Question for Libertarians

[thebluefood]

Boy, this turned into a libertarian bashing thread. I'm shocked.

Just keep telling yourself you have all the answers, people, and continue to sleep at night.

Anyway, going back to the thread; IF (and that's a big if) all the doomsday predictions are true, then I believe the public, both private and public, will have to make a decision. The smart decision will be to take drastic action to reverse this problem (if possible), which would include to stop buying from companies that were responsible for putting a great deal of pollutants in the environment.

In the end, and with all things, it will boil down to personal responsibility. If you want a clean environment, then you'll take steps to make it happen. Government intervention can only do but so much; though some seem to believe that it is the answer to all life's ills.

I'll probably come back and edit this post, but that's my basic two cents here.

[Mad Mike]

You really want me to quote every single post you've made in this thread, just so I can rub your nose in what you've said?

Sure. But first why don't you show me where I said "that all Libertarians believe that no government should ever exist". Hint... You cant because I never said it.

What was that you said about shoving words in peoples mouths?

Great. Now show me the part that says "We oppose any government regulations concerning pollutants".

You know, the part where they say the things you're trying to claim they say.

You mean THIS from the official Libertarian Party Website?

http://www.lp.org/platform

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

But feel free to keep telling those of us who are Libertarians, and who have been for decades, that you know more about what we think than we do.

Honestly, I don't know WTF *you* think. I'll leave that for a mental health professional.

[Mad Mike]

In the end, and with all things, it will boil down to personal responsibility. If you want a clean environment, then you'll take steps to make it happen.

OK. I don't want to put words in your mouth. So please explain to me how this is different from "Please don't polute"? And how does that constitute a plan?

[Thiebear]

global warming comes and goes.

Snowball earth, all of the volcanoes erupting

the oceans being 39 inches deeper

12k years ago icesheet coming into the va area.

We should have clean laws and regulations on polluting and technology to make life better vs. dumping crap in the ocean/moon.

(but your talking pollution and not global warming) totally different topics.

I try and answer every libertarian question, even if the original poster asks the question with a slant in mind.

but i'm a little l libertarian

[mojobo]

What kind of actions would you support or advocate in case Global Warming predictions are true?

There are a few things we could do to take action against global warming. I heard somewhere that the U.S. subsidizes oil which would lead to overconsumption of this. I haven't looked into this really but if its true first thing would be to stop subsidizing oil giving cleaner sources of energy a fair chance to compete with oil. Another step that could be taken is trying to figure out how much each product effects global warming and then putting an excise tax on it to offset the external costs of consuming that product.

I've seen extreme examples such as privatizing roads so that people spend less time driving and theres more of an incentive to carpool or use mass transportation. I don't see any way that could be done effectively at this point. I was going to bring up coase theorem that says negative external costs are most efficiently realized by private property rights, but its difficult to assign private rights to air temperature and wouldn't really be effective.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Rand Paul Libertarian in sheep's clothing.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rand-paul-opens-mouth-puts-coal-covered-foo

"Let's let you decide what to do with your land," he says. "Really, it's a private-property issue." This is a gentler, more academic variation on a line he used the evening before, during his speech at the Harlan Center: "If you don't live here, it's none of your business.

Now someone tell me how a Libertarian government can have a plan to deal with global warming when this is the mentality of Libertarians.

[Prosperity]

Man, I wish I could have the ES libertarians sit in on my property class, guys would be ****ting bricks...

[Mad Mike]

Man, I wish I could have the ES libertarians sit in on my property class, guys would be ****ting bricks...

Do tell. Why?

[PokerPacker]

Man, I wish I could have the ES libertarians sit in on my property class, guys would be ****ting bricks...

and I wish non libertarians would sit in on any GMU Economics classes.

[Prosperity]

Do tell. Why?

libertarians want to include property rights with the "natural" rights... but property rights are a lot more practical than that

basically, (and I mean really basically, cause I've only been here for like 3 weeks, so wtf do I know)

property rights are a social construct that's been made to best utilize resources. Any title of property ownership contains rights ( right to transfer, possess, exclude, use etc) and responsibilities and when rights and responsibilities start to clash then some interesting things happen.

One of the most entrenched ideas in law (not just America but going back to Europe too) is something called adverse possession (and it just so happens to be one of the easier and popular Property law topics). Adverse possession basically boils down to the clash between right of an owner to maintain title versus the responsibility to use land productively and vigilantly. Say you own some land and you decide to just leave it alone and not give a crap about it for a while, you are starting to ignore your responsibility of being a vigilant caretaker of a valuable resource. After a while some guy comes on your land as a trespasser. He never gets your permission, never tells you about, but rolls in there like he owns the joint. He cuts down some trees, builds a house and all the neighbors start thinking he is the owner. 10 years later you come back and see this guy on your land, you tell him to GTFO and when he refuses you sue him. In court he could sue you under "adverse possession" that means that since he's been there for so long (the requisite period of time is different based on jurisdiction) and since he's basically acted as an owner, HE is the one with a stronger claim to title and the court will award him the title to your land.

People think "oh noz" "that's so unfair" but it's perfectly fair. Society protects property boundaries so that competent people maintain resources in a way that is useful. Wouldn't it be unfair for society to protect a wasteful practice, like not using perfectly good land?

Course, there is also a lot of social benefit from protecting the rights of competent maintainers, and that means making sure those people can depend on their Title... but incompetent ones... well **** them.

Global Warming/Environmental concerns come down to a similar issue... people being irresponsible owners and then expecting the rest of society to not only foot the bill of the damage they cause, but also to protect their wasteful practices by protecting their ownership.

and I wish non libertarians would sit in on any GMU Economics classes.

Actually, I think the view I'm bringing up is sound economically... the whole reason for individual property rights is the tragedy of the commons right? If we share everything and resources are limited, then greedy *******s will go into a race reaping as much as can be reaped before others deplete the resources, or even less drastically just refusing to maintain the resource because others will do it for them. Private property gives a solution, collectively, we will protect individual property rights because when someone is reasonably sure that they will be able to keep something they won't be in a short term race with others to deplete it, instead they will take a more long term view and improve it, and use the resources in a way to maximize their wealth.

The same reason we have property rights, is the same reason they can never be absolute. Property rights exist so that resources are maintained efficiently, when a practice leads to failure of duties and protects incompetents then the law will find a way to disincentivize that practice by taken away title to the property and giving it to someone else.

[SnyderShrugged]

LOL at the fact that there are still enough idiots out there that think libertarian means Libertarian party or anarchism. Arent they so wise?

[alexey]

LOL at the fact that there are still enough idiots out there that think libertarian means Libertarian party or anarchism. Arent they so wise?

Hi SS, good you see you. I'm very curious to hear your answer to the OP.

[skinfan133]

Exactly right, Libertarians by definition are for small government which precludes any form of organized "plan" as it were. For them it is up to each person and each business to awaken to the reality that is around them and then adjust accordingly and hopefully appropriately based on their own self interest.

The only (well one of the major) problems with that theory is that by that time it'll be too late and then you have each business and person acting out of self interest and not out of interest for others, at which point you have anarchy.

Yes, because all libertarians are alike and believe the same thing. I use the label libertarian to describe my political beliefs because its the most mainstream thing I can connect to my worldview. And just how do you conclude that small government is tantamount to unorganized, crippled, and unable to form a single 'plan as it were'? This is the biggest fallacy people cite when trying to refute a small government view, that a small government would be unable to function by virtue of being inept because it is small.

But I digress.

The government certainly has a right to inform people that their property will be under water very soon and to organize mass evacuations in coordination with the states, but they don't have the right to force people to leave. I see no constitutional reason why the federal government can't manage disasters, given of course the states allow the federal government to intervene on their behalf (which they always do). Honestly, I would support a constitutional amendment giving disaster management jurisdiction to the federal government in disasters that cover 3 or more states at once (perhaps not that vague in scope though, but you get the basic idea).

- - -

To the OP

so, exactly what is the point of your question? was this some sort of "gotcha!" thing?

[Larry]

Anyway, going back to the thread; IF (and that's a big if) all the doomsday predictions are true, then I believe the public, both private and public, will have to make a decision. The smart decision will be to take drastic action to reverse this problem (if possible), which would include to stop buying from companies that were responsible for putting a great deal of pollutants in the environment.

In the end, and with all things, it will boil down to personal responsibility. If you want a clean environment, then you'll take steps to make it happen. Government intervention can only do but so much; though some seem to believe that it is the answer to all life's ills.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but it seems that your response to "what should the government do" is "nothing".

So, is that your position on all other environmental regulations, too? Should the government abandon all environmental regulation, entirely, and simply assume that if people actually want a clean environment, then the market will make it happen?

[Larry]

Now someone tell me how a Libertarian government can have a plan to deal with global warming when this is the mentality of Libertarians.

Just as soon as you explain how a conservative government can possibly have a brain when Sarah Palin is all conservatives.

[Larry]

Commentary on property rights and utilization of resources.

Thanks. Really enjoyed the post.

But way too much logic and reason for this thread. Hey, you didn't even insult anybody.

[Kosher Ham]

When will people ever realize that there are stupid people in every spectrum of life.

It's not about what you believe all the time, it's about what you do when the time is right.

If we could stop broad stroke painting people into corners for what they believe, and start putting more value on their actions, life would be a lot easier.

[SnyderShrugged]

Hi SS, good you see you. I'm very curious to hear your answer to the OP.

Hello, nice to see you too.

As far as the Op, I follow the school of thought that there isnt much difference between R or D on the issue in terms of the marriage of corporations and Federal government. I think weshould remove all governmental protections which allow global corporations to first profit from the production and dispersal of their poisons, and which then empower them to withhold the means to correct them.

That means, among other things, the dissolution of the protected energy cartels and the elimination of all legal, regulatory, and bureaucratic barriers to the ability of real American entrepreneurs to research, develop, and market competitively-priced sustainable energy technologies. Add on tax incentives for them too. .

[Larry]

LOL at the fact that there are still enough idiots out there that think libertarian means Libertarian party or anarchism. Arent they so wise?

Actually, I do wonder if things like what's happening in this thread don't represent a problem, here.

The lack of a clear definition of what a libertarian is.

Granted, I don't really see any clear, absolute, definition of the other political labels are, either. (Although the GOP sure does seem to be working diligently to impose one on themselves, with their quest for Ideological Purity.) I don't see anybody demanding that all people who identify themselves as Democrats absolutely must be pro-choice. And the abortion issue is probably the most binary of all the current ones.

But I think that the term "libertarian" is even more nebulous than the labels "Democrat" and "Republican".

I assume that a big part of that is that people can actually see what the Democrats and Republicans do, because those groups actually have political power, and because they do tend to act as a group on most issues. (Some more than others.) So people can look at an issue, (even one that shouldn't be political, like Global Warming), and simply know what the D and R positions are.

But, in addition to the fact that being "out of political sight" contributes to a fuzzy definition in many people's minds, I see another trend, too.

Frankly, the libertarian label is being misused, both by people applying it to other people, and people claiming to represent it, themselves.

Used to be, to me, the description of a libertarian was "social liberal, fiscal conservative". Somebody who believed in the Second Amendment, and in the Fourth.

Now days, I see the term being applied to (and claimed by) people whose positions are more like anarchists. And by people whose political ideology I think of as "Drank so much Republican Kool Aid that they won't let me have any more."

(I also see people using the label, themselves, simply as a way of saying "I don't want to be labeled as (D/R), because I only agree with them 95% of the time." It's become a fashionable thing of "If you're not 100% D, and you're not 100% R, then you must be libertarian.")

Part of this may be the same kind of thing that the Tea Partiers claim is happening: When your political group is defined by your championing of the individual, then it's real tough to tell an individual that "sorry, but you're not one of us."

I guess the point of this rambling, incoherent, musing is that I sure do seem to see a whole lot of people who claim to be able to tell me what is meant by a label, when I've been the label, for 35 years, and I think I know a bit more about it than they do.

[alexey]

As far as the Op, I follow the school of thought that there isnt much difference between R or D on the issue in terms of the marriage of corporations and Federal government. I think weshould remove all governmental protections which allow global corporations to first profit from the production and dispersal of their poisons, and which then empower them to withhold the means to correct them.

That means, among other things, the dissolution of the protected energy cartels and the elimination of all legal, regulatory, and bureaucratic barriers to the ability of real American entrepreneurs to research, develop, and market competitively-priced sustainable energy technologies. Add on tax incentives for them too. .

Roger that. imho tax incentives would have to play a significant role because fossil fuels are actually pretty nice in terms of portability, energy density, etc... I wonder if cap'n'trade can be considered a form of a tax incentive (or rather disincentive).

[thebluefood]

I've been mulling it over the other night, and I was hoping this thread would be on the front page so it wouldn't be a weird bump.

When you get right down to it, I'm not even sure this is a political issue at it's elemental core.

Let's break this issue down:

-We live on Planet Earth

-Planet Earth gives us all the resources we need to survive (air, food, etc.)

-We cannot possibly live anyone else and have a chance to survive

-Therefore, wouldn't it be in our best interest to treat the Earth with respect and not pollute it?

I think that's a point that's lost with both sides of the argument. The left paints it as a noble act, the right paints it as overbearing tree hugging; when at it's essence, it's nothing more than common sense and self-protection. Let's remember that the Earth was here a LONG, LONG time before us and really doesn't need us to continue spinning around the sun.

Survival can only be legislated to a degree. The choice we have, to me, is simple: either we take care of the Earth and continue to enjoy everything it gives us, or we don't and we fail as a species with only ourselves to blame. It's as simple as that. After we make that decision as a society, then we'll be able to ensure one or the other.

[Thiebear]

My short Libertarian question:

Where is my 235mpg car lobbyists and government seems to not have liked.

Volkswagen's CEO, Martin Winterkorn recently confirmed the company is working on a car that will get 235 mpg (1 liter per 100 kilometers) fuel economy. In 2002, VW showed its 1-Liter concept car that achieved 264 mpg (0.89L/100km).

Where is my EC1 electric car lobbyists and government seem to not have liked.

Who Killed the Electric Car? is a 2006 documentary film that explores the creation, limited commercialization, and subsequent destruction of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the mid 1990s. The film explores the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, the Californian government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of this technology.

So many snarky comments about how Libertarians prefer smaller government and don't really want anything done.

I don't believe it was the Libertarians that passed some of our convoluted laws.

I'd prefer no law be longer than 30 pages.

I'd prefer a flat tax postcard return

How are solar panels still 30k to install on a standard house

How are windmills so expensive when they've been around for 10,000 years.

Why aren't government building required to go alternative first and show us the way?

Why isn't every government vehicle natgas or electric?

its the simple things that get you where you want to go, 2300pg bills take years to be read/understood and then misused.

(D)'s and ®'s have been in charge since i've been alive, yet its the Libertarians that are 'not fit for a vote'.

whatever, have a nice day (because you can).

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just as soon as you explain how a conservative government can possibly have a brain when Sarah Palin is all conservatives.

LOL, this is hilarious, I bring up actual quotes from Libertarian politicians, i.e. people that the Libertarians are voting into office and then I'm rebuked with "Oh well they don't represent Libertarianism". Well heck then who does, what does?! Ya'll are voting them in, as such they represent your positions, if they don't speak for you then who do they speak for?! If it goes the way it seems Rand Paul a long time Libertarian will be a US Senator in GOP clothing and those are his thoughts, so if he doesn't speak for Libertarians and Ron Paul doesn't speak for Libertarians then maybe ya'll had better figure that out before you all as Libertarians vote them into office. Or is Libertarianism the equivalent of the Tea Party where anyone who's ticked off at the gov't can join regardless of their affiliations and beliefs? It seems at least in this thread that Libertarian is the party of whatever each person wants it to be when they want it to be it.

[Mad Mike]

One of the most entrenched ideas in law (not just America but going back to Europe too) is something called adverse possession (and it just so happens to be one of the easier and popular Property law topics). Adverse possession basically boils down to the clash between right of an owner to maintain title versus the responsibility to use land productively and vigilantly. Say you own some land and you decide to just leave it alone and not give a crap about it for a while, you are starting to ignore your responsibility of being a vigilant caretaker of a valuable resource. After a while some guy comes on your land as a trespasser. He never gets your permission, never tells you about, but rolls in there like he owns the joint. He cuts down some trees, builds a house and all the neighbors start thinking he is the owner. 10 years later you come back and see this guy on your land, you tell him to GTFO and when he refuses you sue him. In court he could sue you under "adverse possession" that means that since he's been there for so long (the requisite period of time is different based on jurisdiction) and since he's basically acted as an owner, HE is the one with a stronger claim to title and the court will award him the title to your land.

Gotcha. I've heard about it. It's applied to patents and such as well. If you don't protect it you lose claim to it.

[Larry]

LOL, this is hilarious, I bring up actual quotes from Libertarian politicians, i.e. people that the Libertarians are voting into office and then I'm rebuked with "Oh well they don't represent Libertarianism".

No you don't. You bring a Republican who the Republicans call libertarian because they don't want him to be called a Republican.

And I brought up a Republican, too. One who actual Republicans actually voted into office.

I know this is going to come as a shock, but libertarianism existed before Ron Paul had the label slapped on him.

And even if you assert that Ron Paul is a libertarian, (And I can see some logic in that position. It's the logic of "well, his positions are probably closer to libertarian than they are to anything else. (But that's a little like claiming that Hawaii is closer to North America than it is to any other continent.)), your leap to claiming that he is all libertarians is as stupid as claiming that Sarah Palin is all Republicans.

A point which I'm pointing out to you.