Topic: Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming? - page 21. (Read 30176 times)

Hence all the low hanging fruit picking.

That's why it's also the perfect example of a real-world slippery slope.

That free markets DO NOT handle environmental issues is absolutely beyond debate.  There is historical record that proves this, dating back to the first keeping of historical records.  As you correctly pointed out, the free market will always go for the lowest hanging fruit.  Strip mining with blatant disregard for the planet is another good example of companies decimating the evironment because it is the easiest and more profitable way to do business.  It takes active government intervention to force mining businesses to be less invasive and damaging to the environment.

This is why we need government intervention in areas like alternative fuels, because the free market won't give two shits about alternative fuels until oil supply actually become a significant issue - at which point the development of alternative fuel sources will be a day late and dollar short.


Again, this stuff is undeniable.  Just look at WHY companies outsource to third-world countries.  Because you relocate to bumfuckastan, you'll be allowed to dump your waste in the local river, pollute the air as much as you want, decimate forests and local wildlife, no one will care if your facility is dangerous and kills workers, etc.  That's what the free market WANTS, and they relocate to nations that will let them do it.

What's so aggravating is that they are blind to it happening all around them everyday. The "New Normal" becomes the norm, and then further depletion tomorrow brings about the "New Normal", and it continues until there is nothing. As I've pointed out, there are pressures to start exploiting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Patagonia right now. And it just continues.

anyone notice this thread is full of strawmans?
MOAR COAL!  

Your CEO, maybe not, unless he was paid mostly or partially in stocks. It's then in his interest to keep the company profitable long-term.
And Oil is renewable, just really, really slow...


Usually, because they're not connected to its continued viability, or there is little to no accountability. For instance, China is one of the worst polluters there is.

Excellent point and example.  The near extention of American Mid-West animals like bison, prairie dogs, and gray wolves are other excellent examples.  According to the libertarians in this thread, the hunters will naturally realize that they're going to kill off all their supply and self-limit their own hunting.  History disagrees, because hunters hunted these animals until they couldn't find anymore.

they don't, for long.

ever been to spain?

the clear-cutting they did there for the Armada still shows...

Then why do organizations and societies engage in these activities?

even non-renewable resources?

i suspect not.  where is the advantage to exxon's CEO - who will get a multi-billion dollar bonus depending on sales - to conserve oil?  he'll only be in his position for five or so years, and he worked all his life to get there.  and the next guy?

we agree, more or less, on renewables.

people who own trees or water or other renewables are essentially farmers - albeit of a different sort than a food-farmer.  but yes - their advantage lies in conservation.

Sadly, I think the answer is: They wouldn't.

Any economic system which places a heavy emphasis on freedom to earn money without intervention from other sources will always contain a large number of entities who choose to pick the low hanging fruit, until there are no more low hanging fruit, at which point, the fruit that is now the lowest hanging will be picked, etc.

The ultimate libertarian society that likely caused catastrophic worldwide damage existed in the late Pleistocene. The overkill hypothesis states that all megafauna extinctions in Europe and the Americas occurred due to the expanding diaspora of man. To be clear, megafauna refers to animals such as mammoths, rhinos, giant sloths, etc. Cro-magnon culture gave birth to highly efficient hunting in a realm where the megafauna had not evolved along side the hunters, and thus the megafauna did not naturally fear man. This is why the emigration of mankind into Europe and the Americas wiped out these animals. Note that Africa seems to be the only continent in which megafauna still exist, precisely because man coevolved alongside the megafauna there.

For further information:

Paul S. Martin: http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Mammoths-Extinctions-Rewilding-Environments/dp/0520252438/

Peter D. Ward: http://www.amazon.com/Call-Distant-Mammoths-Mammals-Disappeared/dp/0387985727/   

Practices such as clear-cutting and pollution are not long-term profitable. If you clear cut all your trees for paper, you can't make more paper next year. If you pollute the crap out of your land, you can't sell it to someone else. Private ownership of resources is the best way to ensure their conservation.

Yea, but bro, infowars is totally legit!  Those real scientists don't know anything.  Alex Jones has all the answers.

nothing.  but those kinds of people exist in all societies, and always will.  the cream (that is, expressed neutrally) will rise to the top:  the toughest, the most able, or those born with the most advantages, etc.  and that will be the same in any society, from communist to libertarian.  whoever is good enough or smart enough to beat the system, wins.

Disraeli and Stalin were both perfect examples - street punks and infighters.

so again...

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

because that's really the question.

so that's the answer i want.  it should translate to any more-or-less free society.

'k. So, What's withthat?

What does that have to do with a Libertarian society?

in a very real sense, i take that question to mean:

How would a libertarian society deal with those who are willfully damaging our lives and the planet we all share, for their own profit?

...because global warming is no longer an idle speculation.  and the immense resources devoted to the denial industry (and it is an industry) simply cannot be looked at as an exercise in free-market capitalism.

Remind me again what the title of the thread is?

I wasn't talking about current New York. I know how screwed up the current situation is.

In a libertarian/AnCap society, everyone would have equal opportunity to do whatever they want, and no ability to force people to do or not do anything. Which includes sell Geiger counters and other monitoring equipment.

there's a problem with that.


those who profit the most...

1.) don't care, because they've got theirs.
2.) are in the upper 1% of wealth-holders on the planet, and want more.
3.) are in the upper 1% of political power-holders, and won't let go of that.
4.) are willing to bribe, steal, kill, lie and cheat to keep their power and wealth.  and
5.) won't get caught, since they write the laws.

did you know that there was actually a law proposed, banning the ownership of geiger-counters (and other, benign detection devices) in New York?

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-01-08/news/nypd-seeks-an-air-monitor-crackdown-for-new-yorkers/

it's a stacked deck, and your "individuals who recognize this oncoming disaster" have too little power.

i also note, again:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=13344.0

so far (and i'm still looking) there is no way for a site-moderator to recognize when this kind of software is being used.  but there will be.

It does. The individuals who recognize this oncoming disaster will curtail their damage, and encourage others to do so as well. Those who agree will avoid the ones who don't, and if enough agree, disaster will be averted. Or it won't. Either way, Planet keeps on chugging, regardless of what we do. It's not 'Save the Planet!'. it's 'Save the Status Quo!!'

wouldn't it be nice if the concept of "self-correcting system" included the option to recognize and correct for on-coming disasters, in a non-political fashion?

yeah.

because everybody knows that actual, working climate scientists are all liars, and getting rich off a secret blockchain started by al gore.  have i mentioned that he's fat yet?

uh-huh.