|
 lines
Stranger
Registered: 08/06/08
Posts: 1,409
Loc: USA
Last seen: 4 years, 5 days
|
 Can libertarianism preserve the environment? 
#13711401 - 12/31/10 01:07 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
LIbertarianism believes as much as possible should be owned by private individuals. They believe the state should own as little as possible.
Do libertarians believe the state should preserve national parks?
And if libertarians believe national parks should be owned by private individuals then how are supposed to preserve wild areas, what would stop people from cutting down all the trees?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: lines]
#13711466 - 12/31/10 01:25 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
A fee and replanting requirements.
Apparently someone else is confusing libertarianism with anarchy.
--------------------
|
JuDoNoMe
Stranger
Registered: 12/11/05
Posts: 60
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: zappaisgod]
#13712193 - 12/31/10 04:23 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
But lebertarians dont believe the government can force replanting because its not in the constitution 
|
 DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: JuDoNoMe] 2
#13712199 - 12/31/10 04:25 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Thats simply not true. You are just taking one narrow type of libertarianism and projecting it on to all libertarians.
The tie that binds libertarians are civil rights and individual freedoms.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: DieCommie] 1
#13712243 - 12/31/10 04:35 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
lines said:
LIbertarianism believes as much as possible should be owned by private individuals. They believe the state should own as little as possible.
Do libertarians believe the state should preserve national parks?
Depends on the individual, but in general I would imagine a libertarian would reject the notion that national parks should exist and therefore not answer the question of whether the federal government should preserve them or not as unnecessary. Personally, I regard myself as a libertarian and have no major problem with the way the national parks are ran in the abstract. The more important thing I would insist on is that the lands not be taken involuntarily, which I don't believe was the case, ignoring extranational indians, mexicans, french, spanish, et cet claims.
Quote:
And if libertarians believe national parks should be owned by private individuals then how are supposed to preserve wild areas, what would stop people from cutting down all the trees?
I don't understand how you suggest private ownership is somehow incompatible with this aim so as to suggest an obvious problem that requires addressing. It seems to me you must first establish this premise before you ask your question which subsumes it.
Lets take a look at what we've got now with government ownership of lands: BP Horizon spill, stripped hills, unsustainable harvesting of natural resources, et cet.
When you don't own the land and have no right to the future use of it it is in your interest to extract all value from it as quickly as possible. You have no disincentive as even practices that badly damage the future productivity of the area or that might decimate its value and usefulness are profitable as they do not cost you anything- since you don't own the land in the first place its decrease in value, usefulness, health are of no consequence to you. If you wait or try and use a sustainable, less harmful method, you may loose your lease or permit and forever saccrifice that value you could have harvested. Its in your interest to be as ruthless as possible.
Contrast that with private ownership. Now, the company forever owns the lands and resources. They may act the same as in the previous situation, but in this eventuality they loose value in the real estate and are responsible for the pollution they cause to their neighbors. No longer protected by special government grants of immunity, they have real liability if they dump their tailings in the stream and pollute all the downstream properties, or release toxic emissions that befoul the air. Finally, for renewable resources such as the timber example you mention, you also have an incentive to harvest in a sustainable way- replanting what you harvest such that the process may continue indefinately. Contrast that with the public ownership model where you have no right to the future resources and could care less if you leave any living thing when your done with the land.
As these few examples show, I think your premise has some major problems and should be backed up before you procede to base a question thereupon- i.e. how this supposed problem is dealt with.
That said, since you're a pussy and ignoring me, I suppose you'll continue to wallow in ignornace. Zappa gave a good answer thought
|
JuDoNoMe
Stranger
Registered: 12/11/05
Posts: 60
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: DieCommie]
#13712247 - 12/31/10 04:36 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
maybe I dont know alot about libertarianism, but from all the politicians I have heard, one of the big individual rights is what you do with the land you own being your decision. They couldnt then turn around and say you have to do something with your private land when it would go against your individual rights. Or am I wrong in thinking that?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: JuDoNoMe]
#13712261 - 12/31/10 04:41 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JuDoNoMe said:
But lebertarians dont believe the government can force replanting because its not in the constitution
There are several mechanisms in the Constitution that can address this and absolutely none that forbid it. If you own the land you are harvesting logs from you cannot casse damage to your neighbor's land through improper runoff. If it is government land, and there is nothing that prohibits that, then they can make any rules they want.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: JuDoNoMe]
#13712273 - 12/31/10 04:44 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I can only speak for my personal libertarian ideology. You assume complete rights as a land owner over what to do with the land. Then after that, you have to make a compelling argument in order to restrict that set of rights through force with the government. One extreme example would be communicable disease. You cannot let anybody develop crazy disease on their land just because it is their land. At that point the govt. has to restrict the land owners right to develop disease in order to protect others and their rights. Now for the example at hand, if one could demonstrate a compelling argument that the trees and other wildlife on the land is of appreciable importance to others then there would be cause to restrict the freedom to alter or destroy that small part of the eco system.
I like zappa's idea of a fee and replanting requirements. I am also in favor of environmental 'damage' based taxing, but only as a replacement of current taxes - not an addition to them. I dont see either of these ideas as being excluded by libertarian ideology.
|
JuDoNoMe
Stranger
Registered: 12/11/05
Posts: 60
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: johnm214]
#13712280 - 12/31/10 04:46 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
There are many cases in which private land is mal-used by companies, causing toxic releases, which are left to the public to deal with. Look up "superfund" on google. Also, think of all the public land that is used sustainably for logging, hunting, fishing, camping. Everyone one of those people care about what happens to the public land they use, especially the last three. Hunters (recently anyway) are one of the largest users of public land and are now one of the largest proponents of responsible use.
|
GI_Luvmoney
Vote Republican!
Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 939
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: JuDoNoMe]
#13712292 - 12/31/10 04:48 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9A6B3E3D-802A-23AD-4B28-ACE55E0CC516
Quote:
Inhofe Report Exposes Environmental Groups as ‘Massive Democratic Political Machines’
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, today released an updated comprehensive investigation into the financial and political activities employed by charitable and environmental organizations claiming to be non-partisan. [See today’s updated full report: Political Activity of Environmental Groups and their Supporting Foundations - Previously in 2004 Senator Inhofe released the original report on environmental group funding. See: INHOFE RELEASES DETAILED REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP POLITICAL FUNDRAISING – October 5, 2004]
“Campaigns to ‘save the cuddly animals’ or ‘protect the ancient forests’ are really disguised efforts to raise money for Democratic political campaigns,” Senator Inhofe said during a floor speech today presenting the new report. “Environmental organizations have become experts at duplicitous activity, skirting laws up to the edge of illegality, and burying their political activities under the guise of non-profit environmental improvement.
“Take this ad for example, displayed on the League of Conservation Voters, or LCV, website. This is LCV’s standard text used to raise money for the nonprofit organization. In turn, LCV takes these donations, given to ‘save the environment’ and uses them to fund ads for Democratic Candidates such as Ben Lujan from New Mexico. LCV, similar to other groups I’ll highlight later, disguises itself as an environmental group dedicated to saving the environment, yet, as shown by this political ad, it is simply an extension of the Democratic political party.
“What we find now is the fleecing of the American public's pocketbooks by the environmental movement for their political gain. We also find exhausting litigation, instigation of false claims, misleading science, and scare tactics to fool Americans into believing disastrous environmental scenarios that are untrue. Especially in this election year, the American voter should see these groups and their many affiliate organizations as they are: the newest insidious conspiracy of political action committees and perhaps the newest multi-million dollar manipulation of federal election laws.
|
JuDoNoMe
Stranger
Registered: 12/11/05
Posts: 60
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: GI_Luvmoney]
#13712319 - 12/31/10 04:55 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I float in the political spectrum, somethings Im a left wing liberal, some things, a libertarian, and even occationally a somewhat replublican. I dont disagree that most environmentalists support democrats over other parties but I think that is only because their vies align more closely. Most republicans are still denying global warming for crying out loud! If you see a republican come out for the environment in a strong way, that person would have a ground swell of support from environmentalists. Look at Arnie in cali. Very green, republican, some dems voted for him twice.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: JuDoNoMe]
#13712327 - 12/31/10 04:57 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JuDoNoMe said:
There are many cases in which private land is mal-used by companies, causing toxic releases, which are left to the public to deal with. Look up "superfund" on google. Also, think of all the public land that is used sustainably for logging, hunting, fishing, camping. Everyone one of those people care about what happens to the public land they use, especially the last three. Hunters (recently anyway) are one of the largest users of public land and are now one of the largest proponents of responsible use.
Hunters always have been one of the most vocal proponents of restricted use. It suits them.
There is a Constitutional mechanism for getting redress for harmful use of public as well as private land. It is called a lawsuit. If a harm is caused there is redress available through the tort system.
--------------------
|
GI_Luvmoney
Vote Republican!
Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 939
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: JuDoNoMe]
#13712337 - 12/31/10 04:59 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I never joined a political party and I'm able to figure out that the man made global warming scam is the most economy recking hysteria ever to be hallucinated in history. Its a total scam and a form a genocide directed at the entire human race.
http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Climate.htm
http://www.climatedepot.com
|
JuDoNoMe
Stranger
Registered: 12/11/05
Posts: 60
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: zappaisgod]
#13712338 - 12/31/10 04:59 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
All the lawsuits in the world wont remove chromium from the ground or water. Trust me I live in Maryland, the rust belt capital.
|
GI_Luvmoney
Vote Republican!
Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 939
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: JuDoNoMe]
#13712341 - 12/31/10 05:00 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Chromium is a natural element which is found everywhere on earth, most of the time in small quantities.
|
JuDoNoMe
Stranger
Registered: 12/11/05
Posts: 60
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: GI_Luvmoney]
#13712344 - 12/31/10 05:00 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Thats funny, unless you werent joking, in which case it would just be sad.
|
JuDoNoMe
Stranger
Registered: 12/11/05
Posts: 60
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: GI_Luvmoney]
#13712352 - 12/31/10 05:02 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
In very small amounts, and there about 10 forms of it. You even need chromium7 in your body in small amounts, in high amounts it causes birth defects and cancer. mmmmmm.....chromium......
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: zappaisgod]
#13712395 - 12/31/10 05:13 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
JuDoNoMe said:
There are many cases in which private land is mal-used by companies, causing toxic releases, which are left to the public to deal with. Look up "superfund" on google. Also, think of all the public land that is used sustainably for logging, hunting, fishing, camping. Everyone one of those people care about what happens to the public land they use, especially the last three. Hunters (recently anyway) are one of the largest users of public land and are now one of the largest proponents of responsible use.
There is a Constitutional mechanism for getting redress for harmful use of public as well as private land. It is called a lawsuit. If a harm is caused there is redress available through the tort system.
Exactly. And just why don't we see those lawsuits now? The licensees are granted imunity, and the government has soveirgn immunity- neither can be sued very easily. While the government's making their dollas their all set to grant special privledges such as immunity to private licensees of government land.
The very regulations which claim to protect consumers, the environment, or whomever are the same which generally grant the government the exclusive right-of-action in such cases- diminishing the people's rights at common law. This is an improvemenet? Of course not. If you take a dollar from me I should not need the government's permission to get it back.
If property A issues pollution which travels to property B, then property A must pay. If the pollution was issued with malice or intentional indifference or negligence, then I'm all for adding punitive damages to the actual damages and sticking it to the bums.
The difference here is of course that you must a) get the money from the people who are causing the trouble- hurting their profit and making it cost effective to not screw around, and b) leave the rest of the people who are not harming you alone.
|
GI_Luvmoney
Vote Republican!
Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 939
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: johnm214]
#13712480 - 12/31/10 05:35 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9A6B3E3D-802A-23AD-4B28-ACE55E0CC516
Quote:
Inhofe Report Exposes Environmental Groups as ‘Massive Democratic Political Machines’
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, today released an updated comprehensive investigation into the financial and political activities employed by charitable and environmental organizations claiming to be non-partisan. [See today’s updated full report: Political Activity of Environmental Groups and their Supporting Foundations - Previously in 2004 Senator Inhofe released the original report on environmental group funding. See: INHOFE RELEASES DETAILED REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP POLITICAL FUNDRAISING – October 5, 2004]
“Campaigns to ‘save the cuddly animals’ or ‘protect the ancient forests’ are really disguised efforts to raise money for Democratic political campaigns,” Senator Inhofe said during a floor speech today presenting the new report. “Environmental organizations have become experts at duplicitous activity, skirting laws up to the edge of illegality, and burying their political activities under the guise of non-profit environmental improvement.
“Take this ad for example, displayed on the League of Conservation Voters, or LCV, website. This is LCV’s standard text used to raise money for the nonprofit organization. In turn, LCV takes these donations, given to ‘save the environment’ and uses them to fund ads for Democratic Candidates such as Ben Lujan from New Mexico. LCV, similar to other groups I’ll highlight later, disguises itself as an environmental group dedicated to saving the environment, yet, as shown by this political ad, it is simply an extension of the Democratic political party.
“What we find now is the fleecing of the American public's pocketbooks by the environmental movement for their political gain. We also find exhausting litigation, instigation of false claims, misleading science, and scare tactics to fool Americans into believing disastrous environmental scenarios that are untrue. Especially in this election year, the American voter should see these groups and their many affiliate organizations as they are: the newest insidious conspiracy of political action committees and perhaps the newest multi-million dollar manipulation of federal election laws.
Edited by GI_Luvmoney (12/31/10 05:36 PM)
|
MutantBonobo
An Even Greater Ape
Registered: 05/31/10
Posts: 223
Loc: The Congo
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Can libertarianism preserve the environment? [Re: lines] 1
#13712688 - 12/31/10 06:37 PM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
lines said:
LIbertarianism believes as much as possible should be owned by private individuals.
I think it would be more accurate to say that libertarians think that individuals should be able to freely own all the fruit of their own labor and pass ownership on to whoever they please without government takings.
Please realize that libertarians are not some monolithic group who all believe in the same strategies. The common thread is an attitude or belief that the government is best which governs least. That leaves a lot of leeway in how to reduce the scope and reach of government and how far to reduce it. Some are anarchists, some are minarchist, some are constitutionalists, some are geo-libertarians (or georgists).
With this in mind, I am not speaking for all libertarians (a label which I do not like to apply to myself)...
Quote:
They believe the state should own as little as possible.
The state should be as small as possible and ideally should not own anything, but may be entrusted with the guardianship of that which no one owns. Think of laws against pollution as an example of what I think are a valid and useful role of government (but be wary of the politicizing of that role).
Quote:
Do libertarians believe the state should preserve national parks?
My preference would be to privatize the function by entrusting the management of the parks with strict contracts, covenants and restrictions to certain non-profits to administer.
Quote:
And if libertarians believe national parks should be owned by private individuals then how are supposed to preserve wild areas, what would stop people from cutting down all the trees?
See above. Also note that some of the most egregious destruction of wildlife has occurred under government direction and/or control. Sometimes, private owners do a much better job of managing resources. I do not think there is any hard and fast rule of human nature that says that once people enter government, they suddenly become more competent or more compassionate or better stewards of the land than those who are not in government.
--------------------
Lois, this family believes in the Easter Bunny. He died for our sins in that helicopter crash. Now, if you wanna go to hell, that's fine, but don't drag the rest of us down with you like a mentally handicapped rooster.
- Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
Edited by MutantBonobo (01/01/11 09:40 AM)
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
USA West Coast Strains
Edit 
Reply 
DigitalDuality
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
DoctorJ
silversoul7
Anonymous
Sclorch