Why libertarians must deny climate change, in one short take

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climage-change


No Trespassing Sign in Field Photograph: Alamy

Over the Christmas break I read what I believe is the most important environmental essay of the past 12 months. Though it begins with a mildly unfair criticism of a column of mine, I won't hold it against the author. In a simple and very short tract, Matt Bruenig presents a devastating challenge to those who call themselves libertarians, and explains why they have no choice but to deny climate change and other environmental problems.

Bruenig explains what is now the core argument used by conservatives and libertarians: the procedural justice account of property rights. In brief, this means that if the process by which property was acquired was just, those who have acquired it should be free to use it as they wish, without social restraints or obligations to other people.

Their property rights are absolute and cannot be intruded upon by the state or by anyone else. Any interference with, or damage to, the value of their property without their consent – even by taxation – is an unwarranted infringement. This, with local variations, is the basic philosophy of the Republican candidates, the Tea Party movement, the lobby groups that call themselves "free market thinktanks" and much of the new right in the UK.

It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess the most property end up with great power over others. Dressed up as freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to address inequality, hardship or social exclusion. A transparently self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of those with wealth and power.

[TheWraith]

1. Simpler explanation: it requires collective action to fix.

Individual action doesn't cut it. Same goes for other environmental rules: even if 99.999% of people were responsible with their property, it only takes one guy pouring sewage into the creek or running a dangerous chemical plant to endanger everyone.

[orpupilofnature57]

4. Human nature being what it is,, behavior

that puts society in danger isn't a Liberty , it's an indulgence that can't be allowed.

[raouldukelives]

11. I agree that individual action doesn't cut it

But it sure as hell helps a lot. Only through individual choices and word of mouth can we overcome the mass media and it's pro cash at any cost message.

[mysuzuki2]

2. I have a recurring fantasy of buying the property next to Ron Pauls house

and using it as a toxic waste dump. Hey it's my property right? No one can tell me what I can do with it. He might just change his mind about property rights.

[left is right]

17. hey if you are going to dream

you might as well dream big. Just think of it: the neighbor to the North could dump commercial pig farm sludge; the one to the East could open a chemical plant and dump their leftover benzene; the neighbor to the South could open a heavy metal extraction plant and dump the run off from lead and mercury; and the one to the West could make plastics and dump polyvinyl chloride. I wonder if that would change his libertarian nonsense?
Oh well, good fantasy for a leisurely Saturday afternoon.

[tabatha]

3. It is one of the biggest reasons I dislike libertarianism - their attitude to the environment.

And that the world has a limitless supply of natural resources for growth without end.

One idiot even suggested privatizing the ocean - at that point, I knew they understood nothing about a) the environment b) the nature of human beings.

[Romulox]

5. Um, guys? There's such a thing as "civil libertarianism". It seems like many DUers aren't aware

of this fact.

[orpupilofnature57]

8. A civil libertarian ,works to attain as many civil rights as possible.

A DUer Knows that Human liberties are subject to Civil Rights . You can't own slaves ,but you can own Politicians that allow Misanthropic behavior ,and hide behind Property rights. It's easy to be a Libertarian ,it's hard to be a Democrat. http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/09/03_hard.html

[JDPriestly]

21. It's easy to be a Libertarian ,it's hard to be a Democrat.

Great way to put it.

There is a reason for the fact that Ron Paul's supporters tend to be very young. They don't have much experience in real life yet. It's all theory to them.

[cthulu2016]

15. +1

[PETRUS]

6. "if the process by which property was acquired was just"

Plenty of so-called property rights would fall to pieces if people took that seriously.

[WingDinger]

7. Capitalism, is a ponzi scheme.

Corps. lobby to lay EXTERNALITIES at the feet of the taxpayer. Thus, their profits, in large part are the environmental hazards they leave behind.

corporate malfeasance, in the name of enriching the stockholder, to their minds, is heroic.

[treestar]

9. Libertarians often live in the 18th century

Where they may have been right. But now, what do they do when someone else's property use negatively affects their property?

Now having land doesn't mean you won't get fumes from a factory - how does that get stopped without interfering the with factory owner's rights?

Some of them claim that the law of nuisance will take care of it - others probably think the law of nuisance interferes with property rights.

[Tomay]

10. Libertarians would like to repeal the 20th century

and maybe the 19th as well.

[suffragette]

12. K&R

[WillyT]

13. K & R !!!

[Odin2005]

14. I've believed this for a long time.

[NNN0LHI]

16. There has been a group dedicated to stopping a third airport in this area for over a decade

This group turned out to be the same people who ended up being the area teabaggers.

If it was left up to them nothing new would ever get built.

Don

[freshwest]

18. Excellent follow up to his 'How Freedom Became Tyranny' piece. Thanks, xchrom.

If only our media wasn't owned by conservatives. We could have these kinds of discussions here. It would slay the current GOP clown posse running for POTUS.

[PurityOfEssence]

19. To them, individual rights trump group rights

The individual should never be restrained in his/her actions unless those actions directly harm another individual in an obvious way.

Selfishness simply falls apart as a viable social act upon any analysis, and it also completely denies the very obvious fact that the group effort and specialization is the very engine at the heart of an advanced civilization; we would still be scrabbling around in mud huts if not for the collective effort of the group.

Nothing that hinders an individual's selfish "right" should be tolerated.

Libertarianism is something that appeals to mediocre adolescents who are full of themselves.

[saras]

20. They don't have to deny climate change at all, merely assert the right to change the climate.

So it makes life worse for you? Tough shit. Deal.

This is the ESSENTIAL nature of ALL libertarian thought, the idea that you do NOT have a government to turn to to seek justice when a bigger, more powerful entity steps on you. Especially if the bigger, more powerful entity got its power from the support of your neighbors and community members.

If you don't believe that the strong have a right to dominate the weak in whatever way profits the strong, you're not a libertarian but a liberal.

[JackRiddler]

22. Yes, easy answer: 1) Means unlimited growth is impossible...

and 2) means everything is connected, even two separate parcels of private property belonging to different people!