mobile - desktop
Available Now at RodentPro.com!
News & Events:
Posted by Brian Macker on December 04, 2002 at 19:40:49:
In Reply to: Re: Fight back - VOTE Libertarian posted by Thamnophile on December 04, 2002 at 16:33:46:
It's the Democrats and the Republicans have not established good environmental policy. I don't recall libertarians ever being in power.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. Libertarian policy would be much better for the environment than the policies followed by both Republicans and Democrats. That is because they are much more principled and much more realistic. You are not going to get laws that make sense out of either of the currently reigning parties.
Most people who talk about the Libertarians are not very knowledgable about the subject. I don't really blame you since the entire education system is controlled by the Repbulocrats er. I mean Demopublicans. I would bet you would be very hard pressed to say exactly what libertarians want.
I think it is intellectually unfair to say that Libertarians want few, as you say, "governmental restraints". It is unfair because there are other kinds of restraints that are compatible with individual rights that you are not taking into account. It is also unfair in that it is untrue. What libertarians are against is governmental intrusion.
Libertarians are quite hostile to business on certain subjects. One of the reasons why they get next to no funding from business. If you check out funding received by Democrats for instance you will see they receive large chunks of money from business. Don't think they are not getting what they paided for. It's no secret that Clinton received money from Tyson food both directly and indirectly. He returned the favor by allowing pollution and showering other peoples money (tax money) upon Tyson. This isn't restricted to a few of them either.
Another problem is that the Democrats and Republicans both believe that the government should have few restraints. This is a big problem since the government and her agents are the biggest destroyers of the environment. There is a direct correlation between governmental control and the level of destruction. The U.S.S.R. was an environmental nightmare.
I know it is not at all obvious how this happens. Complex subjects are like that. Some things behave the opposite from what common sense would dictate. Many things you wouldn't even think involve the environment. Libertarians are often charged with being "simplistic" when in fact the opposite is true.
I can easily name more anti-Libertarian policies that are anti-environmental than you can do the opposite. How about ten at a time.
I'll start the ball rolling:
1) Eminent domain
2) Property tax
3) Public commons
4) Governmental exemption from rights violations
5) Public works
6) Farm subsidies
7) Laws concerning Cultivation
8) Public ownership of wildlife
9) Farm price supports
10) Price caps
Now if you don't know how these things adversely effect the environment, or if you think they are relatively unimportant then you are mistaken. Just one of these factors lead to the clear cutting of enourmous tracts of forest.
I'll give just one example lest you think I am crazy. The entire Everglades/Sugar Cane fiasco is a monument to government destruction. The initial destruction due to an enormous publics works project and the continuing problems due to farm subsidies. Heck I will throw in 11) Tariffs since there wouldn't be any sugar cane being grown in Florida if it weren't for the subsidies. Heck 12) Economic inefficiencies since growing Sugar Cane in Florida requires more resources (burns more oil) than it would in say Cuba.
Some realities are highly counter intuitive. As an example, a bullet fired into a human skull causes the head to swing towards the gun and not away. Even people who have training if physics cannot figure this one out. But it happens never the less.
An example of this would be ivory trade. I love Rhinos and Elephants. However I am in complete alignment with the libertarians on Ivory Trade. One would think on first inspection that a ban on Ivory would "save the elephants". Unfortunately this is not the case and this can be supported both theortically and empirically. The irony of the situation is that I will probably witness the extinction of these great animals from the wild mainly due to the activities done on their behalf. That is really too bad.