Ron Paul’s phony populism

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme.../06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climage-change

Why libertarians must deny climate change, in one short take

Over the Christmas break I read what I believe is the most important environmental essay of the past 12 months. Though it begins with a mildly unfair criticism of a column of mine, I won't hold it against the author. In a simple and very short tract, Matt Bruenig presents a devastating challenge to those who call themselves libertarians, and explains why they have no choice but to deny climate change and other environmental problems.

Bruenig explains what is now the core argument used by conservatives and libertarians: the procedural justice account of property rights. In brief, this means that if the process by which property was acquired was just, those who have acquired it should be free to use it as they wish, without social restraints or obligations to other people.

Their property rights are absolute and cannot be intruded upon by the state or by anyone else. Any interference with, or damage to, the value of their property without their consent – even by taxation – is an unwarranted infringement. This, with local variations, is the basic philosophy of the Republican candidates, the Tea Party movement, the lobby groups that call themselves "free market thinktanks" and much of the new right in the UK.

It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess the most property end up with great power over others. Dressed up as freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to address inequality, hardship or social exclusion. A transparently self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of those with wealth and power.

But, for the sake of argument, Bruenig says, let us accept it. Let us accept the idea that damage to the value of property without the owner's consent is an unwarranted intrusion upon the owner's freedoms. What this means is that as soon as libertarians encounter environmental issues, they're stuffed.

Climate change, industrial pollution, ozone depletion, damage to the physical beauty of the area surrounding people's homes (and therefore their value) – all these, if libertarians did not possess a shocking set of double standards, would be denounced by them as infringements on other people's property.

The owners of coal-burning power stations in the UK have not obtained the consent of everyone who owns a lake or a forest in Sweden to deposit acid rain there. So their emissions, in the libertarian worldview, should be regarded as a form of trespass on the property of Swedish landowners. Nor have they received the consent of the people of this country to allow mercury and other heavy metals to enter our bloodstreams, which means that they are intruding upon our property in the form of our bodies.

Nor have they – or airports, oil companies or car manufacturers – obtained the consent of all those it will affect to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, altering global temperatures and – through rising sea levels, droughts, storms and other impacts – damaging the property of many people. As Bruenig says:

"Almost all uses of land will entail some infringement on some other piece of land that is owned by someone else. So how can that ever be permitted? No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels, because those things affect the freedom and property rights of others. Those actions ultimately cause damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from those affected. They are the ethical equivalent – for honest libertarians – of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else's window."
So here we have a simple and coherent explanation of why libertarianism is so often associated with climate change denial, and the playing down or dismissal of other environmental issues. It would be impossible for the owner of a power station, steel plant, quarry, farm or any large enterprise to obtain consent for all the trespasses he commits against other people's property – including their bodies.

This is the point at which libertarianism smacks into the wall of gritty reality and crumples like a Coke can. Any honest and thorough application of this philosophy would run counter to its aim: which is to allow the owners of capital to expand their interests without taxation, regulation or recognition of the rights of other people.

Libertarianism becomes self-defeating as soon as it recognises the existence of environmental issues. So they must be denied.
http://mattbruenig.com/2011/12/21/environmentalism-poses-a-problem-for-libertarian-ideology/

Environmentalism poses a problem for libertarian ideology
by MATT BRUENIG on DECEMBER 21, 2011 · in ENVIRONMENT
George Monbiot had an article in the Guardian on Monday about bastardised libertarianism and its inability to understand the real freedoms being fought for by environmentalists and social justice advocates. However, Monbiot’s treatment of environmentalism’s threat to libertarianism was a bit sloppy. He got sucked into the negative freedom and positive freedom debate, and although he worked his way to the correct conclusion ultimately, I felt like the clarity was lacking.

So I want to explain more clearly just how much environmentalists stick in the side of libertarian ideology. First, consider what libertarians of the sort Monbiot are really about philosophically: they favor a procedural justice account of the world based heavily on property rights. This is the newest face of libertarianism. Gone is the appeal to utility and desert. The modern libertarians try to prop up their political ideas almost solely through a rigid formalism of property rights.

I have written before about the problem with the procedural accounts of property rights, but here I want to just accept the libertarian property rights premise. Somehow individuals can grab up pieces of the world and exclude those pieces from everyone else forever. Once those individuals become owners of their respective property, nobody else can touch that property or do anything whatsoever to that property without their consent. Coming onto my property without my consent is a form of trespass under this picture. Doing anything to my property — whether it be painting it, dumping stuff on it, or causing some other harm to it — is totally off limits.

So environmentalists point out that carbon emissions are warming the planet, one consequence of which is that harm will be done to the property of others. Most environmentalists — being the leftists that they generally are — do not make too much of the property rights issues, but one certainly could. Coal plants release particulates into the air which land on other people’s property. But no permission is ever granted for that. Coal plants do not contract with every nearby property owner to allow for them to deposit small amounts of particulate matter on their neighbors’ land. They are guilty of a form of property trespass.

Beyond that, all sorts of industrial processes have environmental externalities that put things into the air or the water that ultimately makes its way into the bodies of others. This is a rights-infringing activity under the procedure-focused libertarian account. The act of some industry is causing pieces of matter to land on me and enter into my body. But I never contracted with them to allow them to do so.

The air and the atmosphere is an especially problematic issue for libertarians. Who owns those things? Libertarians might try to argue that you own the air above your land, but air — or the matter that it is made up of — does not stay above your land; it moves around the world. Any matter released into the air is sure to find itself to someone else’s property, causing a violation. The atmosphere might seem like something nobody owns and therefore something anybody can dump things into. But with climate change, we know that greenhouse gas emissions are causing the world to warm, the consequences of which will include damage to the property of others all over the world. Yet again though, greenhouse gas emitters have not contracted with every single property owner in the world, making their emissions a violation of a very strict libertarian property rights ideology.

The short of is that environmentalists totally smash open the idea that property rights theories can really account for who is permitted to do what with the land that they own. Almost all uses of land will entail some infringement on some other piece of land that is owned by someone else. So how can that ever be permitted? No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels because those things affect the freedom and property rights of others. Those actions ultimately cause damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from those affected. They are the ethical equivalent — for honest libertarians — of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else’s window.

That is why environmentalism is such a huge problem for libertarians, and it is no doubt why so many of them are skeptical of the effects of climate change or other environmental issues. Admitting that someone’s use of their own property almost certainly entails an infringement on someone else’s property makes the whole libertarian position basically impossible to act out in the real world. A landowner could never get individual contracts with literally every single person that might ever be affected by the owner’s land-use (e.g. operating a coal-burning power plant). But a libertarianism that was honest about environmental externalities would require such a landowner to undertake precisely that impossible task.
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
Whatever your particular brand or preference for a "paradigm shift" towards a system more favorable for the "public good" (which by the way is the ideology that got us here), I would argue that it is equally as unpractical, if not more so. Free market solutions like property rights at least leave some interest for the businesses to make profit...and they drive the current system at every level...so while unlikely, it is still way more likely than abolishing money or enforcing population control. I'm pretty sure what you think is the solution is quite a bit more radical than free market principals and the enforcement of individual property rights.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
No.

How is that not a bad idea?
Because, as stated by multiple people incvluding myself, the Earth is not infinintely sustainable resource wise. At some point, we WILL use up everything...and if there are MORE people with MORE demands, that will speed up the process. This is rocket surgery here.

So who should play God and dictate how many kids everyone should have?
Im atheist, so your statement has little relevance to the argument.

Or is a 3rd world war more what youre looking for?
There have been 3rd world wars since the beginning of time, and the population continues to climb at a rapid pace.

Do you have brothers and sisters?
Yes.

Think if there was some stupid child law in place how you wouldnt have them.
BUt there wasnt at the time, and they are here, so again, this brings nothing to the argument.

What the fuck kind of person would want the government to have control like this?
Who said anything about the government? That was never brought fourth....by me anyways. If each person who planned on procreating, that would at LEAST slow down the growth...especially in America, where it seems that everyone wants to have more than one child. I dont plan on having children, as this world is TOO uncertain and unstable for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if i brought someone in this shithole, especially where people fail to see the big picture, like yourself. But, that is how humans are built: we are more concerned about the here and now than the beyond and later. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but not the rule itself.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113

Wow, talk about a lot of wasted time and effort spent attacking an arbitrary label.

The author might as well have spent all that time arguing why Golf is not a sport. Whether or not it is a sport, the game remains the same and the label is basically irrelevant. Call it homemaking and the game doesn't change one bit.

Call me libertarian or call me a librarian, I could care less. My position remains the same.
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
Overpopulation is a myth which allows people to externalize their fears about consumption & resources. They drive cars, wear Nikes, shop at Walmart, and eat at McDonalds and justify this ideological paradox by advocating measures like population control, externalizing responsibility. Fine, you don't wanna raise chickens and cut firewood...cool. Don't try to tell me whether I can have kids or not, my Dad created four kids who at least UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT the conflicts of interest inherent within the paradox...and that's how good ideas take root, in little brains...over time. SEE: Democracy, Christianity, Military Industrial Complex, Progressivism, Technology...systematic breed and educate cycle. Any presently considered solution involving the status quo is a red flag, as it will surely not be equitable or transparent...and expecting them to implement such drastic changes in policy is delusional.
 
Dec 12, 2006
4,207
635
113
36
Heaps of Americans live here, but most of them were not brought over on some sort of slave ships...
lol at anyone Chinese or living in China taking shots at America over human rights, holy shit, the reason your living there is for economic opportunity if you were the same age 50 years ago would of you moved to China? fuck no maybe if you were SHANGHAI'D, dont try to get on some humanitarian shit to promote your choice of where to take your human capital, what you fail to realize, u son of a bitch, is that the generational gap in China is so god damm big and the youngins are so.....WESTERNIZED that China's aspirations to be THE world power are gonna dwindle out, I'm not even gonna get to how America built China up out of fuckin nothing, Fuck China
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
Overpopulation is a myth which allows people to externalize their fears about consumption & resources. .
LOLWUT

Im sorry, but this is the second time in this thread that you have said something non-nonsensical just to cement your stance on the opposite end of "our" spectrum. Who the fuck GAINS anything by lying about overpopulation? Not big business. Not corporations. If anything, it is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to what they try and do. And you think OIL companies want that out there? Do you realize that there is a REASON alternate fuels have basically been BLACKBALLED by anyone OTHER than oil companies...or even shown the light of day at ALL? It would put them OUT of business.

And YOU want to throw out the word "delusional" at anyone? Im not saying you're NOT educated, but some of the things you say would suggest that you are not only uneducated in some subjects, but also naive and blinded by our own beliefs, whether it be political or emotional.
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
LOLWUT

Im sorry, but this is the second time in this thread that you have said something non-nonsensical just to cement your stance on the opposite end of "our" spectrum. Who the fuck GAINS anything by lying about overpopulation? Not big business. Not corporations. If anything, it is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to what they try and do. And you think OIL companies want that out there? Do you realize that there is a REASON alternate fuels have basically been BLACKBALLED by anyone OTHER than oil companies...or even shown the light of day at ALL? It would put them OUT of business.

And YOU want to throw out the word "delusional" at anyone? Im not saying you're NOT educated, but some of the things you say would suggest that you are not only uneducated in some subjects, but also naive and blinded by our own beliefs, whether it be political or emotional.
Every candidate is a petro-reality candidate...that presents nothing new. Big government, military, and spending...less freedom. Ron Paul is the only one even advocating letting us raise our own children. I'm perplexed as to why none of you anti-consumption, pro-population control types have offed yourself...that would be a net carbon gain! lol

Over population is not an issue! Over-consumption is the issue! People are part of the eco-system. The WAY we live is the problem, not the fact that we are living. How hard is that?
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
Overpopulation is a myth which allows people to externalize their fears about consumption & resources. They drive cars, wear Nikes, shop at Walmart, and eat at McDonalds and justify this ideological paradox by advocating measures like population control, externalizing responsibility. Fine, you don't wanna raise chickens and cut firewood...cool. Don't try to tell me whether I can have kids or not, my Dad created four kids who at least UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT the conflicts of interest inherent within the paradox...and that's how good ideas take root, in little brains...over time. SEE: Democracy, Christianity, Military Industrial Complex, Progressivism, Technology...systematic breed and educate cycle. Any presently considered solution involving the status quo is a red flag, as it will surely not be equitable or transparent...and expecting them to implement such drastic changes in policy is delusional.

Periods of overpopulation occur all the time in nature, why are humans somehow exempt from that in your opinion? Are we not a part of the global ecosystem?
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
Periods of overpopulation occur all the time in nature, why are humans somehow exempt from that in your opinion? Are we not a part of the global ecosystem?

I don't deny that at all. It could even happen to us, I suppose. The reality is we are nowhere near it. Every man, woman, and child on Earth could have a separate 5 acre lot in America and there would still be a small surplus of land. Africa is capable of supporting enough fertile ground to feed the entire world.

I don't think it's a myth, as a phenomenon. I think it is an unjustified fear with dangerous implications for human rights when left up to experts. Hitler had experts. Our current batch of experts leave a lot to be desired in ideology and practice. We have to change ourselves.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
The reality is we are nowhere near it.
You need to explain "near". The earth is billions of years old, "near" is relative. If by "near", you mean YOUR lifetime...than you are right. But again, you arent thinking ahead. We are talking about in YOUR grandchild's lilfe. Thats doesnt concern you? Of course not, becuase it doesnt directly affect YOU. Again, thats just human nature being human nature.[/quote]

Every man, woman, and child on Earth could have a separate 5 acre lot in America and there would still be a small surplus of land.
Thats doesnt mean that land is worth a damn. And further more, with what we have done to some of that land to date, some of that land may cause you to go ill....like, cancer ill.

Africa is capable of supporting enough fertile ground to feed the entire world.
Sorry, not buying that at all. If that were indeed the case, famine would not be running rampant there.

I don't think it's a myth, as a phenomenon. I think it is an unjustified fear with dangerous implications for human rights when left up to experts.
In other words, its your OPINION...do you have ANY facts that are credible enough to back that up? If no, then you are simply talking out of your ass.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
Every candidate is a petro-reality candidate...that presents nothing new. Big government, military, and spending...less freedom. Ron Paul is the only one even advocating letting us raise our own children. I'm perplexed as to why none of you anti-consumption, pro-population control types have offed yourself...that would be a net carbon gain! lol

Over population is not an issue! Over-consumption is the issue! People are part of the eco-system. The WAY we live is the problem, not the fact that we are living. How hard is that?
Its a combination of BOTH. MORE poeple = MORE consumption.
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
Its a combination of BOTH. MORE poeple = MORE consumption.
The equation isn't quite that simple. Humans produce a surplus over the course of a lifetime. If we produce most of our basic needs (food, water, shelter) ourselves and consume goods made in sustainable manufacturing facilities, what is the argument against procreation? Growing food is possible anywhere and affordable housing from sustainable sources can be erected anywhere. Both can be accomplished by moderately skilled labor or individuals themselves. Seems to me that the only thing standing in the way of this is our appetite for consumption and the various entities that derive their power from it.

Are you contributing to unnecessary consumption? Is ThaG? Of course. People who don't live a resource-neutral or resource-positive lifestyle shouldn't be advocating state-imposed population control measures, other than education.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
Seems to me that the only thing standing in the way of this is our appetite for consumption and the various entities that derive their power from it.
AKA Human nature...which for one reason or another, people CONTINUE to think we can just unwire 10,000 years of hard-wiring in the human DNA code. Since DAY ONE, its been "the strongest survive", and that continues today. Except now, its not the most furs and biggest stone wheel...its most cars and shiniest jewelry.

Are you contributing to unnecessary consumption? Is ThaG? Of course. People who don't live a resource-neutral or resource-positive lifestyle shouldn't be advocating state-imposed population control measures, other than education.
Homie, EVERYONE is. YOU are right now by posting on the internet. By owning a PC. A large community is NOT going to live the way we THINK people SHOULD. However, suggesting population control and not living a 100% sustainable lifestyle with NO "toys" are not mutually exclusive like you are attempting to make them.
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
45
www.thephylumonline.com
AKA Human nature...which for one reason or another, people CONTINUE to think we can just unwire 10,000 years of hard-wiring in the human DNA code. Since DAY ONE, its been "the strongest survive", and that continues today. Except now, its not the most furs and biggest stone wheel...its most cars and shiniest jewelry.



Homie, EVERYONE is. YOU are right now by posting on the internet. By owning a PC. A large community is NOT going to live the way we THINK people SHOULD. However, suggesting population control and not living a 100% sustainable lifestyle with NO "toys" are not mutually exclusive like you are attempting to make them.
I never said I wasn't, HOMIE. What I SAID was, I have no RIGHT to advocate for limiting someone's freedom to reproduce or not reproduce and that the foundation for that argument is BASED on FEAR and ASSUMES that the current set of circumstances are PERMANENT and INFINITE.

Neither are human population and consumption based society mutually exclusive like you are attempting to make them.