Calling all Libertarians

[benlehman]

So, I have this question for my libertarian friends. As I understand it, the basis of your political philosophy is essentially the elimination of "coercion," which is to say people being forced to do things that they might not, otherwise, choose to do.

Now, most libertarians are against environmental regulations. Why? It seems to me that the only way to enforce the "no-coercion" policy in this arena is to have a massive, top-down, strictly enforced environmental policy.

Let me put it this way. Suppose that you are running a factory. It necessarily will produce pollutants. This is damaging the air and lungs of everyone within a hundred miles, maybe more, depending on wind currents. Have you contracted, indvidually, with each of these people to damage their lungs? What have you given them in exchange? Doesn't that mean that pollution is, in fact, highly coercive?

Comments

[locke61dv.livejournal.com]

(I ate my own post. Trying again, more tersely.)

Why most libertarians ignore environmental stuff

* most environmentalists may lean anti-capitalistic, or at least move to restrain the market

* environmentalists may be based in Malthusian thinking, which has had a long historical clash with the optimistic/utopian/near-Panglossian view of Enlightenment-style progress + markets

* many environmentalist solutions call for centralized control

* many environmentalist solutions are functionally like trade barriers; sometimes, this can even be by design.

* (The Real Reason) a HUGE cultural gap between environmentalists and libertarians

When you add these up, many libertarians believe that the market is adequate to provide a solution (civil litigation vs. pollutors, or environmentalists buying out land for the purpose of conservation), or even go so far as to ignore any and all possibility of actual environmental harm. (This leads to tripe like Crichton's Climate of Fear. Yuck.)

Personally, I'm not Malthusian, but I do think that environmental crisis is a real concern. Since pollution is indeed substantive coercive harm (cancer is bad, right?), then it would be understand to have some big, top-down means of controlling it. However, centralized authority & micromanagement in general would (according to my ideology) tend to have major inefficiencies at best, and possibly corruption/biases as well. There are probbably better ways of roping in pollution than centralized control - but realistically, there does need to be some overall power saying "You, with the pollution and the not paying the smog-tax. Cut it the fuck out."