Ive pulled together here various suggestions that Ive seen:
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Given the current logjam, it seems to me that libertarians have a chance in steering things in a deregulatory direction.
Even those who think that libertarians should remain, in principle, disengaged from trying to engage with others in trying budge the policy process, might have some suggestions.
Thanks.
Sorry; here`s a clickable link: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/03/a-libertarian-immodestly-makes-a-few-modest-climate-policy-proposals.aspx
つまらん
ls, could you kindly specify the particular points where Monckton makes any climate-related proposals?
Your wish to make yourself irrelevant is what is boring and small.
As noted on my linked page, some folks at Cato and AEI are now trying hard to be relevant.
TT
I thought his presentation was an excellent overarching proposal. Stop spending billions of dollars on a non-problem.
Unambitious. Why not steer the political pressure into deregulation of power markets, cutting corporate income taxes (allow immediate depreciation of capital investments), ending the expensive (and dirty) old source/new source distinction under the CAA, deregulating nownership of “public” infrstructure, ending subsidies to coastal development, etc.
Or are libertarians happy to support the status quo, and to blame enviros than statist investors/firms?
Disestablish any and all public ownership of the means of production, including all land, water, and air resources. With private ownership the 90+% of the environmental problems that are simply tragedies of the commons will disappear.
I would say that to be a sincere libertarian, one has to be unambitious politically.
Why not just end the state?
The victim complex might fly on the Mises blog comments, but I doubt it will fly in these forums.
I share your objective; why not offer politically feasible steps in the right direction, such as moving public lands into self-funded trusts, or requiring that ANWR, OCS and other royalty lands pay all royalties per capita to citizens? This would get exploration going.
Won`t work for the air, of course. Why not work to remove favorable deals for old dirty coal-fired plants, end fed ownership of TVA, and work to make utilities face competition?
ls: “be a sincere libertarian, one has to be unambitious politically” AND “Why not just end the state?”
Not to be too snarky, but are you sincere?
Arent some of the pragmatic steps Im suggesting quite a bit more modest?
You fail to see the distinction between a victim and a gadfly. I certainly dont see myself as any sort of victim; rather isnt it you and others who feel persecuted by littl ol` me?
It might be thought that the libertarian, the person committed to the “natural system of liberty” (in Adam Smith’s phrase), almost by definition holds the goal of liberty as his highest political end. But this is often not true; for many libertarians, the desire for self-expression, or for bearing witness to the truth of the excellence of liberty, frequently takes precedence over the goal of the triumph of liberty in the real world. Yet surely, as will be seen further below, the victory of liberty will never come to pass unless the goal of victory in the real world takes precedence over more aesthetic and passive considerations.
If liberty is to be the highest political end, then this implies that liberty is to be pursued by the most efficacious means, i.e., those means which will most speedily and thoroughly arrive at the goal. This means that the libertarian must be an " abolitionist," i.e., he must wish to achieve the goal of liberty as rapidly as possible. If he balks at abolitionism, then he is no longer holding liberty as the highest political end. The libertarian, then, should be an abolitionist who would, if he could, abolish instantaneously all invasions of liberty.
Antilibertarians, and antiradicals generally, characteristically make the point that such abolitionism is “unrealistic”; by making such a charge they hopelessly confuse the desired goal with a strategic estimate of the probable path toward that goal. It is essential to make a clear-cut distinction between the ultimate goal itself, and the strategic estimate of how to reach that goal; in short, the goal must be formulated before questions of strategy or “realism” enter the scene. The fact that such a magic button does not and is not likely to exist has no relevance to the desirability of abolitionism itself. We might agree, for example, on the goal of liberty and the desirability of abolitionism in liberty’s behalf. But this does not mean that we believe that abolition will in fact be attainable in the near or far future.
The libertarian goals — including immediate abolition of invasions of liberty — are “realistic” in the sense that they could be achieved if enough people agreed on them, and that, if achieved, the resulting libertarian system would be viable. The goal of immediate liberty is not unrealistic or “Utopian” because — in contrast to such goals as the “elimination of poverty” — its achievement is entirely dependent on man’s will. If, for example, everyone suddenly and immediately agreed on the overriding desirability of liberty, then total liberty would be immediately achieved.[6] The strategic estimate of how the path toward liberty is likely to be achieved is, of course, an entirely separate question.[7]
Thus, the libertarian abolitionist of slavery, William Lloyd Garrison, was not being “unrealistic” when, in the 1830s, he raised the standard of the goal of immediate emancipation of the slaves. His goal was the proper moral and libertarian one, and was unrelated to the “realism,” or probability of its achievement.
Indeed, Garrison’s strategic realism was expressed by the fact that he did not expect the end of slavery to arrive immediately or at a single blow. As Garrison carefully distinguished:
“Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.”[8]
Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”
Gradualism in theory, in fact, totally undercuts the overriding goal of liberty itself; its import, therefore, is not simply strategic but an opposition to the end itself and hence impermissible as any part of a strategy toward liberty. The reason is that once immediate abolitionism is abandoned, then the goal is conceded to take second or third place to other, antilibertarian considerations, for these considerations are now placed higher than liberty.
Thus, suppose that the abolitionist of slavery had said: “I advocate an end to slavery — but only after five years’ time.” But this would imply that abolition in four or three years’ time, or a fortiori immediately, would be wrong, and that therefore it is better for slavery to be continued a while longer. But this would mean that considerations of justice have been abandoned, and that the goal itself is no longer highest on the abolitionist’s (or libertarian’s) political value scale. In fact, it would mean that the libertarian advocated the prolongation of crime and injustice.
Conza88, thanks for that.
However, did you not read THIS part?
It is essential to make a clear-cut distinction between the ultimate goal itself, and the strategic estimate of how to reach that goal; in short, the goal must be formulated before questions of strategy or “realism” enter the scene. The fact that such a magic button does not and is not likely to exist has no relevance to the desirability of abolitionism itself.
I don`t disagree on the goal of freedom; my point is PRECISELY that we have WORK towards it and that there is NO magic button.
And did you happen to forget how bloody, destructive and still consequential (14th Ad., expanded federal government) was the path to the freeing of slaves that Garrison demanded?
It looks like no one has brought their thinking caps today …
I think the point has already been made - that it is foolish to seek a ‘solution’, especially a political ‘solution’ to a non-problem.
In addition - appealing to the political process lends false legitimacy to the use of force.
No worries. [:)]
Yes I read it and I don’t think you have made a clear cut distinction between the ultimate goal itself, and how to go about achieving it.
And just to be clear what is your goal precisely? How do you intend to get those in power to go against their self interest?
Have you read the Report from Iron Mountain? Chapter 24 from “The Creature from Jekyll Island.”
“What proposals can libertarians make that would lead to cleaner energy / lighter CO2 footprints?”
Get rid of the problem. The state.
CO2 is not a pollutant; it’s plant food.
Which, come to think of it, is the solution to your non-problem: grow more plants.
Thanks for the video LS; that was awesome. I’d love to see a Gore Monckton debate. We need televised one on one proper debates about the worlds most serious issues rather than shallow and vapid talkfest we get at present.
To TT, I can understand you wanting to further a libertarian society but politics isn’t going to work; it is inherently inefficient- see Hulsmann’s paper in the Mystery of National Defence edited by Hoppe. All politics does is lead to a time consuming compromise. The only form of politics libertarians should be involved with is secession as it its logical conclusion is anarchy. But the most important is education- we stand strong and principled and in time people will be won over and only then will a libertarian society exist.
G8R HED:
it is foolish to seek a ‘solution’, especially a political ‘solution’ to a non-problem.
Thanks for visiting, but it seems that you, also, have a tough time following me.
Is it foolish - regardless of a particular libertarian`s view on a scientific aspect of a common resource - for libertarians to seek to move TOWARD freedom, via such things as the following? Are these not things we want?
- "appealing to the political process lends false legitimacy to the use of force. "
I learn more about magical thinking all of the time - are any of these things going to happen OUTSIDE of changing laws or regulations?
And there we have it… your goals are these changes in policy. I don’t see the concept of a free society held up anywhere there.
My question is; are any of these things going to happen INSIDE the halls of power by changing laws or regulations?
What is more likely or pragmatic… trying to convince hundreds of politicians to go against their self interests, especially when there are lobbyists convincing them full time to do the opposite? Or to convince the people, it is in their self interest to reject the status-quo because everyone, bar the parasites, would be far better off?