On the future of Libertarianism
Our story begins in the Atlantic Ocean, sitting on top of my trusty longboard, as a massive pelican flies inches above my head. Legions of other birds canvas the area; an unidentified fish flops above the surface for a moment, enticing a seagull to dive.
In the immortal words of Fry; “The sea is a giant broth of life”. A simple statement with profound truth: “mother ocean”, as a surfer buddy of mine calls her, is a mother to all life on this planet. Without mother ocean, we would all be orphans unable to survive. But what sort of mother is she? And are we acting appropriately as her daughters and sons?
The core of libertarianism is the concept of “property”. I maintain my home because it is in my rational self-interests to do so. You would not likely burn tires in your own front yard, nor pollute your own creek with discarded oil. However, this seems to be the limit of libertarian environmentalism. Our movement has yet to adequately address the “tragedy of the commons”, and I believe this critical shortcoming must be thoroughly tackled if we are to be taken seriously by the people of the 21st Century.
For those unfamiliar with the term, “the tragedy of the commons” is the Achilles’s heel of libertarian ideology.
Imagine you are a farmer, with (X) amount of land, and (Y) amount of cattle. If (Y) cattle is too low, you are not using your land to maximum efficiency, and thus, are forfeiting potential profit. If (Y) cattle is too high, you will overgraze your land, and will not be able to sustain your farm beyond a single generation. The rational farmer knows that each cow requires (Z) acres of land, and therefore, given (X) acres, he will not exceed (X/Z) cattle. He could squeeze out some extra profits this season, but only by forfeiting potential profits next season. The farmer is thus limited by his own self-interest, and the land is managed at maximum efficiency.
But what about “the commons”? What about a tract of land owned by the public, open to all farmers? Without ownership of the land, the self-interest of the farmer shifts 180 degrees. Each individual farmer should bring his herd to graze the land- as many as possible, as quickly as possible. This will maximize his profit, and besides, if he doesn’t graze the land, some other farmer will be along shortly, prompted by the same motive. The end result- the commons are overgrazed; the short-term self-interest of each individual farmer contradicts the collective long-term self-interest of common lands sustaining ongoing, future grazing.
At this point, the people must spontaneously agree to self-regulate and act benevolently (historically unlikely) or the state must impose the collective will (the seed of all tyranny).
Given the realities of human nature, and the limits of rational self-interest, how can the libertarian ideology resolve “the tragedy of the commons”? It has been suggested that the elimination of public land would resolve this issue; after all, if every tract of land on Earth were owned by an individual, self-interest would promote good ecology more than any state ever could. However, even as a thought-experiment, this falls flat on its face.
Consider for a moment: you and I own adjacent pieces of land, and a small creek runs through both properties. You are downstream from me. One day I decide to start my own bottled water company; I dam the creek, create a reservoir, and begin bottling. The creek on your land is reduced to a muddy trickle. Would you argue that I had violated your property rights? In doing so, you would acknowledge that this stubborn creek has rejected our libertarian definitions of “property”.
Forget the creek. How far under your feet does your property go? In a libertarian world, if you discovered gold or coal under your land, would you not mine and extract it? How deep could you go before infringing on the property rights of others? In theory, at some point, deep underneath your feet, North America ends, and Asia begins. Are we all entitled to the land between our feet and the Earth’s core?
Go the other way- look up. If I want to fly from my property, over yours, do I need your permission? Remember- this is a libertarian thought experiment- you have no FAA to turn to for guidance. How high must I fly before I can cross your path without violating your property? And on those nights when the moon is directly over your roof, does your property extend to that portion of the moon also? If not, does your property end at the halfway point between our planet and the next?
My point is simple- nature does not conform to our laws; it is we who must conform to her laws. When dealing with a global system of interconnected oceans, or an atmosphere upon which all life depends, simply parroting “property rights” completely fails to address perfectly legitimate issues. I reject the notion that ignoring a problem is any form of solution.
Now, if I may, I would like to piss-off the right-wing anti-science morons, and the left-wing hippie-dippie idiots. Let me begin with the right-wingers.
Global. warming. is. real.
Science > Bullshit
We are currently at the tail-end of an abnormally cold winter. And, as you can see in the above graph, the temperature does go up and down, between the seasons, between the years. Some fluctuation is perfectly normal- no one disputes this. However, the simple facts of the case are thus: in my 30-year lifespan the Earth’s temperature has continued to rise.
Note: I have made no claims whatsoever regarding the cause of this phenomenon, nor have I advocated any solutions yet. Before I get to that, you must accept this simple fact for what it is- truth.
In the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed up.
Until you accept this fact, you will not be taken seriously, nor will you deserve to be taken seriously. We know this to be true just as we know the current temperature; if you wish to dispute the above graph, skip the middle man, and begin disputing the physical properties of mercury directly.
Put another way: what is the weather like outside right now? How warm is it? How do you know that? Exactly. And that is how we know the above graph is true.
Now, as promised, let me slap the hippies with a dose of reality:
Al. Gore. is. a. fraud.
Pictured above: hypocritical advocate of fraud
Al Gore is a hypocrite and advocates a fraudulent solution to this issue.
Sticking to the facts of the case: for the past decade, Al Gore and his misinformed minions have been advocating something called Cap and Trade. Essentially, under a “Cap and Trade” system, each unit of pollution is assigned a monetary value, and can then be traded like a commodity. This would internalize the costs of pollution, thus providing industry with a clear incentive to “go green”.
Critics have already noted that “Cap and Trade” programs are hotbeds of fraud and corruption, and this is all, in essence, a giant scam to extract more taxes. But I’m going to skip those arguments entirely, and jump right to a point I think you can understand:
Even if we implement Cap & Trade, experts say it won’t solve the problem.
Allow me to reiterate two very simple facts; facts that remain true regardless of your personal ideologies.
According to SCIENCE:
#1) The Earth is warming up
#2) “Cap and Trade” will not change this
Everybody got that? Good. Now, let’s talk about solutions.
To any progressives still reading: I have no doubt your solution will be to advocate more state-enforced, collectivist programs such as “Cap and Trade”. I understand you break from libertarian ideology at a fundamental level, and, after all, if one bad law can’t fix it, maybe two bad laws can, right?
But before you go begging the state for more tyranny, I advise you to think outside the box, and reunite yourself with the most pessimistic among you. Some are already claiming that global warming is irreversible; it may turn out that we are powerless to do anything anyway. Please keep this in mind when bartering your liberty for the illusion of safety- make sure you get your money’s worth.
Returning to my libertarian audience, let me expand on that last point a moment. Perhaps global warming is irreversible at this point. It would therefore be tempting to argue: “we done fucked up- oops. No point in regulating industry now”. However, this argument fails to address the plethora of related environmental issues. Regardless of your booming stock portfolio, you need clean air, you need clean water, and without these, you will get sick, and you will die. It is in your rational self-interest to defend the environmental conditions of your progeny, and it is everyone’s prerogative to defend their right to life.
The following are not solutions:
- Ignore all environmental issues which escape the libertarian definition of “property”
- Reject “Cap & Trade”- this is not a solution, this is merely preventing a new problem
- Deny global warming is real- this sacrifices our credibility, rejects science, and misses the forest for the trees. The environment depends on much more than mere temperature!
In closing, let me be clear as to what I am advocating: libertarianism must reconcile itself with “the tragedy of the commons”. All currently proposed solutions depend on limiting individual liberty in exchange for government protection. Period.
A progressive might argue that my “right to pollute” is not a right at all.
I would respond: the “environmental protection” provided in exchange for your compliance is as much a phantom as my “Constitutional right to pollute”. This is a house of cards, and everyone is bluffing.
In other words, so long as the environment remains a global issue, no regional government could control it, even under a system of benevolent dictatorship. Even if we imposed this benevolent dictator into a role of world government, it is very likely the damage is already done. Stopping the warming of the Earth may simply be beyond man’s capacity; perhaps our only true solution lies in learning to adapt to the new paradigm.
How will libertarian ideals be applied to environmental problems? Can we leverage individualism, liberty and self-interest to actually solve these issues, rather than justify them?
I believe we can.
I believe we will.
I believe we must; if we do not fill this vacuum with solutions of our own, our political enemies will scream for a collectivist solution until they have conned enough morons to join them in that crusade. We must strike the root; we must pull the issue out from underneath them. We must come to control the environmental debate in the 21st Century.
And I believe the following lecture by MIT’s Dan Nocera gives us a glimpse at the future of libertarianism:
