Based on what the interventionists claim you’d think only capitalism creates externalities, government is supposed to stop exploitation of people and environments they say. Well not so as all Miseans would have already known.
Here I see a few problems that allows the government owned utilitty to pollute and poison children:
-tragedy of commons allows the pollution to go unchecked.
-government sanctioned monopoly results in no investment and degraded sewerage pipes.
-predictable decision by government regulators to overlook government recklessness.
All of these problems stem from government, government. Despite this even those that criticise the government over this pollution such as ‘environmental expert’ Sharon Beder remain hardcore socialists opposed to privatisation which they dismiss as a ‘neoliberal’ agenda.
@OP: You’ve overlooked the most important problem: legal immunity. In the last 10 years in America, we’ve seen the concept of legal immunity stretched to unimaginable proportions. Wherever there is a weakening of legal liability for one’s decisions, bad decisions are bound to be made. Doesn’t matter what sector public or private, doesn’t matter what uniform the decision-maker wears, doesn’t matter his or her religion, culture, education, birthdate, age, none of this matters. All things equal, a person who is liable for the decisions they make will make better decisions than a person who is not.
Anyone with a pulse should be terrified by the word “immunity.”
I still think the best way we can handle this isn’t thru force but by BOYCOTTING the state. Learn the skills and live on your own in the wild as nature intended.
F4M: You might as well be a communist. The essential feature of statist policies is agitation against the division-of-labor, facilitated through private property, capital accumulation and free exchange. This is the wellspring of all modern wealth. You are free, of course, to avail yourself of nature’s abundance. I, however, prefer to wipe my ass with tissue… enjoy the maple leaves.
The essential feature of statist policies is agitation against the division-of-labor, facilitated through private property, capital accumulation and free exchange.
Who said there isn’t DoL in a hunter gatherer society, or why I can’t do all the jobs by myself?
By def’n, that is not division-of-labor. As I said, you may as well be a communist. The outcome pursuing your policy recommendations would be no different.
How is hunting and gathering communist? Hunter gatherers were the most pro-free market and voluntary societies in history. Ag is what lead to the state’s formation and took away voluntary interactions forever.
Given the choices of living a) in a communist utopia in which all your wants are provided for or b) in autarkic conditions in which you have to provide everything for yourself, barely managing to acquire subsistence and facing the threat of disease, injury and wild animals, which would you choose?
I would choose the former, though it is in reality impossible. I am not a ‘libertarian’ merely on the principle of being anti-collectivist. I am anti-collectivist only because collectivism screws me over (as well as screwing everyone else over). The point Clayton’s making is that if you choose option b, you have screwed yourself over at least as much as communism would. It seems to me that you would oppose the state and ‘collectivism’, et pereat mundus. Is that really what you want?
In autarkic conditions in which you have to provide everything for yourself, barely managing to acquire subsistence and facing the threat of disease, injury and wild animals, which would you choose?
That’s not necessarily the case. You could in fact be pretty well off, if you were good at survival.
Do I agree that everyone should attempt to transition to a hunting and gatheriring society? Absolutely not. But one could perfectly well live in affluence, if he knows how to survive in the wilderness properly. Do you deny this?
How so? I think I’d rather live in an “HG” society, where aggression is outlawed, than a State commune. In fact, the former case would be more affluent than the latter, due to the nature of non-aggression.
I simply do not think it is fair to claim that a perfectly good Capitalist is similar to a communist. I know I would not appreciate that.
The purpose of the question was simply to discover whether or not our primitivist friend would oppose what he considers collectivism at all costs. The options were imaginary and had no necessary relation to reality.
On a personal level, I suppose I would rather live in poverty and free, than in affluence and immorality. I would rather live in “primitivism” than be a wealthy member of the exploiting State class.
In comparison to what? Pollution by corporation which would be higher with less regulation? The one thing I cannot reconcile so far with this libertarian philosophy is conservation of the environment.
The division-of-labor is also voluntary and the only way to destroy it is through systematic aggression against those who dare to engage in it. While you should be free to live any way you see fit (including so-called “living off the land”), in reality, you would simply be choosing a lifestyle of self-imposed poverty. Perhaps you are prophesying a future where asceticism becomes widespread and popular … history and theory both amply contradict you.
Corporations get away with environmental damage because of Limited Liability/Personhood issues and a dysfunctional protection of property rights. With strong property rights you could sue a corporation individually or form a mass tort with your neighbors to righteously fuck them over for polluting your soil, air, water, whatever. Corporations then internalize these costs. Now clean energy is cheaper than dirty energy.
The reason I brought this up was because i got into an argument on youtube, and this statist brought up the inability of corporations to regulate themselves against environmental damage, and I had to concede most of his points. I hope this video provides some answers, thanks.
