From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:32:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Jul21.213229.4946
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <1992Jul21.035335.25089@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>I am Libertarian on most issues, but their stance on the environment
>does little for me. 

Unfortuneately, the environmental movement has allowed itself to become
dominated by socialists like Al Gore, who thinks that government
intervention is _a priori_ the answer to new problems.  It is much
easier to say "ban it!", or dump the problem on distant bureacrats,
than to think up good solutions to problems.  Libertarians observe
that people who own things have the incentive to think of and 
implement such solutions.  

Unfortunately, some Libertarians react reflexively to ecofascist nonsense, 
instead of showing how property rights do more than any other policy to 
protect the environment.  It is not surprising at this juncture that many 
environmentalists see the LP as a threat, but if they reflect on what 
happened in places where the government really had control (eg the USSR and 
Eastern Europe), and as the libertarian message starts to come out, I think 
true environmentalists will come to see libertarian solutions as an 
important tool of environmental protection.

>I'm inclined to view certain kinds of treatment of the
>environment as wrong by nature -- extermination of the last of an ecosystem,
>for instance.

All species that have ever been exterminated have been communal property.
Alledgedly they are under government protection, but in fact nobody has
an incentive to save them.  A libertarian solution would put
ownership of endangered species in the hands of biotech companies, for
whom unique genetic information is working captial, and conservationist 
groups like Nature Conservancy and Audobon.  Genetic patents would ensure 
that people have an incentive to find and preserve our planet's vast 
storehouse of bio-information.  Keeping the problem in the hands
of bureaucrats is will continue to doom countless species (the
socialist for all their eco-hype haven't even bothered to get around to 
counting them).

>So, moving down the historical chain of owners: how
>does one first acquire moral ownership of a natural resource?  In other words,
>if we look at a case where some land or natural resource is unclaimed, what
>is the method that can give me a right to do whatever I want with the land?
>Historically, I gather that the most common method employed to determine 
>"turf rights" has been invasion, conquest, and so on.

Property has often been aquired by force, quite in opposition to
libertarian philosophy.  In fact, that is the origin of every shred of 
government property.  Libertarians don't believe in throwing up our
hands to let the government take control just because the form of private
ownership (the "virtual fences") are not obvious at first blush.
Civilized people should come up with peaceful methods for aquiring 
newly available property, whether genetic codes, pollution chits, 
new inventions, or an asteroid.  Patent law, for example, is a rich 
source of solutions that should be applied in many more areas than
present.

>There is no great "pie-in the sky" known as "the wealth" which
>every one has a right to -- much Leftist thought is wrong, -- however there is 
>a great pie-in-sky called "the Earth" which everyone has a right to -- so much
>Libertarian and capitalist thought is inaccurate too. 

True, not everyone has a right to it.  The owners alone have a right to it,
and alone an incentive to take care of it.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)