Topic: Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming? - page 14. (Read 30176 times)

Oh, there's still plenty of racism; it's just tucked away so you don't see it. There's no more overt vilification but there's plenty of talk about dirty illegals stealing taxes and support for policies that only harm minorities.

this way ...

I actually think libertarians should be opposed at every front where we find them.

Personally I see right wing economic libertarianism as fascism rebranded - sure they get rid of stupid racist ideas, but still maintain positive views about social darwinism and often, suspicion of democracy.

Some of the more extreme libertarian-conservatives such as James Delingpole are beyond the pale. To these sorts of libertarians, the scientists, in particular, those connected to advancing understanding of global warming are the new jews to be demonised.

I blogged about him. http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2011/07/political-extremist-james-dellingpole.html

Excellent question/observations. To begin, preaching to the choir is not necessary, but pointing things out to those with very different views allows one to hone their arguments and points, as well as spread ideals/ideas, because as you know, forum posts aren't just for the one you're debating, but for all the other readers/lurkers as well. Regarding conservation goals, I'm seriously evaluating what and how I might engage in such activities, and this forum in the mean time allows me to explore and share my growing knowledge base on the subject.

Now, I think that was a reasonable answer.

One more note: this is the real world we're living in. If you want to debate about a (as of yet nonexistent) libertarian society and how it might address Global Warming, that's a fine hobby. But also consider the state of the World as it exists right now, and the value in discussing how environmental issues within the context of the world we are currently living in can be addressed. One of the most serious issues we all face right now is the industry which manufactures propaganda in an attempt to malign the science behind climate change, and the libertarian community is hugely responsible for a large portion of that brownlash. So consider that to be another reason why I hang out here. To put it bluntly, there are probably no small number of individuals here who choose to wear libertarian values like a costume, because of its novelty and supposed independent thought it spawns. If I can bring to their attention an alternative viewpoint, then I consider my efforts successful.

I have.  One of the difficult questions I ask which I don't currently have a good answer to is: Does it make sense that someone could own the world's water supply?  Improbabilities aside, libertarianism states that a single individual could own the world's entire water supply as long as they homesteaded it properly or obtained it through voluntary exchange.  Does this make sense?  I'm not sure it does, but looking at the extremes allows an examination of the ideology. 


So what you are saying is society never agrees to anything that is extreme?  I'll let you think about that.


This is fair.  I was being somewhat of a hypocrite because I was irritated, and I can admit that.  But I still wonder why you are wasting your time on a forum dominated by libertarians trying to convince them that more government regulation is good.  Really, if you are so concerned about the environment and you believe the only way to fix that is through government action, why aren't you running for political office, starting an environmental group on a college campus, teaching grade school kids about the need for conservation, etc. etc. instead of being here on this forum?  Seriously.  Re-evaluate your strategies.  How many people have you convinced so far on this forum?

If you wish to look at extremes, start looking at extremes with regard to libertarian policies. Regarding the confiscation of all motor vehicles, how could society agree to such a thing if, as you say, it's really extreme? Regarding the wrong thread, I can turn the tables on you and state that if the subject of the thread is how libertarians would handle Global Warming, then you have no business asking me how a non libertarian society handles extreme examples.

If you're so insistent on sticking to the letter of the thread's topic, then answer the question posed by the thread's title.

You just said you were ok with a system of mob rule: "collective action" and "majority defined regulation".  My question was an extreme example, but you have to look at the extremes to make sense of the philosophy.  Here's a milder one: If the majority of society decided that they needed to confiscate all motor vehicles in the country to reduce carbon emissions, would that be ok?

If you aren't here to argue philosophy and philosophical positions you are in the wrong forum, or at least the wrong thread.  The topic is "how would a libertarian society address global warming?".  I'm trying to argue philosophy: libertarian vs. the current system.  You insult my philosophical question, and tell me that "If I could, I would like to be able to influence policy to get governments to enact regulation to help save the environment."  Fine.  But you're in the wrong thread.

Seriously, are you twelve? Sorry for the insult, but your question kind of deserves it - see below.

To begin with, it's not my system. It's called the state of the World today, and the participating governments, which do in fact apply regulation, or in your words, coercion. If I could, I would like to be able to influence policy to get governments to enact regulation to help save the environment.

As I said, I don't have a system. I'm a participant in the real world.

So, to clarify, in your system if society decided that we needed to kill all Mexicans that would be ok?

Thank you for setting me straight. I'll stop reading Nature and Science and Scientific American. What sources do you recommend for further information? Where are you getting your information?

I said in theory. Until I see an actual working free market solution I'm certainly not objecting to pollution taxes.

Global Warming is Quack Science. Yes, its happening, no, we are not responsible. We contribute, but we have pretty much zero to do with it as a species on this planet. Every planet is warming now, and it's not our C02 doing it.

What exactly is quack science? Clarify.

You don't honestly believe in this, do you?
Quack science!

Well, gee, imagine them not agreeing. For example, those libertarian think tank members over at Heartland Institute. I use the term 'think tank' lightly here - that's what they call themselves.

In theory a free market should be able to acknowledge anthropogenic global warming and self-regulate. It's only high transaction costs preventing that from happening already. Imagine a whole bunch of Anarchist groups mutually agreeing to the Kyoto protocol, or something similar.

Yeah something should be done, but who and how are very important details. Any solution that doesn't work with both states and anarchist communities is not a realistic one.

So what? Call it what you want. What needs to be done needs to be done.

These are all coercive by definition.  Your philosophy is a philosophy of might makes right and mob rule.

Perhaps you should rethink your insistent use of the term 'coercive government'. There are other possibilities, such as 'collective action', or 'majority defined regulations'. Whatever the case, consistent and widespread proactively organized action is necessary to address environmental issues.

But that's because they see denialism as a way to prevent massive increases in government power. If there was no threat of a coercive government response to global warming, why would Libertarians particularly care one way or the other?