does the word "ecosystem." A forest is nothing but board feet, and there is
> >no such thing as a forest beneath the trees. The term "pollution" has no
> >meaning unless it cuts into profits.
>
> Libertarians? is this all true?
In a word, no. Read _Free Market Environmentalism_. The reason we want the
market to protect species diversity is because government has failed so
badly at the task.
> >ALL federal lands set aside for wildlife should be sold to the highest
> >bidder. I wonder who has that kind of money??
The various environmental lobbying groups spend rather a ridiculous amount
of money continually lobbying to protect the same land. It would likely be
cheaper in the long run to buy it than to fight the logging and mining
interest over it. I'll look up the numbers on this; they aren't handy
right this instant. Anyway, the short answer is that groups like the
Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy and Ducks, Unlimited do have that
kind of money and a mandate to use it to protect wildlife.
> IOW, public lands are managed for the long-term, for centuries.
> And the bottom line is not maximum short-term profit.
> The bottom line in National Forests is muliple-use.
In an ideal world, yes. But in our existing world, no. Many of our
national forests are indeed being managed for short-term profit.
> I didn't know there were Libertarian talk shows.
There are more of them every week, it seems. A lot of talk-show hosts who
have interviewed Harry Browne have since re-registered Libertarian.
GLen
--
Glen Raphael
rap...@pobox.com
visit Liberals and Libertarians:
http://www.batnet.com/liberty/liberal/
mark roddy
In article <581_960...@rational.vaxxine.com>,
2-100-1!Lazaru...@irrational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Wrong) squirmed:
>mccu...@mail.utexas.edu pontificated in a message to All:
>
>
>mm> Lazarus Long wrote:
>
>
>> How condescending.... and how demonstrative of your poor
>> knowledge of history. Come back soon...but stop by a library
>> and find out about the topic. A library? That is a large
>> building that contains books.
>
>mm> Normally paid for by your tax dollar.
>
> Yep. Does McCulloch recall who financed many of the original
> Public Libraries? <Hint> Not the State.
>
>Visit the Irrational Right Wing Anarchist HomePage at:
>http://vaxxine.com/irrational/lazarus.html
>
>Lazaru...@irrational.vaxxine.com
>
>.... It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for.
>
>
Oh a paradigm of free enterprise indeed, the fabulous Mr. Carnegie, who's
hands were so bloodied with the lives of the workers he had murdered that he
tried desperately to shed his guilt with the soap of philanthropy.
Don Baccus
In article <583_960...@rational.vaxxine.com>,
Lazarus Long <2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com> wrote:
> That is the whole point. It is virtually impossible to pollute
> your land without infringing on someone else's property
> rights. Therefore, the strict enforcement of property rights
> would protect the environment.
So, an industrialist who wants to build a steel plant would have to
negotiate with each and every person who lives in an area effected
by the resulting air pollution? If he's in LA, he'll have to
negotiate with folks as far away as Twenty-nine Palms? And
carrying out these tens, or hundreds, or millions of individual
negotiations will be more efficient than having to simply meet
one set government regulations?
Mike Hihn
2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:
>el> also implies that those who own property have more rights than
>el> anyone else. The property and the rights that go with it can be
>el> enherited. This sounds a bit like royalty, something I'm not
>el> particularly fond of.
Yeah, like everyone else here who's old enough, I inherited part
of my parents' house. I guess that makes me royalty????
========================================================
Mike Hihn,Editor lib...@wolfenet.com
LIBERTY ISSUES http://www.wolfenet.com/~liberty
"An independent libertarian publication"
========================================================
Griff Miller
In article <4ua4dp$c...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,
mark roddy <ma...@osr.com> wrote:
>In article <581_960...@rational.vaxxine.com>,
>2-100-1!Lazaru...@irrational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Wrong) squirmed:
Don't do this, please.
Followups set.
--
Griff Miller "Keep my mind on higher things; keep my
Systems Administrator '95 Z-28 mind on truth."
Positron Corporation '85 VF1100S
griff....@positron.com My opinions are mine, not Positron's.
Lazarus Long
ma...@osr.com pontificated in a message to All:
mo> Oh a paradigm of free enterprise indeed, the fabulous Mr. Carnegie,
mo> who's hands were so bloodied with the lives of the workers he had
mo> murdered that he tried desperately to shed his guilt with the soap
mo> of philanthropy.
Hmmm... and you have photographs of him pulling the
trigger..Was he also on the grassy knoll in Dallas?
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... Socialist.. a person with a low opinion of the working class
Lazarus Long
ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu pontificated in a message to All: >el> examples that
your not aware of because your not looking for them.
>el> Don't feel bad, selective perception effects us all. We have a
>el> tendencey to see those facts that support our own world view and
>el> ignore the rest. In other words, your letting your idiology get in
>el> the way.
>
> knowledge of history. Come back soon...but stop by a library
> and find out about the topic. A library? That is a large
> building that contains books.
>
>http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
>
>Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
>
>
>
el> Oh oh, I hit a sensitive nerve here. I thought that you might have
el> more of a thick skin, especially the way you go out of your way to
el> insult socialists, an anarchists on the left.
Nope. just astounded that a University educated person would be
ignorant of elementary school level history.
Publicly schooled?
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... You invest the money and we'll share the rewards...(socialism)
Tapio Erola
Don Baccus (do...@rational.com) wrote:
: In article <583_960...@rational.vaxxine.com>,
: Lazarus Long <2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com> wrote:
:
: > That is the whole point. It is virtually impossible to pollute
: > your land without infringing on someone else's property
: > rights. Therefore, the strict enforcement of property rights
: > would protect the environment.
:
: So, an industrialist who wants to build a steel plant would have to
: negotiate with each and every person who lives in an area effected
: by the resulting air pollution? If he's in LA, he'll have to
: negotiate with folks as far away as Twenty-nine Palms? And
: carrying out these tens, or hundreds, or millions of individual
: negotiations will be more efficient than having to simply meet
: one set government regulations?
Regulations described by whom? You, majority or perhaps "Bought
and paid for" politicians? This is not about efficiency, it is about
_your_ and my right to clean air.
Perhaps the industrialist in question is approaching the problem from
wrong direction and needs a chat with R&D about minimizing/eliminating
pollution.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Tapio Erola "Live and learn, or you don't live long."
t...@paju.oulu.fi --Lazarus Long
_______________________________________________________________________________
James Hammerton
staffin.dc...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> <4u6k8q$24...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
Organization: The Tardis Project
Distribution:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Brad Hatch (ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu) wrote:
> ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) wrote:
> >Douglas Bashford (bash...@psnw.com) wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> All American environmentalism is free-market.
> >
> >No, this is wrong. Most environmentalists want to use government
> >regulation to protect the environment -- this is most blatantly not
> >free market. Free market environmentalism seeks to protect the
> >environment by using private property rights and defining pollution as
> >a violation of such rights unless it is restricted to the polluter's
> >own property. If you want to pollute someone elses land/water you have
> >to bargain with them. The market will then regulate pollution as it
> >regulates everything else. This approach is rarely espoused by
> >environmentalists, but it is one that IMHO deserves more attention.
> >
> >James
> >
> >--
> > James Hammerton, PhD Student, School of Computer Science,
> > University of Birmingham | Email: J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk
> > WWW Home Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah
> > Connectionist NLP WWW Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/CNLP/cnlp.html
> >
> Not much more. Their are very few situations where someone can pollute
> their own property without damaging someone elses property or health.
But the point is that if what they do on this property is going to
have that effect then they will be violating the rights of others and
those others are owed compensation (unless the owner obtained their
consent to have the pollution dumped on them).
> Pollution seeps into the water table, the air and can be an eyesore to
> others. Besides there is something repugnant about the idea that someone
Yes and this effect will have to be taken into account by the owner or
else he or she will be liable for the violations of other people's
rights that result.
> can be distructive just because of the notion of property rights. Under
It would not normally be in their interests to be destructive to their
own property as that would mean they would not be able to resell it.
> this notion a wealthy person could purchase a rare and beautiful Renoit
> painting and then deficate on it or just destroy it so no one else can
> enjoy it. It also implies that those who own property have more rights
Does this mean that if I enjoy looking at your back garden you have no
right to change it by planting new plants in it?
> than anyone else. The property and the rights that go with it can be
> enherited. This sounds a bit like royalty, something I'm not
I take it you mean inherited. Hillel Steiner in his book "An Essay on
Rights" argues that the right of bequest is not a valid right (since
it cannot be waived by the supposed holder of it once they die), and
suggests that on death a person's property should be shared
amongst those still alive. The interesting thing about this is that
it is a logical consequence of an attempt to iron out some ambiguities
and inconsistencies in natural rights theory. Also apparently Robert
Nozick came round to advocate taxation of inheritances, according to
Jonothan Wolff in his critique of Nozick's libertarianism (called
"Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and the Minimal State").
Nick Merritt
In article <4tril3$7...@quartz.cyberstation.net>, ma...@cyberstation.net
(Mark Hornberger) wrote:
[snip]
> Libertarians are not anti-environmental; we just believe that there is
> a different way to go about it. In Richard Epstein's book _Takings_
> he delineates the way for the courts to enforce trespass, which till
> now has been largely ignored by the courts. The idea being that if
> Company A has a chemical plant that pollutes your groundwater, you
> have grounds for suing their pants off.
What if it was another country polluting your patch of land? Either by
radioactive fallout, deforestation causing landslides or acid rain? How do
you nobble the polluter then?
[snip]
Nick
James Hammerton
Steven D. Litvintchouk (s...@linus.mitre.org) wrote:
> In article <bwg-020896...@news.frii.com> b...@bwg.com (Bryan Griffin) writes:
> > Unfortunately many people haven't heard of free market environmentalism,
> > which is essentially the study of libertarian environmentalism.
> >
> > [detailed analysis deleted]
> > >
> > > However, on lands which they own privately, the paper companies suddenly
> > > become staunch
> > > environmentalists! They replant so that their own forest acreage increases
> > > each year -- while the
> > > national ones dwindle.
> > >
> > > Owners, on the other hand, profit from long-range planning because they
> > > will eventually reap the
> > > fruits of their conservation efforts. Even if they don't wish to keep a
> > > property, selling it becomes
> > > more profitable when it is well cared for, and this includes forest property.
> > >
> > > With this in mind, we can propose a two-part strategy for environmental
> > > protection which can turn
> > > each person's greed into a desire to nurture Mother Nature: 1) individual
> > > ownership of the
> > > environment and 2) personal liability for damage caused to the property of
> > > others.
> I can see how this could work for renewable resources such as coastal
> waters and land that yields crops and forests for profit. But how
> would the following two situations be dealt with:
> 1. Air pollution: No one currently pays for the use of the *air* when
> they pollute it. Would we grant "air licenses" analogous to "fishing
> rights"? How would this work, when the prevailing winds will blow air
> pollution in countless untraceable directions? For example, if I find
> that the air around me is polluted, which of the thousands of drivers
> of cars and trucks passing by every day should I sue?
That's a tough one.
> 2. Non-renewable resources: When a mining company strip-mines land
> that they own, or otherwise pollutes their land in the course of mining,
> what incentive to they have to restore the land? They still own it,
> but restoring the land to its former state won't yield any more
> minerals to be mined.
The land will be worth more if they restore it.
Lazarus Long
do...@rational.com pontificated in a message to All:
dr> In article <583_960...@rational.vaxxine.com>,
dr> Lazarus Long <2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com> wrote:
> That is the whole point. It is virtually impossible to pollute
> your land without infringing on someone else's property
> rights. Therefore, the strict enforcement of property rights
> would protect the environment.
dr> So, an industrialist who wants to build a steel plant would have to
dr> negotiate with each and every person who lives in an area effected
dr> by the resulting air pollution? If he's in LA, he'll have to
Nope. He would have to ensure that his plant does not infringe
on those rights either by eliminating any polluting discharge
or else by offering to negotiate with a representative of
those people.
dr> negotiate with folks as far away as Twenty-nine Palms? And
dr> carrying out these tens, or hundreds, or millions of individual
dr> negotiations will be more efficient than having to simply meet one
dr> set government regulations?
SOrry, but put aside the Hubenism and recall how most people
deal with large numbers of others. Most likely a lawyer or
several may approach the owner, representing the community and
present to him the limits that the people of that community
are willing to accept. He wouldn't necessarily have to agree
to them, but then he lays himself open to a class action suit
the first time someone gets a sore throat and blames it on his
factory.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... Hubenism: A deliberate mistatement, to twist the meaning or context
Lazarus Long
mcc....@mhs.adp.unc.edu pontificated in a message to All:
>
> In article <583_960...@rational.vaxxine.com>,
> Lazarus Long <2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com> wrote:
>
> > That is the whole point. It is virtually impossible to pollute
> > your land without infringing on someone else's property
> > rights. Therefore, the strict enforcement of property rights
> > would protect the environment.
>
mm> I wonder how or who is going to sue somebody in the Neuse River
mm> Basin for filling in a half acre of wetlands....maybe a commercial
mm> fisherman will sue for the .000005% decrease in his seasonal catch?
Who knows? WHo owns the Basin? Who owns the rights to the
catch?
mm> Are not large corporations going to have a batallion of lawyers
mm> ready to counter any lawsuit...no matter how legitimate or how
mm> 'strict or clear' property rights are....if the cost of litigation
mm> is less than the cost of compliance?
OF course. However, is litigation less than the cost of
compliance?
mm> Who do I sue for the decline in a fungus population? Or the decrease
mm> in migratory waterfowl? How about a buildup of heavy metals in my
mm> groundwater? How about increased turbidity in the river that goes
mm> through my town....what field or storm drain did it come
mm> from...maybe we will have a personal satellite to arrive at this?
How are these matters handled today?
mm> Are we all going to have to set up surface water, atmospheric,
mm> groundwater, soil pollution detection substations in our yards?
mm> Maybe we can do a census of all of the plant/animal life in our
mm> communities and plug it into the cray we have running in our
mm> garage....
Nope. but a community might consider contracting to a
environmental watchdog organisation that will do monitoring
for a fee.
mm> Who 'owns' an endangered mussel? Do we raffle species off, or hold
mm> a random drawing?
No one owns a species..unless the sum total of that species
lives on one person's property.
mm> I'm sorry, the premise is ridiculous.
Just your Hubenisms are ridiculous.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... I like animals...roasted, stewed or pan fried!!
Douglas Bashford
Yep, Lazarus Long) wrote on 05 Aug 96 22:29:09 about:
In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
>bp> Why don't you address the fact that you want to steal my public
>bp> land, my heritage. Then sell it to the highest bidder, so that he
>bp> can try and sell fragments of it back to me at a profit? That I
>bp> will lose. Me, and a whole lot of other people you will be stealing
>bp> from today and in the future. . For what? So you can turn a quick
>bp> buck? That's rat shit.
>bp> steal our greatest possession, and our unborn children's.
>bp> You want to steal part of what makes America great to the
>bp> highest bidder for a quick buck. Shame on you guys. Shame.
>Your public land? Just see how much you are allowed to do on that public land.
>You find a nice looking spot..can you build a nice cabin there, even if you
>allow others to use it in your absence?
Ok, seemingly your idea of enjoying life is to fence everything out
with walls and border lines. Those are your values. Do you see me
preaching to impose my values on you? "Abolish Property!" perhaps?
Are you now trying to impose your values on me via stealing my
heritage? Stealing what I value most in life? Shame on you.
You guys go around about preaching freedom, then want to
steal mine for a quick buck. Freedom?? In a USNF I can
build a bonfire 12 feet high, shoot cans all day long, hunt
and fish, or shit behind any tree I like, walk in any
direction I like for as long as I like, explore by car
or foot for days, and it's all, mine, I don't need ask
some punk where I can go, or walk in little public tunnels
between 99.999% of what isn't mine.
Can you do ANY of that in your little cubicle in the shitty
city? Freedom. Ya, right. What you call freedom, gives
me claustraphobia. Don't push your values on me. You can
buy all the little boxes you want, and like a two year old learning
his first words, squeal; mine mine mine, -- hey no problem.
Just stay out of my face. Don't steal my rights.
>> It may be profitable to dump pollution on your own land. But so what?
>bp> Shame on you. So I guess you guys really don't belive in cleaning
>bp> up your own mess. Leave it for the next generation to deal with.
>bp> Treat the land like disposable toilet paper if if you can afford it.
>bp> Shame on you.
> More Hubenisms?
Fuck off with your cute little words. No Logic? "like disposable
toilet paper". "cleaning up your own mess." What part of that don't
you understand, Lazarus?? What the hell does:
>> It may be profitable to dump pollution on your own land. But so what?
mean to you?
>Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
- ^^^^^^^^ what a joke.
Do you read "Reason" magazine too?
Jeffrey D. Iverson
Brad Hatch wrote:
>
> ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) wrote:
> >Douglas Bashford (bash...@psnw.com) wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> All American environmentalism is free-market.
> >
> >No, this is wrong. Most environmentalists want to use government
> >regulation to protect the environment -- this is most blatantly not
> >free market. Free market environmentalism seeks to protect the
> >environment by using private property rights and defining pollution as
> >a violation of such rights unless it is restricted to the polluter's
> >own property. If you want to pollute someone elses land/water you have
> >to bargain with them. The market will then regulate pollution as it
> >regulates everything else. This approach is rarely espoused by
> >environmentalists, but it is one that IMHO deserves more attention.
> >
> >
> >--
> > James Hammerton, PhD Student, School of Computer Science,
> > University of Birmingham | Email: J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk
> > WWW Home Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah
> > Connectionist NLP WWW Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/CNLP/cnlp.html
> >
>
> their own property without damaging someone elses property or health.
> others. Besides there is something repugnant about the idea that someone
> painting and then deficate on it or just destroy it so no one else can
> enjoy it. It also implies that those who own property have more rights
> enherited. This sounds a bit like royalty, something I'm not
From your second sentence, how do you explain the existence of landfills
where garbage is taken? If the pollution seeps into the water table, the
air, or the eyes, the offender should be held liable for violating the
rights of others. That's a might big incentive to not pollute. Repugnant
or not, people should be free to do with their property what they want.
Let's say I get a divorce, and it's a painfully messy one, I have the
right to beat the hell out of my wedding band with a hammer, or do I
not? Property rights, as an extension of right to life are a right that
everyone has. The person that has $1 and the person that has
$1,000,000,000 have the same right to dispose of what they have as they
see fit, no more no less. Don't think of it as inheritance then, think
of it as one person giving property to another person. If I give you a
book, it is now yours to read, throw away, or put on the shelf, or no?
Royalty smacks of the divine right of kings and is clearly irrational
and mysticism.
> Brad
David Schwartz
Douglas Bashford (bash...@psnw.com) wrote:
: > The alternative...state ownership of the land hardly has been
: > environmentally sound over the years. WHich publicly owned
: > river burst into flames. How many privately owned waters are
: > contaminated? very few.
: So you guys say. However, you are dealing in numbers too small
: for statistical anaylisis. Anecdotal evidence. Rather than ask
: WHICH river, ask what percent. I believe there are over 400 toxic
: waste sites. What percent of those were public lands? Very few.
I've never met a Libertarian who felt it was okay for _me_ to
pollute _your_ river. Or are you worried about people polluting their own
property?
DS
David Schwartz
Steven D. Litvintchouk (s...@linus.mitre.org) wrote:
: 2. Non-renewable resources: When a mining company strip-mines land
: that they own, or otherwise pollutes their land in the course of mining,
: what incentive to they have to restore the land? They still own it,
: but restoring the land to its former state won't yield any more
: minerals to be mined.
It's their land. If they don't want to restore it, why should they?
If anyone wants it restored, for any legitimate reason, they will
(presumably) be willing to pay to have it restored. Any company, however,
that wantonly reduced the value of its own assets wouldn't last long.
DS
Jeffrey D. Iverson
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> In article <562_960...@rational.vaxxine.com>,
> Lazarus Long <2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com> wrote:
>
> > Much of the forest land in Maine is privately owned yet is
> > open to hiking and other uses. What's your point?
>
>
>
> > Who mentioned barbed wire? Engaging in Hubenisms?
>
Nevada is almost 95% public land and they have a lot of "no trespassing"
signs there too, so what's your other point?
Lazarus Long
jha...@ilhawaii.net pontificated in a message to All:
ji> Jeffrey D. Iverson wrote:
> > Most enjoy a kind of fuzzy-headed idealism about the proposed
> > libertarian paradise, where everyone supposedly is "free" to "choose".
>
> Why do you say "supposedly"?
>
> Would you prefer a world where, indeed, everyone is free to choose, or
> one in which none are free to choose?
ji> This one of the keystones of libertarian fuzzy-head.
ji> It is impossible for EVERYONE to be free to choose without
ji> someone infringing on someone else's freedoms. Therefore,
ji> SOMEONE must maintain LIMITED freedom to choose for all.
ji> Which brings us right back to were we are today.
Nope because the difference is that individuals can choose
what encroachments they will permit, whereas now we have a
State that presumes to limit everyone without regard to the
wishes of each individual. Hence...we get drug prohibition and other
consensual acts forbidden by law.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... Life and liberty are safe only when congress is in recess.
Bryan Griffin
In article <4u1h47$2m...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, Brad Hatch
<ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
> My point being that your absolute free market without government
> intervention is a myth. Trade barriers have always been used to protect
> markets in the advanced industrialised nations. Subsidies to bussiness
There is a difference between something that hasn't existed, and
something that couldn't exist. Simply because trade barriers have been
used doesn't mean they need to always be used, the same with
your other examples of govt. intervention.
> computors and aerospace are developed with military money and then handed
> over to private industry. US funded universties have provided a majority
One thing some people seem to do is assume that simply because
the govt. funded something like a particular technology that it wouldn't
have existed otherwise. If the money going to the govt. had been
availible in the private sector instead it seems likely these technologies
would exist based on private funding, it just happens that in this
case despite the desires of libertarians govt. has been used to fund
some technology development.
I'm sure in a communist country where the govt. grows all the food
someone might make the argument that if the govt. weren't doing it
the free market wouldn't have grown food. Yet obviously free markets
do grow food, simply because the govt. did do something doesn't mean
the private sector wouldn't have if the govt. hadn't been taking
all that tax money and if they didn't assume that since the gov.t
was funded this development there was no reason for a private company
to bother.
> The CATO institute has done some good work in exposing corporate welfare
> in the form of export subsidies and agriculturel subsidies, but I think
> that they will tone it down and focus more of their attention on after
> welfare queens so as not to lose their corporate funding.
Cato is a libertarian (or market liberal/classical liberal which is
the same thing) think tank. They were founded to fill a niche
that didn't exist, and aren't likely to abandon their philosophy,
there is no evidence they will. They bash both Republicans and
Democrats for corporate welfare. I note companies like Netscape
and Sun Microsystems are Cato sponsors, I doubt they depend on
govt. pork (though I'm sure the govt. uses their products, we
can't fault them for that). Simply because some of Cato's sponsors
are corporations doesn't mean they wish Cato to advocate govt.
action on their part, many companies realize they'll do better
if government is reduced.
I'm a Cato sponsor (at the lowest contribution level) and I
don't see any signs of them changing their views.
Bryan Griffin
b...@bwg.com
Bryan Griffin
In article <4u1lpf$34...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, Brad Hatch
<ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
> To elaborate even further, I see no evidence that laissez-faire
> capitalism has ever existed or that there is a possibility of its
> existing without some form of public subsidy to provide it with the
> infustructure to exist.
Simply because the govt. has provided subsidy or infrastructure
doesn't mean that the private sector wouldn't have. As I argued in
the last post, in a communist country someone might try to claim
that if the govt. didn't grow food then no one would. Yet in
free markets food is grown, I don't see evidence that
the govt. is more intelligent than people employed in the private
sector who would recognize the products they need and see
them produced. There are perhaps a few examples that there
may be a little more argument about, which libertarians would
still question, however even if there were a small number most
of what the govt. does isn't required for the free market to
function.
>This infrustructure is also needed to protect
> the environment from the excess of capitalism.
Actually, the real question is who is going to protect it from
government? People making money off of environmental
protection damages will help fight the so-called "excess of capitalism"
using capitalism itself. That is except when the govt. and
the courts intervene on behalf of the special interests who
lobby them or for the supposedly "common good" as they did
a century ago when industrialism was just taking hold.
In "For a New Liberty", Murray Rothbard wrote:
> "Before the mid and late
> nineteenth century, any injurious air pollution was considered a tort,
> a nuisance against which the victim could sue for damages and against
> which he could take out an injunction to cease and desist from any
> further invasion of his property rights. But during the nineteenth
> century, the courts systematically altered the law of negligence and
> the law of nuisance to *permit* any air pollution which was not
> unusually greater than any similar manufacturing firm, one that was not more
> extensive than the customary practice of fellow polluters.
> As factories began to arise and emit smoke, blighting the orchards
> of neighboring farmers, the farmers would take the manufacturers to court,
> asking for damages and injunctions against further invasion of their
> property. But the judges said, in effect, 'Sorry. We *know* that
> industrical smoke (i.e., air pollution) invades and interferes with your
> property rights. But there is something more important than mere
> property rights: and that is public policy, the 'common good.' And the common
> good decrees that industry is a good thing, industrial progress is a good
> thing, and therefore your mere private property rights must be overridden
> on behalf of the general welfare.' And now all of this are paying the bitter
> price for this overriding of private property, in the form of lung disease
> and countless other ailments. And all for the 'common good'!
>...
> To cap the crimes of the judges, legislatures, federal and state,
> moved in to cement the aggression by prohibiting victims of air
> pollution from engaging in 'class action' suites against polluters.
> ... As Frank Bubb writes 'It is as if the government were to tell you that
> it will (attempt to ) protect you from a thief who steals only from
> you, but it will not protect you if the thief also steals from
> everyone else in the neighborhood...'"
Here is an introductory pamphelet
from the ISIL (International society for individual liberty),
"http://www.isil.org", which gives some pointers for further reading,
talking about the problems with the govt. and pollution:
> The Pollution Solution
>
> by Dr. Mary Ruwart
>
> ISIL EDUCATIONAL PAMPHLET SERIES
>
>
>
> We all want a safe, pollution-free environment -- and with hope in our
> hearts many of us have
> turned to government rules and regulations to protect ourselves and our
> loved ones from the
> horrors of a ravaged world. Yet pollution of our air and water still
> threatens. In South America the
> rainforests are cleared so rapidly that some of us may live to see them
> vanish from the earth. In
> Africa, big game animals are hunted to extinction. Where has our
> environmental strategy failed?
> What can we do to make things right again?
>
>
>
> The Greatest Threat Of All
>
> TOXIC WASTE: Ironically, the greatest toxic polluter of our nation's
> environment is the very
> government we've turned to for protection. The greatest polluter is the
> U.S. military. Pentagon
> spokesperson Kevin Doxey told the National Academy of Sciences in 1991
> that, "We have found
> some 17,400 contaminated sites at 1,850 installations, not including
> formerly used sites." The
> "contamination" consists of toxic solvents used to de-ice military planes,
> byproducts of the
> manufacture of nerve gas and mustard gas, and radioactive debris. In 1988,
> the Department of
> Energy estimated that it would take 50 years and $100 billion to clean up
> a mere 17 of these sites.
> How can we expect the greatest polluter of all time to effectively halt
> pollution by business and
> industry?
>
> RADIOACTIVE WASTE: Even when the courts recognize that our government is
> guilty of
> killing people with pollution, victims have had no recourse. In 1984, a
> Utah court ruled that 10 out
> of 24 cases of cancer brought to its attention were due to negligence of
> the U.S. military in
> association with nuclear weapons testing. The Court of Appeals ruled that
> even though the U.S.
> government was responsible, it would not have to compensate its victims.
> The government enjoys
> "sovereign immunity" -- it does not have t o right its wrongs. How can a
> "polluter pays" policy
> work if the greatest polluter of all cannot be held liable?
>
> NUCLEAR POWER ACCIDENTS: Liability is the key to protecting the
> environment. When
> those who pollute our air, land, and water are held accountable for the
> damage they do, would-be
> polluters are likely to be far more cautious. For example, in the late
> 1950s, private insurance
> companies refused to insure nuclear power plants, because the enormous
> risks associated with a
> possible accident were unacceptably high. Consequently, power companies
> refused to consider
> nuclear power. Congress, however, passed a law (the Price Anderson Act) to
> limit the amount
> victims of a nuclear power plant disaster could claim to a maximum of $560
> million. Of this
> amount, over 80% would come from taxes. Once the power companies were able
> to enjoy limited
> liability for any damage they might cause, nuclear power plants
> proliferated. Instead of protecting
> the public, our government passed laws to protect special-interest profits.
>
> RAINFORESTS: Unfortunately, the above story is not an isolated incident.
> Governments of all
> countries have shown a strong tendency to sell out their nation's
> environmental bounty to special
> interest groups. Third World dictators have routinely driven natives from
> their rainforest homes so
> that those favored by the regime could clear the mighty forests. The cost
> of such callousness was
> vividly portrayed in the movie MEDICINE MAN, in which Sean Connery played
> a scientist who
> found a cure for cancer in the rainforest. He watched helplessly as the
> natives who befriended him
> were driven from their forest home. The rainforest, along with the cancer
> cure, were both
> destroyed. The U.S. government frequently directs "foreign aid" to Third
> World power-brokers to
> pay for rainforest devastation. U.S. taxpayer dollars are literally
> fuelling the fire of the
> slash-and-burn attacks on the tropical woodlands.
>
> IT'S ONLY NATURAL: Betrayals such as those described above hardly seem
> possible at first,
> but further reflection illustrates that they are only the natural outcome
> of political management.
> Special interests reap great profits from building nuclear power plants
> while facing little liability,
> dumping toxic waste without having to clean it up, using radioactive
> materials without being
> responsible for the consequences, or harvesting forests for which they
> didn't have to pay. When
> they offer government officials part of this profit to betray the public
> interest, the temptation is
> often too overwhelming to resist. If an elected official refuses to be
> bought, special interests simply
> fund his or her opponent in the next election. Few honest politicians can
> survive against such odds.
> Consequently, the special interests win virtually every time. Indeed, it's
> a wonder that our
> environment has not been totally devastated long before now!
>
>
>
> The Easy Way Out
>
> The answer to environmental protection may be gleaned by observing special
> interest behavior.
> Let's take the example of the paper companies who log America's national
> forests. The U.S.
> Forest Service, with our tax dollars, builds three to four times as many
> logging roads as hiking
> trails, so that vast sweeps of our precious forests can be felled by paper
> companies with little cost
> and only token replanting.
>
> However, on lands which they own privately, the paper companies suddenly
> become staunch
> environmentalists! They replant so that their own forest acreage increases
> each year -- while the
> national ones dwindle. In the South, International Paper makes as much as
> 30% of its profits from
> recreational uses of its forests.
>
> Why is there so much difference between how paper companies treat their
> own land and the way
> they treat public property? When a paper company is allowed to log a
> national forest, it has little
> incentive to harvest in a responsible and sustainable manner. After all,
> the paper company has no
> guarantees that it will be allowed access to the same forest again.
> Without ownership, long-term
> planning and care of forests just doesn't make economic sense.
>
> Owners, on the other hand, profit from long-range planning because they
> will eventually reap the
> fruits of their conservation efforts. Even if they don't wish to keep a
> property, selling it becomes
> more profitable when it is well cared for, and this includes forest property.
>
> With this in mind, we can propose a two-part strategy for environmental
> protection which can turn
> each person's greed into a desire to nurture Mother Nature: 1) individual
> ownership of the
> environment and 2) personal liability for damage caused to the property of
> others.
>
> OWNING A PIECE OF THE EARTH: The British long ago learned how to stop
> pollution of
> their rivers. Fishing rights in British streams and rivers are a private
> good that can be bought and
> sold. For the last century, polluters have been routinely dragged into the
> courts by angry owners
> and forced to rectify any damage they may have caused. Every owner on
> these rivers has in fact
> become an environmental protector -- because each stands to profit from
> nurturing the
> environment.
>
> In the Gulf of Mexico, shrimp fishermen once claimed parts of the ocean as
> their property in the
> time-honored practice of homesteading. They formed a voluntary association
> to keep the waters
> productive and to avoid overfishing -- until the U.S. government took over
> as caretaker in the early
> 1900s.
>
> Just as the U.S. government took over the fisheries, so too have Third
> World governments taken
> over the rainforests and handed them over to special interests. An
> important element in protecting
> the rainforests is to respect the homesteading rights of the native
> peoples who have consistently
> exhibited a history of sustainable use. Conservation publications, such as
> Cultural Survival,
> recognize that upholding the property rights of native peoples is
> absolutely crucial to saving the
> rainforests.
>
> Private ownership encourages preservation of endangered species as well.
> For example, Zimbabwe
> respects the homesteading claims of natives to the elephants on their
> land. Like other private
> property, elephants and their products can be legally sold. As a result,
> the natives jealously protect
> their valuable elephants from poachers. The natives have every incentive
> to raise as many elephants
> as possible so they can sponsor safaris and sell elephant ivory, hide, and
> meat. As a result, the
> elephant population h as increased from 30,000 to 43,000 over the past ten
> years. People will
> protect the environment when they own it and can profit from it.
>
> On the other hand, when governments try to shepherd wild animal herds,
> disaster is the predictable
> result. For example, the Kenyan government claims ownership of all
> elephants, and hunting has
> been banned in Kenya. While Zimbabwe's herds thrived, elephants in Kenya
> have declined 67%
> over the last decade.
>
> Environment that is "unowned," suffers a condition described by Dr.
> Garrett Hardin in a 1968
> paper as "the tragedy of the commons." He revealed that property that
> belongs to "everyone" is the
> responsibility of no one. Ocean fish, for example, are considered to
> belong to anyone who catches
> them; consequently, everyone tries to catch as many as they can today,
> before a competitor gets
> them tomorrow. If the ocean could be homesteaded, as with the shrimp
> fisheries described above,
> owners would have an incen tive to make sure the fish population was
> maintained and even
> expanded.
>
> MAKING POLLUTERS PAY: If someone pollutes or destroys that piece of the
> earth owned
> by another, he or she should be required to restore it. In practice, this
> could be so expensive that a
> polluter could be bankrupted by his or her own carelessness. If corporate
> officers were made
> personally responsible for deliberate acts of pollution, they would have
> little incentive to poison the
> air, land or water. Making polluters, not taxpayers, responsible for the
> damage they do takes the
> profit out of pollution.
>
>
>
> The Bottom Line
>
> Privatizing the environment gives owners the incentive to protect it.
> Making sure that polluters --
> not taxpayers -- compensate their victims is the best deterrent. We can
> save the earth by making
> greed work for, instead of against us. What could be more natural?
>
>
> RECOMMENDED READING
>
> Healing Our World (Ruwart) ................................... $14.95
> Free Market Environmentalism (Anderson) ...................... $14.95
> Economics & The Environment (Block Ed.) ...................... $19.95
> Freedom In Our Time (Conservation & Capitalism) .............. $2.95
>
>
> For these and other books and tapes write: Freedom's Forum Books, 1800
> Market Street, San
> Francisco, California 94102. Add $2.50 P & H for 1st book and $1.00 for
> each additional item.
>
>
>
> Additional (hard) copies of this attractive two-color pamphlet are
> available for 5 cents each
> (minimum order $1.00). Price includes shipping.
>
> This pamphlet is produced as a public service by the International Society
> for Individual Liberty. If
> you would like to receive free literature about ISIL's activities around
> the world, and receive a
> sample copy of the World Freedom Bulletin newsletter and book catalog,
> please write:
>
> INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
> 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102 USA
> Tel: (415) 864-0952 Fax: (415) 864-7506
>
Lazarus Long
lib...@wolfenet.com pontificated in a message to All:
lw> From: lib...@wolfenet.com (Mike Hihn)
lw> Newsgroups:
lw> alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.con
lw> servatism,alt.politics.economics,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.pol
lw> itics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.misc,talk.en
lw> vironment,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.economics.austrian-school
lw> Subject: Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the
lw> dollar Organization: Liberty Issues (newsletter)
lw> 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:
>el> also implies that those who own property have more rights than
>el> anyone else. The property and the rights that go with it can be
>el> enherited. This sounds a bit like royalty, something I'm not
>el> particularly fond of.
lw> Yeah, like everyone else here who's old enough, I inherited part of
lw> my parents' house. I guess that makes me royalty????
Check your attributes...I didn't write that. Here is the original post.
From: Brad Hatch <ebr...@lamar.colostate.edu>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.conservatism,a
t.politics.economics,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.p
litics.libertarian,alt.politics.misc,talk.environment,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.
conomics.austrian-school
Subject: Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brad
---
* Origin: UsenetColorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 805 (350:2/100.5)
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... For Reply..send a self abused stomped elephant to...
---
* Origin: The Anarchist's Freehold * Free State of Anarchy * (350:2/100.1)
Mike Hihn
do...@rational.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
>The point, of course, is that public access is at the whim of
>the owner when the resource is privatized.
So?
What you like people hiking through your living room?
>Come out to Oregon, I'll show you what happens when you ignore
>"no trespassing" signs.
Presumably you might get shot.
Again ... so?
Mike Hihn
bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
> Bullshit. They turn forests into tree farms. Drive thru Oregon or
> Washington sometime . Mile after mile of treefarms, all planted in
> sterile neat rows.
Bullshit yourself.
I live in WA, and spend a lot of time driving through both states.
Not that there would be anything wrong with neat rows, but
that is simply poppycock.
Mike Conway
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> In article <583_960...@rational.vaxxine.com>,
> Lazarus Long <2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com> wrote:
>
> > That is the whole point. It is virtually impossible to pollute
> > your land without infringing on someone else's property
> > rights. Therefore, the strict enforcement of property rights
> > would protect the environment.
>
I wonder how or who is going to sue somebody in the Neuse River Basin
for filling in a half acre of wetlands....maybe a commercial fisherman
will sue for the .000005% decrease in his seasonal catch?
Are not large corporations going to have a batallion of lawyers ready to
counter any lawsuit...no matter how legitimate or how 'strict or clear'
property rights are....if the cost of litigation is less than the cost
of compliance?
Who do I sue for the decline in a fungus population? Or the decrease in
migratory waterfowl? How about a buildup of heavy metals in my
groundwater? How about increased turbidity in the river that goes
through my town....what field or storm drain did it come from...maybe we
will have a personal satellite to arrive at this?
Are we all going to have to set up surface water, atmospheric,
groundwater, soil pollution detection substations in our yards?
Maybe we can do a census of all of the plant/animal life in our
communities and plug it into the cray we have running in our garage....
Who 'owns' an endangered mussel? Do we raffle species off, or hold a
random drawing?
Jay Hanson
Jeffrey D. Iverson wrote:
> > Most enjoy a kind of fuzzy-headed idealism about the proposed
> > libertarian paradise, where everyone supposedly is "free" to "choose".
>
> Why do you say "supposedly"?
>
> Would you prefer a world where, indeed, everyone is free to choose, or
> one in which none are free to choose?
This one of the keystones of libertarian fuzzy-head.
It is impossible for EVERYONE to be free to choose without
someone infringing on someone else's freedoms. Therefore,
SOMEONE must maintain LIMITED freedom to choose for all.
Which brings us right back to were we are today.
Jay
---
"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in
the lowest wage country is impeccable...because foregone earnings
from increased morbidity" are low. He adds that "the underpopulated
countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted; their air quality is
probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles...."
--World Bank's chief economist, Lawrence Summers
The Economist, Feb. 8, 1992
These cold-blooded economic calculations expose a global system of
destruction where national borders and human lives are viewed only
as a footnote to the capitalist market.
Lazarus Long
bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
bp> You call "open to hiking and other uses" freedom? No trespassing
bp> signs all over, barbed wire fences to keep you out? I can go to
What were you planning to do? Burn the forest?
bp> Yosemite up the road, and its "open to hiking and other uses" too.
bp> But you can't do the things I listed for a National Forest. You
bp> Eastern tinhorns are too much. And you? You see a treefarm and
bp> think its a forest. You would probably get lost walking in a
bp> treefarm!
Guess what kid, I probably saw more trees than you ever have,
in my childhood. I lived in northern Ontario (lots of trees).. Where
interestingly enough, the most carefully logged land was
private land. By the way, the public didn't own the land in
Canada either, it was known as Crown Land.
You see, dear boy, Crown land was leased to pulp companies who
would cut and then slash burn. The private land was logged
selectively.
Typical environmentalist ASSumptions.
BTW, how does bashford feel about the heads of the Wilderness
Society and the Sierra Club logging old growth timber on
their own private property?
In one case, 70% of the old growth timber was cut.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... I like animals...roasted, stewed or pan fried!!
Lazarus Long
bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
bp> You know, Lazarus my boy, you are starting to sound a great deal
bp> like a dittohead parrot. Why don't you instead, deal
bp> with my analysis of the Libertarian environmental propaganda
bp> pamphlet that I did?
Your analysis was a trite dismissal. In other words rather
than point out how it was flawed, you simply asserted that it
was...
bp> Funny how one of my other posts has been consistently avoided. I
bp> posted it twice. You guys ALL did not reply.
bp> Remember the one? About the Joe who thought he might have
bp> bad well water in a Libertarian World? What do you suppose? Were
bp> the questions too difficult? Or did reality interfere with dogma?
Nope...A basic rule ..it is futile to debate strawmen.
bp> An aside. A little history?
bp> "Greed is good" in our society came from Calvinism's "man is evil".
bp> From evil-man is natural, we derive "good is un-natural" to "don't
bp> trust do-gooders" (such as environmentalists, government and
bp> welfare). Forgive my gross jumps and oversimplifications.
bp> So I suspect a great many Libertarians and Right Wingers are of
bp> Baptist, and related origins.
bp> And I suspect very few are of Catholic, Lutheran, related
bp> Christian, or Jewish origins. We can discuss this further if you
bp> like.
You can prattle on if you wish. Funny how all those infamous
libertarians with names like Rothbard and others keep popping
up... Hmmm Friedman is another name that seems familiar. Shall
we continue?
bp> Sorry, I'm not that interested. You are the Libertarian, post
bp> another pamphlet if you think there is anything not *BASED* in:
bp> untested theory (faith), or often tested-as-wrong
bp> facts and/or logic (dogma (or lies)).
WHereas you have a lock on the truth. How interesting.
bp> --Doug bash...@psnw.com
bp> Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)
bp> http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html
Funny, but all I have seen presented from you is assertions.
Hmmm is that the scientific method we hear so much about?
Lazarus Long
bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
>Your public land? Just see how much you are allowed to do on that public land.
>You find a nice looking spot..can you build a nice cabin there, even if you
>allow others to use it in your absence?
bp> Ok, seemingly your idea of enjoying life is to fence everything out
bp> with walls and border lines. Those are your values. Do you see me
bp> preaching to impose my values on you? "Abolish Property!" perhaps?
bp> Are you now trying to impose your values on me via stealing my
bp> heritage? Stealing what I value most in life? Shame on you.
Ahh.. you value having everyone else pay for your pleasures.
How nice.
bp> You guys go around about preaching freedom, then want to
bp> steal mine for a quick buck. Freedom?? In a USNF I can
bp> build a bonfire 12 feet high, shoot cans all day long, hunt
bp> and fish, or shit behind any tree I like, walk in any
bp> direction I like for as long as I like, explore by car
bp> or foot for days, and it's all, mine, I don't need ask
bp> some punk where I can go, or walk in little public tunnels
bp> between 99.999% of what isn't mine.
Guess what, little boy, you can do that on your own property
and not have to have all your neighbours paying for your
pleasures.
bp> Can you do ANY of that in your little cubicle in the shitty
bp> city? Freedom. Ya, right. What you call freedom, gives
bp> me claustraphobia. Don't push your values on me. You can
bp> buy all the little boxes you want, and like a two year old learning
bp> his first words, squeal; mine mine mine, -- hey no problem.
bp> Just stay out of my face. Don't steal my rights.
Funny, that bashford immediately decides everyone who opposes
his own ideas must be a city boy. Kid, I was in the bush
before you were pissing your first didies..
>> It may be profitable to dump pollution on your own land. But so what?
>bp> Shame on you. So I guess you guys really don't belive in cleaning
>bp> up your own mess. Leave it for the next generation to deal with.
>bp> Treat the land like disposable toilet paper if if you can afford it.
>bp> Shame on you.
This from a punk who likes the idea of public lands where he
can build 12 foot bonfires. Only city slickers build big
bonfires in the woods.
> More Hubenisms?
bp> Fuck off with your cute little words. No Logic? "like disposable
bp> toilet paper". "cleaning up your own mess." What part of that
bp> don't you understand, Lazarus?? What the hell does:
>> It may be profitable to dump pollution on your own land. But so what?
bp> mean to you?
My, but the pseudo-environmentalist with his high impact land
usage ideas seems to be getting testy.
>Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
bp> - ^^^^^^^^ what a joke.
bp> Do you read "Reason" magazine too?
Poor baby, Do you read anything...are you capable of reading
anything.
I think the argument is over... the pseudo-environmentalist is
reduced to childish games. tah tah... city boy.
Bryan Griffin
In article <320634...@hotmail.com>, "John E. Harrington"
<po...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> jw wrote:
> >
> > In <4tr9m2$h...@news.one.net> a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
> > writes:
> > >
> > >In article <3200F2...@hotmail.com>,
> > > <po...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > >>> You might wish to do more research. Most libertarians that I know
> > >>> aren't anti-environmental. They prefer to see a market-based
> > approach
> > >>> to environmental problems. The "tragedy of the commons" doesn't
> > occur
> > >>> when there are no commons.
> > >>
> > >>Most libertarians I know aren't quick enough to understand the
> > >>massive, sad, laughably absurd paradox of their beliefs.
> >
> > A flowery but rather confused slur:
> >
> > (1) A "massive, sad paradox" of somebody's whole belief
> > system would hardly be something that calls for a "quick"
> > understanding.
> >
>
> I meant quick in the sense of intelligent, not fast.
>
> > (2) "Most" libertarians known to the author don't understand
> > that their beliefs are "laughably absurd"?
> > *Most* don't - but *some* do? - and they still hold
> > those beliefs? How come?
>
> Some libertarians are quite cognizant of the consequences of their
> beliefs, but simply don't give a damn about anyone else but themselves,
> and, to their credit, are quite happy to admit it.
>
> Most enjoy a kind of fuzzy-headed idealism about the proposed
> libertarian paradise, where everyone supposedly is "free" to "choose".
This would appear to perhaps be a reference to Milton Friedman's
"Free to Chose", if so I'd suggest you may disagree but its odd to
call a Nobel Prize winning Economist "fuzzy-headed". Regardless I'd
suggest rationally disputing positions rather than simply hand-waving
disparagement.
> That unregulated markets, despite the clear example of history,
> lead to strong economies and a preferable society. Specious, however
> untrue.
I'd suggest that this "clear example of history" isn't so clear,
and suggest that perhaps you might consider providing more argument
that this is true rather than simply claiming it. Since the example
you give is questionable:
> Our own nation, for example, became a mightly global super power during
> a period when taxation, especially on the richest 5%, was
> unprecedentedly high, union activity near saturation (i.e. in all the
> trades where it was needed) and governmental regulation of business
> entrenched and constantly fortified.
What period was this? Taxation has been steadily going up, now
is when its unprecedentedly high. According to "Why Government Doesn't
Work" by Harry Browne, in 1902 government at all levels took only
8% of our income, in 1994 government took 47% of total US income.
Also, simply because the country became a super power while regulations
existed doesn't mean that the state of govt. intervention made it
a super power, it could be that it became a super power *despite*
the government intervention. Govt. regulation is much higher
today than it was in the past, so again I don't know which particular
period you are talking about, what other factors might be involved.
> On the other hand, the two
> times in our century when laissez faire politics held sway, we ended
> up with depression or recession.
I'm not sure when you claim laissez faire politics held sway,
if you are thinking of Reagan most libertarians would object rather
strongly that it was mostly rhetoric. Regardless of rhetoric the
govt. was still huge. Also there have been again nobel prize winning
economists who say that govt. intervention *caused* the great
depression. Perhaps you disagree, but it might be that you
should consider reading some more economics.
> I should say, though, as a reformed libertarian myself, that some
> of us do come around.
Actually, it sounds like you were a not well enough *informed*
libertarian, perhaps with more study you might come back around.
I'd hope you wouldn't depend on your view of libertarianism soley
from discussions on the net since there are books that will do
a better job of explaining the ideas.
Bryan Griffin
b...@bwg.com
Bryan Griffin
In article <o4a686x...@rigel.mitre.org>, s...@linus.mitre.org (Steven
D. Litvintchouk) wrote:
> I can see how this could work for renewable resources such as coastal
> waters and land that yields crops and forests for profit. But how
> would the following two situations be dealt with:
>
> 1. Air pollution: No one currently pays for the use of the *air* when
> they pollute it. Would we grant "air licenses" analogous to "fishing
> rights"? How would this work, when the prevailing winds will blow air
> pollution in countless untraceable directions? For example, if I find
> that the air around me is polluted, which of the thousands of drivers
> of cars and trucks passing by every day should I sue?
This is a more complicated case to deal with in the mixed economy we
have today. In terms of driving it would seem that whoever owns
the roads, currently the govt., is providing a service intended to
be used by polluting vehicles and would be the entity to go after for
damages, and it would presumably include the cost of those damages
in the fees. If a certain level of pollution is deemed unacceptible
from a road then the owner would need to find ways to cut down
on pollution. Again since the govt. owns the roads currently
it may be that the mechanisms of things like gas taxes, etc., make
sense. I'd suggest that if you are actually driving that you have
accepted the level of pollution that is to be expected on the road
and you can't do much about that.
In the case of non-driving pollution, I've already posted something
commenting about the govt.'s role in protecting polluters rather
than helping prevent them. Regardless if the source of pollution
needs to be tracked down it would seem that whatever mechanism the
govt. would use could be used by a private entity just as well. The
funding for that entity coming from damages from the polluter.
Try the book "Free Market Environmentalism" by Anderson to get
a start. I don't know what else to say about air pollution offhand,
I know its been given alot of thought and is a complicated issue
in some ways but that doesn't mean the govt. can handle it any better,
and in fact is motivated not to do so because of the special interests
lobbying it to protect them rather than the environment.
> 2. Non-renewable resources: When a mining company strip-mines land
> that they own, or otherwise pollutes their land in the course of mining,
> what incentive to they have to restore the land? They still own it,
> but restoring the land to its former state won't yield any more
> minerals to be mined.
The major problem is when the govt. allows them to use public
property to mine, since they've got no incentive to clean it up.
When a company actually owns the land it has an interest in
making money from the land by preserving its value to sell after
it is finished extracting those minerals. As the population expands
land values only tend to rise so eventually it should become
cost effective to restore lands that weren't mined responsibly
with the prospect of later use kept in mind.
In addition, if that pollution extends to other property then
the company would be responsible for damages and so it has
an incentive to make sure it doesn't pollute in a way that might
spread in any way.
Beyond that, as libertarians say, Utopia isn't an option,
there tends to be more environmental degradation in centrally
planned economies. Bureacrats tend to not care as much about
land as the owners of that land would who benefit later from
its sale.
If certain land is polluted and the owners don't decide it
is of enough value to them to clean it up, then those who
value cleaning that land can choose to buy it and clean it
themselves (presumably actually getting it cheap or free
since the company is knowingly taking a loss since it didn't
preserve the value of its land).
There are a huge number of ways to improve the human
condition and causes to spend money on. Cleaning up one
particular plot of land is one of them, vs. medical research
or helping the homeless, etc. Govt. shouldn't dictate the priorities
among those ways of improving the world, individuals should
be able to make their own moral choices about how they wish to
spend their own money to improve the world. Some might choose
to give money to clean up such lands, whereas others might
feel its more important to help people vs. unused land. With
the government involved people don't get to make this choice, it
is forced on them and so naturally there are fights among those
groups trying to control the purse strings of govt. to make
it pursue their own cause. Libertarians feel they should be
persuading people voluntarily in the private sector to
pursue whichever cause they are in favor of vs. forcing
others to go along with them through government.
Bryan Griffin
b...@bwg.com
Douglas Bashford
Yep, 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote
on 05 Aug 96 22:26:24 about:
In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
>bp> I believe something like that is how most people feel
>bp> about Libertarians and the environment.
>bp> So how do the Libertarians respond to this?
>bp> As I said, I very
>bp> much like many of their ideas, but environment nixed them,
>bp> and that was long before I became an "environmentalist".
>bp> I just enjoyed hunting and fishing, and the freedom to
>bp> roam and explore my vast public lands. A great freedom to
>bp> shoot cans, or swim naked, or sleep any damned where I want, to do
>bp> what ever the hell I want, just don't burn it down.
> Much of the forest land in Maine is privately owned yet is
> open to hiking and other uses. What's your point?
You call "open to hiking and other uses" freedom? No trespassing
signs all over, barbed wire fences to keep you out? I can go to
Yosemite up the road, and its "open to hiking and other uses" too.
But you can't do the things I listed for a National Forest. You
Eastern tinhorns are too much. And you? You see a treefarm and
think its a forest. You would probably get lost walking in a
treefarm!
>bp> That freedom is one of the things that makes this country
>bp> great. -- Yet you guys want to sell all this off. --
>bp> Put fences around it -- checkerboard it with barbed wire.
Shame on you guys. Trying to sell America's heritage for
a quick buck. Shame on you.
Douglas Bashford
Yep, 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote
on 05 Aug 96 20:26:08 about:
In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>bash...@psnw.com pontificated in a message to All:
>>>In a previous article, po...@hotmail.com (John E. Harrington) says:
>>>>William Bacon wrote:
>>>>> You might wish to do more research. Most libertarians that I know
>>>>> aren't anti-environmental. They prefer to see a market-based approach
>>>>> to environmental problems. The "tragedy of the commons" doesn't occur
>>>>> when there are no commons.
>bp> You Libertarians might keep in mind that the below is
>bp> how much of the world sees you. Yet in defense, you only
>bp> offer untested theory (faith), or often tested-as-wrong
>bp> facts (dogma) as evidence. Any comments to the below?
> Trolling or do you bother to look up information?
You know, Lazarus my boy, you are starting to sound a great
deal like a dittohead parrot. Why don't you instead, deal
with my analysis of the Libertarian environmental propaganda
pamphlet that I did?
Funny how one of my other posts has been consistently avoided.
I posted it twice. You guys ALL did not reply.
Remember the one? About the Joe who thought he might have
bad well water in a Libertarian World? What do you suppose?
Were the questions too difficult? Or did reality interfere
with dogma?
>bp> keep in mind that the below is how much of the world sees you:
>>Bull. They want no regulations protecting the environment against
>>corporations that pollute. They want to sell off all government land,
>>except post offices. If you want to go for a hike, the libertarian says
>>"Buy the property." If you want biological diversity, buy it. In the
>>libertarian's mind, there is no such thing as protecting non-adaptive
>>species.
> Nice collection of Hubenisms.
You can't even use real words in your so-called rebuttal.
But it is cute looking zinger. I guess that is your task
now that you have nothing else to say?
You believe that greed is good right? That's what your
"environmental" pamphlet implied: "what could be more natural?"
>> Habitat fragmentation and loss are the two major culprits in the
>>loss of species and biodiversity. Libertarians omit that fact, and prefer
>>to have economists, not ecologists managing for diversity. National Parks
>>to them are simply lands with no financial value, unless they are run as
>>businesses with the bottom line being profit. The value of wildlife to them
>>is determined by whether or not someone has a "use" for it, like hunting,
>>fishing, or viewing pleasure. The term "watershed" holds no meaning, nor
>>does the word "ecosystem." A forest is nothing but board feet, and there is
>>no such thing as a forest beneath the trees. The term "pollution" has no
>>meaning unless it cuts into profits.
> More Hubenisms.
>bp> Libertarians? is this all true?
> Nope.
Support please.
>bp> I didn't know there were Libertarian talk shows. I must admit, it's
>bp> easy to get the same impression of you, here on the Net.
>bp> --Doug
> Depends...there are several good sources on free market
> environmentalism available on the web.
Well, I analyzed one. My conclusion was that it certainly was
not environmentalism. Closer to a Rich Boy's dream. It was riddled
with: "untested theory (faith), or often tested-as-wrong facts (dogma)
as evidence", and cartoon-color one-solution oversimplifications.
Has it ever occurred to guys that just because something
agrees with your peculiar world-view does not necessarily
make it right nor true? That is a dead-serious question.
That some things are NOT just a matter of opinion? Your brand
of so-called environmentalism looks very much like:
"Jeepers! that sounds good! it must be true!" Like:
>bp> untested theory (faith), or often tested-as-wrong
>bp> facts (dogma).
I believe that the person who wrote those logical fallacies
and "tested-as-wrong facts" can only be accused of dogma
because she was too damned ignorant about ecology to be
accused of lies. Lies must be intentional.
> I suggest the folowing sites for starters.
>http://www.heartland.org and http://www.cei.org
I examined a pamphlet that seemed to be from from the ISIL
(International society for individual liberty) from
"http://www.isil.org" and claimed to be about "free market
environmentalism, which is essentially the study of libertarian
environmentalism": The Pollution Solution;
>>* by Dr. Mary Ruwart : ISIL EDUCATIONAL PAMPHLET SERIES
it claimed:
>>* The Bottom Line
>>* Privatizing the environment gives owners the incentive to protect it.
There lies the MAJOR fallacy of the entire pamphlet. It appears to
be a foundational assumption and premise. Frankly, it appears that
this was the untested hypothesis, and the entire rest of the paper
did nothing more than present anecdotal evidence for how yes,
sometimes that claim is true. Yet that may or may NOT be true. It
depends on purpose and intent of our ownership, doesn't it?
We spend hard earned money
for the private ownership of toilet paper don't we? It's utility
is derived from the fact that we can pollute it, then flush it.
Great sums of money are spent on waste disposal, the only difference
between toilet paper and land is one of economic scale, not of
concept.
I buy and flush toilet paper, a huge factory can buy and flush toilet
lands. The only thing to prevent it is environmental regulation.
Simple economics. Simple logic. Simple facts.
>>* We can save the earth by making greed work for, instead of
>>* against us. What could be more natural?
An aside. A little history?
"Greed is good" in our society came from Calvinism's "man is evil".
From evil-man is natural, we derive "good is un-natural" to
"don't trust do-gooders" (such as environmentalists, government and
welfare). Forgive my gross jumps and oversimplifications.
So I suspect a great many Libertarians and Right Wingers are of
Baptist, and related origins.
And I suspect very few are of Catholic, Lutheran, related Christian,
or Jewish origins. We can discuss this further if you like.
"Master truth-seekers seek the unarticulated assumptions, -- what
is taken for granted? -- first. Unarticulated, they speak the
loudest."
> I suggest the folowing [Lib] sites for starters.
Sorry, I'm not that interested. You are the Libertarian, post
another pamphlet if you think there is anything not *BASED* in:
>bp> untested theory (faith), or often tested-as-wrong
facts and/or logic (dogma (or lies)).
--Doug bash...@psnw.com
Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)