FIRST OFF, I just wanted to discuss the ideology of libertarianism a bit here. I am not making this statement as a partisan. I am not a libertarian myself. So I wanted to get that out of the way before I tell you my idea.
Many libertarians seem to think that libertarianism means using all the resources in the world and that the Earth doesn’t have any rights. That’s not what libertarianism is at all. That’s more what neoconservatism is and what neocolonialism is. The problem with that logic and today’s world is that a lot of energy resources are owned by dictators, and, you can’t really use true free-trade to exchange with other world leaders- especially ME dictators, at least not in our present state of affairs.
That would lead to a huge new green revolution. You can forget about manipulating all of the world’s resources for our own gain. That wouldn’t happen under a libertarian society. You know what made all that possible before and you know why all these classical liberal writers were talking about that back in the days? The British and other European countries had an EMPIRE. Having an empire isn’t really libertarian, in the least.
We wouldn’t be supporting these tyrannical regimes because that would go against the NAP. I believe that supporting tyrannical regimes in the ME and around the world makes us accomplices in the act whether we’re committing the crimes or not. We would have to find natural gas, and, renewable fuel sources… maybe even get on ethanol… or we could create a hydrogen car, or, something like that. I don’t know.
I just don’t see how people could NOT see that libertarianism would lead to true market environmentalism. So many libertarians out there act like environmentalism is a bad thing- but- in reality that’s what libertarianism would lead to. It’s kind of silly that people don’t see this. Don’t you think?
I would agree that left to themselves, the market, and private property, would be an environmental revolution for us. There would be no such thing as running out of supplies, or polluting your neighbors property. At least not without a price to pay.
That’s what I don’t get about so many people who say they’re libertarians. So many people out there say they want free-market, but, what they really want would require pushing ideologies like neoconservatism and neomercantalism to their fullest extent. A libertarian society would actually encourage market environmentalism since it would mean that we can’t just go around telling other people in the ME we want their oil and all that crap. The market would actually have to work a way around the oil problem that would come about by following the NAP- and it would lead us to the market environmentalist revolution that environmentalists could only dream about.
I agree, those people are probably not libertarian imo. My favorite example is one of supposed over-useage of fossil fuels and related pollution.
We got to this point due to state intervention(Subsidies on oil) so what do they want to do? Repeal the subsidies? Oh no, instead we will make some arbitrary tax(CapnTrade) rather then addressing the original issue at hand. It’s laughable on it’s face.
Because they start with the premise that markets are not self regulating and, more importantly, that external forces are required to deal with externalities like pollution. Whether or not this is true, I do not know, but that does seem to be their logic wouldn’t you agree?
Those who only care about the environment in so far as it’s helpful to people.
Those who care about the environment as an end in itself. These are the Leftists. As you can see, there is a dichotomy between this type of environmentalism and human prosperity because a tree can’t both continue to be a tree and become a table; it’s one or the other.
So you must understand that Leftist environmentalism is fundamentally an anti-human creed. Their most important goal is to extinguish industry. Nobody comes out and says it. Most of them probably aren’t consciously aware of it. But that’s the logical implication of their faith.
The environmentalists like welfare because it punishes (or aims to) the people who create wealth. Incidentally, that tends to require for the environment to “suffer” as they would see it.
Also, by paying people to be poor, there will be more poverty, fewer people, and less consumption.
“I just don’t see how people could NOT see that libertarianism would lead to true market environmentalism. So many libertarians out there act like environmentalism is a bad thing- but- in reality that’s what libertarianism would lead to.”
Most of Canada’s forests are publicly owned. Weyerhaeuser licenses land from provincial governments for renewable terms of 20 to 25 years. We hold licenses to roughly 15.2 million acres (6.2 million hectares) of forestland in the Canadian boreal forest, as of Dec. 31, 2008…After producing wood products for more than a century, 91 percent of Canadian land that was originally forested continues to support a growing forest."
i assume some of the forest if completely off limits to cutting and some others are reopened as growth occurs until further harvest???
i dont know if the above linked info is true or not. if so, it seems that a public owned forest has with various timbering liscenses had kept a great deal of it intact. would completely private forest ownership have proved something different?? or better??
i dont know. but it seems possible .
“Since the Adopt an Acre® program began in 1991, more than 30,000 people, schools and organizations have raised $22 million to protect 600,000 acres in South America, Asia, Central America, the Caribbean and Africa.”
Our Partners
The following companies are supporters of the Adopt an Acre and Adopt a Coral Reef programs…
