If there is anything that government is actually good at doing, it is destroying things. Strangely, love for this destruction has become a popular cause, revealed in the push for “sustainability” and the banning of technologies that improve our lives. FULL ARTICLE by Jeffrey Tucker
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13989/the-decivilizing-effects-of-government/
The Decivilizing Effects of Government
Previous post: Faculty Spotlight Interview: Jim Cox
Next post: The Michael Sproul Doctrine
{ 65 comments }
Excellent Jeff.
Jeffrey, you write: “Today, there are nearly 7 billion people alive on the planet, which means David Holmgren needs to come up with some way to dispense with the 6.5 billion people who could not be sustained on 500-year-old technology alone.”
Actually, given that 80% of the world’s population lives on less than $10 a day (http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats), over 5.5 billion people have already been dispensed with. Which is to say that the vast majority of the world’s population is already sustained by 500-year-old technology (if that), the question being why.
The answer, of course, lies in the title of your essay. For it is governments that impoverishes people through their relentless disruption and dislocation of peoples’ former ways of life:
“[T]he Bolsheviks succeeded in creating an industrialized, urbanized Russia, and Hitler managed to get rid of the Junkers and much of the class stratification that had characterized prewar Germany. Through a tortuous and immensely costly path, both of these “isms” cleared away some of the premodern underbrush that had obstructed the growth of liberal democracy. There are, of course, much safer and more peaceful routes toward modernization, such as those taken by countries like South Korea or Britain or the United States, and less expensive paths to modernity were surely available to Russia and Germany. But one has to deal with what one has, and in Islamic cultures, in any case, there is arguably much more underbrush to be cleared away.” — Francis Fukuyama and Nadav Samin
Yes, Francis and Nadav, a lot more underbrush needs to be cleared away, the problem being that governments grow it so fast they can’t keep up with it. Better raise taxes to beef up the effort. Either that, or just leave people the hell alone and let them “truck, barter, and exchange” their way back to civilization.
And as for what REALLY needs to be cleared away . . .
Beautifully written and spot-on! Thank you, Jeff.
This Holgrem fellow is quite progressive by leftist standards.
He only wants to take us back to the 16th century. Most leftists want to take us to the 7th.
I’d like to see someone create a “sustainable resort” where guests can enjoy the lifestyle that is praised so highly in pop culture. It would leave a lot of primitivist dreamers much wiser.
This topic is really Jeffrey Tucker’s specialty. I always enjoy his articles on it.
This topic is really Jeffrey Tucker’s specialty. I always enjoy his articles on it.
Nice Jeffrey – here’s something for you to contemplate (from John Stossel). If you take the number of pages of new Federal Regulations published in the last 2 years and laid them out page by page, side by side, you would cover an entire football pitch. Depressing!
I for one suscribe to the idea of sustainability in the sense that our standard of living, the amount of people living on this planet, was made possible by the discovery of fossil fuels which everyone knows is a finite resource (how finite is open to debate). Without them we will move back to the 16th century.Some environmentalist believe that the worlds population surpassed sustainabilty with the onset of “The Green Revolution” which is fossil fuel dependent. Personally I believe this. Personally I believe that there will come a time when, due to a lack of readily available fossil fuels, some populations will simply die out either via starvation, or through war over scarce resources.Some enviromentalists believe that by living ‘in poverty” you can push that time farther out into the future until alternative sources of energy are built to sufficient scale.
Western governments feel that they have the obligation to help offset the environmental damage caused by their own economy. DEET, PCB’s, Heavy Metals are perfect examples.
The funny thing about humanity is how well it adapts. Just because fossil fuel reserves run out doesn’t mean a reduction in the quality of life. Those western economies you talk negatively about have managed to reduce fossil fuel use per unit population rapidly over the past 50 years. Burning something isn’t a value add and we have plenty of incentives to find a way to do the same thing with less burning involved. Anything burnt is discarded. It’s something you just purchased that you can no longer sell. There really aren’t any major population groups absolutely reliant on fossil fuels. There are either the post-industrial nations that are slowly replacing fossil fuels with alternates (the process would go faster if government got out of the taxation and regulation business) and those who are already living the “sustainable” lifestyle. Think those twig-thin African children.
And those heavy metals? China is the biggest offender.
Well you should be aware that many second/third world countries strive to reach the standard of living we have in the U.S. (India/China for example), and their consumption is catching up.Energy usage per person is an intersting figure, but I prefer to look at per country.As for the heavy metals, China being the biggest offender is no surprise since its Western nations (US.EU) which demand their final product. Lower demand from (US and EU) equates to lower output in China and therefore less industrial waste.Personally, I don’t worry about all this too much as I live in the US which is protected by large oceans, and we have plenty of green space. 2-3 generations from now may be a different story.
Mr. Murray,
The funny thing about humanity is that people like you will say insane things like “There really aren’t any major population groups absolutely reliant on fossil fuels” and “the process would go faster if government got out of the taxation and regulation business”
Every food Calorie (kcal) that you consume represents 9-10 Calories of oil & gas equivalents being consumed, forever. Assuming you live in North American and you have an average lifestyle you go through about 10 barrels a year of oil to have a 2000 Calorie a day diet. Human labour can only supply about a tenth of a barrel`s worth of energy in a standard 2000 hour work-year. Where does the other 9.9 barrels of energy required to put food in your belly come from if not fossil fuels? Why do you think less developed societies have 99% of their population involved in farming?
As for your second comment I can tell you for a fact that you are 100% incorrect. How? I recently left the employment of a “2nd-generation” ethanol company. All of the budgeting & planning for commercial scale cellulosic ethanol (non-food based) had to do with what incentives where in what country and how the tax regime and interest-free loans were arranged. If it were not for the state the oil&gas industry would be even stronger and more dominant in our energy mix.
Post industrial nations aren`t replacing fossil fuels with alternates, we`re getting f-ing poorer because all the productive activies not related to resource extraction have been wage abritrage-d outta town.
Heavy metals are only produced because there`s a demand. Why make some nationalistic ad-hominem argument about China? When the demands stops production stops, what discussion is necessary?
I`d suggest taking a look at three graphs. Oil production since 1880, human population since 1000 AD (check out the simiarities with the oil graph after 1880) and the reindeer (actually Cariboo for me) population of St. Matthews Island in the bearing straight circa 1950-1965.
The only thing homo sapiens has an infinite supply of is greed. Capitalism rocks because it`s the only societal arrangement that allows you to benefit from other people`s greed. Oil and gas are what keeps you alive, regardless of whatever -ism you live in.
Anglo, the first quote of J. Murray that you mentioned is wrong– but I dont think he meant it in the absolute sense that you imply (granted he could have chosen better wording IMO).
Murray’s second quote is dead on. Your “evidence” refuting it is laughable. This fact makes everything else in your post pointless drivel (there’s a lot of it too).
Anyhow, I usually don’t reply to such silly comments, but this time I couldn’t restrain myself…
Well Andrew I appreciate your lack of restraint and thanks for taking the time. Wished you`d bothered to make your point factually instead of just claiming that my evidence is laughable.
I defy you to give an example where an industry offering an alternative to fossil fuels has come into existance without massive government subsidization. Feel free to ingore my industry experience.
Thanks for the laugh. Anglo
Anglo, I regret being so short. I should have explained myself immediately; I apologize for not being specific, and for taking a whiny tone. Also, I randomly checked this blog again and saw your comment, sorry for the delayed reply.Anyhow, what I found laughable is that the petroleum industry relies on subsidies heavily– probably more than any other industry. The fact that your second generation ethanol company actively sought out government help highlights the fact that big oil and gas engage in the same activity–only they are much more effective at lobbying than your company was.J Murray said, “the process [of converting to a more efficient energy source] would go faster if government got out of the taxation and regulation business [which subsidize oil companies heavily]”Now, my last set of brackets highlight the fact that taxation overwhelmingly goes to support big oil (in the form of our soviet style agricultural system, our outdated highways, roads and bridges, IP law run amuck [Monsanto is a good example], our murdering imperialism overseas, etc). In light of this fact, how can you say that without the unjust state apparatus to grant them largess, these monopolies would not crumble? I think it is obvious that they would. Thanks, Andrew
PS I realize that the editor causes the paragraphs to run together if your not careful. Didn’t mean to leave a block of text.
Take a look at “The Deep Hot Biosphere:The Myth of Fossil Fuels” by Thomas Gold. I don’t know if he’s right (or was right since I believe he’s now passed) but his is an interesting theory about where all that oil comes from. And it’s not dinosaurs in our tanks.
“tax-funded and mandatory promotion of the electric car”
Is this really happening through the efforts of the government? It seems that they helped crowd out the electric car in the past by propping up GM and subsidizing hydrogen fueled technologies. Patent protection also created problems in the area of battery technology which hobbled the electric car further when oil companies bought the patents for many lithium ion batteries.
Absolutely right. In fact, if not for rampant subsidies, and state monopoly over the last century, energy and transportation would be radically different.
Wonderful article Jeff! I love the Mises institute!
I would like to add that the word “sustainable” itself is a perfectly good one. I use it often to describe sound monetary policy. I also regularly use the word unsustainable when describing practically every government policy.
A problem occurs when people use words without any regard to their dictionary definitions.
Any free society will be sustainable. It is precisely violent control that creates bubbles, even population bubbles. The science of information theory has succeeded in quantifying information and showing that information is mathematically equivalent to free energy. The simplest life form has more information in its DNA than all the known inorganic universe. Thus there is, for all practical purposes, and endless potential for growth. There is no limit except brutal coercive people. The amount of energy a system can contain depends on the amount of freedom (modes of vibration on an atomic level) in the system. Ask any student of quantum mechanics.
The rise in life style across the industrial countries is because of scientific and technological advancements that made a previously unexploitable resource widely available, namely oil. Free market capitalism was not the primary condition for this advancement in lifestyle it was the system that was used to encourage the use of the resource. I am not arguing against it here, I am just saying it’s not the cart that pushes the horse.
Scientific American routinely explores the ideas and emerging technologies that might enable us to maintain a standard of living something like what we are now accustomed to in a post oil world. Oil has been wonderful, but we ignore its unintended consequences at our own peril.
The scientific method is in fact the most successful way to evaluate and understand reality that humans have yet come upon. Virtually all of the material improvements we have experienced are due to the scientific method. I can not understand why when the scientific method clearly points to anthropomorphic climate change, the acidification of our oceans, and the over abundance of nitrogen in our soil, water, and atmosphere due to fossil fuel use, people like Jeffrey Tucker just decide they don’t need to pay any attention to the majority opinion of scientists. Scientific theory is in fact a majority rule situation. Until the experiments can be devised to prove that everyone else is wrong we must go with the commonly held and experimentally backed up best information of the time.
–”The rise in life style across the industrial countries is because of scientific and technological advancements that made a previously unexploitable resource widely available, namely oil. Free market capitalism was not the primary condition for this advancement in lifestyle it was the system that was used to encourage the use of the resource. I am not arguing against it here, I am just saying it’s not the cart that pushes the horse.”–
This is wrong. If not for the freedom to develop and market this new resource for profit, the rise in our standard of living would not have been as drastic (or possibly ever occur)
Who would judge what product is “best”, if not the consumer? Who would deem new ideas worthy of implementation, without competition. What would fill the void if consumers changed their preferences.
An apt analogy is capitalism as the horse, drawing the cart of petroleum products only so long as they provide the most effective solution available.
“I can not understand why when the scientific method clearly points to anthropomorphic climate change, the acidification of our oceans, and the over abundance of nitrogen in our soil, water, and atmosphere due to fossil fuel use, people like Jeffrey Tucker just decide they don’t need to pay any attention to the majority opinion of scientists.”
What are you babbling about? Mr. Tucker doesn’t ignore science. He simply believes (as far as I can tell) that the solution to environmental problems do not lie in suppression of human rights.
The best thing to do about desertification, and the overabundance of nitrogen contaminates is to eliminate America’s soviet style agricultural policy, and to strengthen environmental property rights.
If you care carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, fight outrageous government policy; the USDA and their widespread promotion of unsustainable agricultural cartels (along with the military) subsidize massive carbon emissions. If you support the scientific method these policies should outrage you… And Jeffery Tucker is against all of them.
A free market in agriculture and adequate property rights would not contaminate rivers with nitrogen and chemical residue as is SOP today under the rule of our agricultural overlords. The currently dead market for carbon sequestration would explode (I highly recommend Joel Salatin’s book “Everything I Want to do is Illegal” for an insight on this issue. His concise article, which inspired him to write the book, can be found here: http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Salatin_Sept03.pdf and again, I highly recommend it).
Get a grip, and learn about the libertarian view of things before speaking up against us.
Andrew,
I do not know much about Jeffrey Tuckers views beyond this article. (I have been listening to Milton Friedman, The right to choose series, and some of the views expressed by the Cato institute.)
I assumed since Mr. Tucker spoke about sustainability in such disparaging terms that he denied the threats to our lifestyle (probably lives for many of us) that our technology has brought with it. Ultimately it is the understanding of these threats that are creating the call for a lifestyle not based on the degradation of the environment. Call it whatever you like we will need to deal very seriously with our waste stream in all of its many permutations, and this will require us to make decisions about what we make and what we make it out of.
I do not share your faith in a free market to make all things right. Unregulated markets appear to create a great deal of corruption and may have a stifling effect on innovation. Currently we have a drastic concentration of power in a few hands (1 percent owns forty percent of the worlds assets 10 percent owns ninety percent) this makes a very powerful few heavily invested in old technologies from which their income flows.
Corruption seems to rise in any human system given time, so i don’t sees this as a free market issue alone. I think if our citizenry was more conscious of our duties in a democracy we would have wiser governmental policies.
As far as military and agricultural policies go I completely agree with you. When elected officials need millions or even billions to run for office it will distort our government in obvious ways. The wealthiest among us are able to buy the most influence in government. How could this not be so?
I don’t appreciate your phrases “like get a grip” and “what are you babbling about“. Civilization is based on civil behavior and civil behavior is ultimately about showing respect for other people.
eyeball (I liked some of your art, by the way),
A few comments – The best way to protect the environment is with strong private-property rights. I wrote an article that was published here (http://blog.mises.org/12959/regulating-caveman-technology/) that touches on this very topic. People have myriad incentives to keep up their own property, but very little to keep up the “people’s” property (public property). As a result, public property, from federal grazing lands to areas where nuclear bombs were tested by the military, are in much worse shape than private property, such as a home or business. If what I do affects you, then you can come after me. If I pollute on your private property, the property owner would almost certainly come after me and reclaim what was taken or destroyed.To your point about free markets and wealth concentration – we have not had a free market here for some time (maybe never, really). Whenever we have regulation or barriers to voluntary, free exchange, someone or some group of people figure out how to use the regulations to exclude competition (i.e., knock out free trade). The result is wealth concentration.To your points above about human-made climate change – I am a scientist, and I can say with certainty that I have no idea if, or if so, to what level, human activity affects the climate long-term. The scientific method is largely absent from climate-change studies due to the vastness of the problem being studied, and the fact that most climate change scientists have already made their minds up. What I do know for certain is that if climate change is being caused by humans, we need developed, wealthy, free societies of people to deal with the coming problems – not to go back to the olden days.
I don’t know why that all ran together like that…..
Did you edit your post?
Editing your post might mess it up
(bring back preview)
I did edit my post……
Thanks, Dave. Awesome article!
Dave,
Thanks, on the art comment.
I am not a scientist i do feel with some certainty that 7 billion busy humans are changing the planet any many ways. I think the evidence is good that we are effecting our atmosphere.
I do not think the planet is in danger or that we humans are unnatural. I just think that one of our strength relative to other animal species is our ability to predict the effects of our actions. Clearly we could do this better then we are.
The problem as i see it is that different people have different ideas about what is good stewardship of the land and almost all of our decisions effect each other. If i had a neighbor upstream from me who wanted to use agent orange to defoliate his land i believe it would effect me.
So i think it is a good idea to decide these issue collectively. Essentially i have a strong belief in democracy. Not the big money democracy we have now but some kind of democracy that could elect from the public sphere using shoe leather campaigns and free communication systems like the internet. It is sort of detailed idea for this forum.
The short version is if we had a open system of electing people and in that discourse we voted in libertarians then I would live inside that system.
Well 60% could still vote to spray agent orange all over and you’d still get screwed.
Or it could be voted against and still be done just like all the other times it has happened before
Or it could be done anyway and when you try to go against an institution with all the guns AND ideological support and you’ll be labeled anti-american, terrorist, etc then arrested, sent to a rape-room or shot in the face if you don’t appreciate the previous alternatives
Maybe you should reconsider your support of a death cult, even if this death cult promises you some alleged control over it (while retaining monopoly powers, of course)
You are absolutely right about maintaining a civil discourse. I sincerely apologize for my harsh words (especially considering how calm you’ve been). Thank you for setting me straight on this issue. In the future I will abstain from any such petty remarks.
“I assumed since Mr. Tucker spoke about sustainability in such disparaging terms that he denied the threats to our lifestyle (probably lives for many of us) that our technology has brought with it.”
I don’t think he denies the threats, rather he denies that the solution to our problems will come from increasing interventionism. He also denies the idea that capitalism is the root of our woes.
“Ultimately it is the understanding of these threats that are creating the call for a lifestyle not based on the degradation of the environment.”
This is true, but vague; what is the best path toward that lifestyle? Is it comprised of more regulations and centralization, or less?
“[…]we will need to deal very seriously with our waste stream in all of its many permutations, and this will require us to make decisions about what we make and what we make it out of.”
This is also a true statement, but its interpretation is our point of contention. Who are “we”? If you are referring to individuals making voluntary choices, you are correct. If on the other hand, you are referring to the men who occupy seats of power in Washington DC, and who enforce their arbitrary will on millions people throughout the world, then this statement is false- for I do not believe that those men are acting on any legitimate authority to do hardly anything (except maybe to end their own unsustainable assaults on the environment and human dignity)
I do not know what exactly Mr Tucker promotes as environmental policy but I think it’s safe to assume that he agrees with libertarian environmentalists such as Walter Block. They propose that any environmental issue is a property rights issue and, as such can be enforced like any other property right (except in cases of air pollution, which I believe is the only instance when libertarians promote regulation). Here’s an interesting video with Walter Block on the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXlaS2_igyY&feature=channel
The fact that you don’t have faith in free markets is the root of our disagreement and I find this intriguing. Why do you feel this way? Do you believe that government officials are less corrupt than private individuals? If so I would be interested to know why.
I thought you read my article (you said so above)? That deals with yard waste burning, and hence, air pollution. I don’t call for any government solution……..Each person’s air space above their property is their own; we can deal with it like any environmental issue with the free market and private-property rights, can’t we? I watched that video, and he didn’t mention govt. regulation of air pollution.
I did read your article, and as I said, in my opinion it is brilliant. …in fact as I type my position, I realize the absurdity of what was in those parenthesis. Of course air pollution is a property rights issue (this concept is the backbone of libertarian environmentalism after all). I had an idea about localized regulation being more legitimate, but I now realize how faulty that is. You are correct, when you say that air quality should be determined on a case by case basis, by the property owner.
Once I posted, and re-read my comment, I immediately wanted to edit that out as it is simply incorrect.
PS thanks again for contributing the article.
Andrew; I listened to Walter Block and I read Dave Albin article. I think these scenarios would create an enormous court system that would essentially be litigating many aspects of our relationships with our neighbors. I do take the point that my neighbors and myself would have to talk more which may be good or may not. Feuds between neighbors are not uncommon. There would be a lot of taxes associated with this case-by-case expanded court system.
Mr. Blocks example of plastic bags and paper bags would require some one to do the extensive research on the environmental cost of the disposal of all of the different products we use (These costs would be disputed and haggled over in the court system). I do not know who would hire these people privately, so again I think it would fall on a public sector to do this. I could see a system developing in the absence of regulations and inspection where garbage disposers where burying all kinds of stuff with no real concern for the people who lived near by (because they don’t) to save costs. And then ten or twenty years later lawsuits being filed against them for cancer created by their waste disposal and then round after round of court cases about this. It seems like this would be more expensive then having regular inspections and protecting the neighbors in the first place.
Virtually every scenario I can imagine gets complicated like this and ends with a role for a collective government that is designed for mutual benefits of its citizenry. All forms of government are subject to corruption. The designers of our system hoped for an educated and active population to counterbalance corruption. You and Dave and other Libertarians are a part of this. Thank you for being concerned about my individual rights and freedoms.
I see how Adam Smiths invisible hand idea works in theory and is a partial solution (I am not anti-capitalism I am anti-corporatism or plutocracy) I think it works well in spurring innovation and creates incentives for people to take risks. I don’t believe that self interest or greed works as logically and rationally as is presupposed in the model. I go more with behavorilists on this (see Nova; Mind over Money available at netflix instant view) However deregulation as practiced for the last fifty years has in effect deregulated big business while not helping much to expand individual rights and freedom. Milton Friedman’s ideas have been enormously influential in this. He seemed to be a sincere academic whose ideas got partially used to create rights and freedoms for corporation while constraining our own. This resulted in the savings and loan scandal, Enron, and our recent mortgage bubble/scam, to just name the big examples.
In a society that creates power and influence with money the richest have the most power.
I believe what we need to mutually work for is getting government and legislation away from being another commodity in a consumer society. Where legislation can be purchased most of us lose, because we simply get outbid.
Thank you for this conversation. I just have to move away from it now.
Eyeballs, North of Tucson AZ sits the Page-Trowbridge radioactive/toxic waste landfill. More info here: http://www.poisonwells.com/
To quote the site:
-”Did you know that tests on water sampled in April & November of 2000 indicate that the Page-Trowbridge radioactive/toxic waste landfill is leaking to groundwater?
Did you know that in 1993 the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) strongly recommended that a portion of this radioactive and toxic waste be removed from the landfill before the landfill was capped, because “ADEQ believes that the buried waste containers at the site will all ultimately collapse over time, regardless of the installation of a cap over the landfill”?
Did you know that this radioactive and toxic waste was not removed prior to capping because it would cost too much money?”-
My point is that these things happen all the time under our current system. In fact, when a standard rule of law is thrown out in favor of the will of an inspector or regulatory agency, corruption breeds. The gulf oil regulators are a good example.
Another aspect of poisonwells.com is that the locals were fighting a huge golf course development which was located within 10 miles of the old radioactive/toxic waste dump. The well that has supplied my hometown, and neighboring areas, for decades is located about 10 miles from the dump.
The radioactive waste is still there (originally trucked in by the state university). The water supply will be contaminated. The local referendum against the housing development was deemed invalid on a lame technicality. Like you implied, money talks and bullshit walks.
Of course this was in the heydays of the housing bubble. I have seen acres upon acres of my countryside plowed under during this boom (which was created by the federal government).
Now the golf courses are there, and a few homes, but the boom is dead. The vast misallocation of resources is so obvious out here. Easy money from the federal reserve, and corporate lobbyists who hide behind agencies like the ADEQ are the root of our sustainability problem.
I could go on and on, but I hope my point is clear enough; if we were to abolish the federal reserve and USDA etc, and simply enforce 3d property rights, our civilization would immediately become more sustainable.
I know you mentioned not have time to continue this conversation, so if that is the case, its been nice talking with you. thanks
“Unregulated markets appear to create a great deal of corruption and may have a stifling effect on innovation.”
On the contrary, eyeballs. It is regulation and government control that stifles innovation.
There are no unregulated markets, currently; only increasingly regulated ones, wherein the regulators are beholden to those you say have the concentration of wealth.
There is a faith among most on this site, but there’s a subtlety.
The faith is not in some religion called free markets. The faith is in human beings, their infinite capacity for innovation, goodwill, and magnificent ability to optimize resources, when those very human beings are not constricted by faux masters.
So-called sustainability is often dismissed, correctly, because we are but a few grains of sand on an infinite beach. I am in the air more often than I care to be, and without fail am consistently overwhelmed by the enormously expansive real estate, seemingly infinite landscape, extending to the horizon, miles upon hundreds of miles with barely a handful of human beings over the vast stretches….
And this does not include the subterranean world, nor the oceans, nor the other planets, nor the stars….
You seem a thoughtful person; your concern over the “waste stream in all of its various permutations” (I like that phrase) is not addressed by democracy nor illusory responsibilities to a system. It is addressed via responsibility is to oneself and one’s neighbors via respect for their property and in tolerance of their lifestyles.
By the way, your own faith in the scientific method is not ill placed. It is sound judgment. But be wary of corruption in those circles, as well.
Someone calling himself “eyeballs” writes, “Virtually all of the material improvements we have experienced are due to the scientific method.”
What he should have written was, “Virtually all of the material improvements we have experienced are due to the entrepeneur and the productive introducing innovations to market and receiving the rewards of voluntary trade. Material improvements are due to the method of free market Capitalism, to the extent it is allowed to operate.”
Always remember that science presupposes philosophy. Presently the science establishment embraces socialism and collectivism (whether consiously and overtly or not, it is how practioners are taught to think and how the vast majority of them are funded). Hence the application of the “scientific method” is directed towards the aims of socialism and collectivism. That brings us back to the fundamental issue of today’s article…
Sione
Overall some good points (esp. on DDT) but the recycling bit was absurd. Of course it`s a waste of money it`s run by the state! But talking about how it`s decivilizing to pull recycling out of garbage? WTF are you not seperating them beforehand? In my experience recycling has only decreased the amount of garbage I had to handle because a lot of the bulky and pointy stuff which makes messes has gone in the blue bin.
The hot-water heater is another silly point, if you`re too lazy or stupid to set your water heater at the level that`s as hot as you want your shower without the cold water tap turned-off then I have no sympathy for you or your dirty clothes.
There`s nothing wrong with loathing the state, just don`t make excuses for personal lazyness!
I believe he was talking about mandatory recycling – I personally just view the bin as a limited trash can. As for hot water, we shouldn’t have to adjust our hot water heaters to get them to the best setting.
Great article Jefferey. It made great points, and it was not boring for even a second. Keep’em coming.
Jeff,
It’s past time to force full disclosure of the financial interests of people like Carol Browner, Mary Nichols and her husband John Daum, Albert Gore and all the others seeking profit through crisis structures.
Indeed, our government is the strong arm used to define who profits (the establishment) and who pays (ordinary people) by force of law. In another time, this “progressive” form of government was considered fascist.
1. Create the perception of crisis.
2. Proffer a convenient, pre-determined solution.
3. Lobby the solution into law.
4. Profit by force at the expense of the masses.
5. Repeat.
It really is that simple. Perhaps the most annoying aspect is many “intellectuals” don’t see anything wrong with this criminal behavior. It’s killing the country.
Of course that works both ways. Claiming that the sky will fall if we remove all agricultural/energy subsidies is just as bad.
Jeff, for once I’m speechless, except maybe for this:
“Jeff Tucker for President!”
Well, this article has left me horribly depressed about the future…
Sustainability is a great thing in my mind. The problem is ironically that socialists seem to despise the idea of actual sustainability, which means frugality. Aren’t all great capitalist entrepreneurs and so-called “misers” like Ebeneezer Scrooge and John D. Rockefeller sustainable? Yet, for centuries we’ve been taught to think of these people as evil because they wern’t spendthrifts but penny-pinchers instead.
Not to say anything negative about this excellent article, but insects don’t cause disease. The toxins, bacteria, viral particles, or parasites they carry around and give to us cause disease. I’m just a private-sector scientist dork, after all…….In addition, maybe someone mentioned this – as long as we don’t f#*k up price-feedback mechanisms, with regulation and taxation, then we will effectively management resources, and come up with new solutions, forever. The government is the biggest threat to our long-term existence and prosperity.
I guess you did say “disease-carry insects” in one part – I missed that……
It is with amusement I continually hear references about peak oil. Total rubbish. North America has consumed less than 8% of the conventional oil in North America.
Actually, we don’t know how much oil we have – no one does. It doesn’t really matter. If oil is believed to be scarce, the price will go up, and oil companies will look for it in places that they did not in the past when the price was lower. If we ever get to the dreaded end of oil, as everyone moans about, we will switch to something else because the price of a gallon of gasoline will have risen to levels that most cannot afford long before…..
Also remember that much of that oil is effectively out of reach. You can say that technology will make it accessible, but as soon as it takes more than a barrel of oil’s worth of energy to extract a barrel of oil from the ground, the machine age is over.
the oil business, like all others, depends on profits. as oil gets scarcer, prices go up, but margins need not change.
The reserves available from North America are not the issue. The time-supply (proven reserves/consumption rate) of world oil reserves has risen from 28 to 44 years since 1980, and its value continues to rise. Government interventions through the nationalization of oil companies and the restriction of oil exploration are the primary threats to continued time-supply growth.
We are nowhere near the energy breakeven point for oil extraction, and so long as we have at least quasi-free markets we will never come close to it. Well before reaching such a point we will have transitioned into something wholly new, perhaps a deuterium-based energy economy. The “machine age” will thrive so long as we have a semblance of freedom in the energy, consumer, and monetary markets.
Jeff,
You got my daughter’s vote. And who was that SR71 pilot, Hine? He kept talking about the gutted military budget. Wow! The guy was 82 years old and I was not about to challenge him. WTF, we are in Colorado Springs at the foot of Cheyanne Mountain. Talk about Bourbon for breakfast!
Stupendous!
I feel like I am on the Auburn campus.
God love you all and your progeny.
Wow. That was the most incisive and entertaining piece I’ve read here in some time. Nice to see Jeff in his element.
Any chance of the audio from the recent Mises Circle going up on the media section sometime soon?
This article really echoes Rand’s The Anti-Industrial Revolution. You cite Rothbard as having identified the socialist left’s change of heart about progress in Galbraith’s 1958 book, but even that book came after Atlas Shrugged, which featured a character whose sole socialist intent was to force everyone back to a hunter-gatherer society.
You are totally right, and every time I read this sort of thing, I am absolutely blown away by the foresight Rand had. I think it is as strong a case as can possibly be made that in order to turn this around, we need philosophy. We need a philosophy that justifies the existence of modernity and freedom. Without it, we are doomed. Even some of capitalism’s most ardent proponents (Steven Landsburg comes to mind) subscribe to a philosophy that contradicts their economics.
This is really important.
Jeffrey Tucker, What in the name of Luwig von Mises are you doing in Earth Fare? Are you’re like me? I go there, or places like it, for flavor–in dairy products, mostly–and to obtain items I can’t find at Walmart, where I buy most of my food. I’d probably shop at one of the organic stores all the time if I could afford it, and preach anti-tax rhetoric to the denizens. (Btw, thanks, Sam–Walton, that is.) The reason I am forced to pay a very high premium for the un-homoginized milk I l buy there is entirely because of the blanket of statist regulations that have smothered the dairy industry and transformed most dairy farmers from independent farming entrepreneurs prior to FDR into government-dependent tillers of the soil and squeezers of cow teats today.
I have a nephew who is and has long dedicated himself to living sustainable to the best of his ability. He hopes his efforts, and they seem near-heroic to me, will serve as an example to others who choose to follow suit in whole or part. Several years ago he moved to a community of like-minded individuals, which has probably made his quest a bit easier through the benefits of shared efforts. He shares some of what he is up to on his blog. In his latest he has begun and promises to further develop an assessment of the “economics” of what he and the community as a whole are doing. He indicates initially that he undertakes this assessment because he realizes that the sustainable community of which he is a part is unsustainable over the long run since as a whole its members spend more money than they are able to generate from their various sustainable, money-making endeavors. The community is currently living off the savings of its members from their previous, less-sustainable way of living. I sincerely hope that as he progresses in his economic acumen and assessment he will achieve some understanding of those economic factors that promote sustainability of life over the long run, such as the division of labor and the accumulation of capital. Of course mises.org would be a great resource for my nephew, and I shall endeavor to subtly point him to it.
Regarding DDT and bed bugs: The late brohaha over the little critters had me thinking I could finally put that useless hound of mine to earning her keep if I only could train her to sniff ‘em out, ’cause I hear tell dogs that do can earn a pretty penny. Unfortunately, a thorough search of the WWW turned up nary a single supplier of live bed bugs for training purposes, so I have had to shelve the idea. If anyone has been infested and knows how to trap and keep ‘em alive, I love to talk about a bed-bug-finding entrepreneurial venture.
Great article, Jeffrey Tucker. Keep it up.
Awesome article, I’m also working my way through Bourbon for Breakfast as a nice inbetween for my slower, heavier reading on economics.
I will say I was a bit disappointed you didn’t go further on criticizing flourescent bulbs, what about the fact that they’re filled with mercury and are incredibly dangerous should they break? We’re supposed to go to extra trouble to recycle them but you know most people are just going to toss them in the trash out of habit, so we’re filling our landfills with mercury right there. Their packaging and marketing is also untruthful. It claims they last years longer than incadescent bulbs but having tried multiple brands of both types of bulbs I can tell you that flourescent bulbs go out far quicker than incandescent bulbs on top of putting off a horrible light that makes everyone look and feel terrible (they’re flickering super fast and can cause headaches and other health issues, they emit UV rays, they damage paintings, ect.).
Floy Lilley has given a couple really great lectures for the ‘Economics for High School Students’ series on environmentalism in regards to economics, I recommend them both:
http://mises.org/media/4259
http://mises.org/media/2613
What a breath of fresh air this article is…and for another informed take on DDT, I highly recommend the 3 Billion and Counting movie by Dr R Taylor. He shows the agenda behind the banning of this perfectly safe, and very effective chemical – DDT – yes, it is SAFE! The trailer can be seen here: http://www.3billionandcounting.com/trailer.php.
I really liked the article on bed bugs. So refreshing to see someone speak out and not run and hide from the “green” police because they are stating FACTS! Where you say: insects are the only things on this earth that have been more dangerous to human welfare than governments .. I would have to disagree. If it wasn’t for the “i’m from the government and I am here to help” belief that THEY can live our lives .. we wouldn’t have the mess in Africa or bed bugs in the states! Please check out http://www.3billionandcounting.com and your eyes will be opened. If in the L.A. area .. go see the film that opened last night. Dr. Rutledge Taylor spent over 5 years of his life, uncovering the data that DDT is safe! Let’s bring DDT back!
I agree!!! NO NEED FOR BEDBUGS OR MALARIA! The documentary, 3 BILLION AND COUNTING, by Dr. Taylor exposes the myths, lies, coverups surrounding the banning of DDT by the EPA in the 1970s. DDT IS SAFE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND HUMANS! Go see this medical doctor eat DDT on his strawberries. THIS IS A MUST SEE; A REAL EYE-OPENER! The Truth is we need to bring DDT back to eradicate all these bloodsuckers! Go see The Truth for yourself! FREE TICKETS ARE AVAILABLE at FREE TICKETS HOT LINE – 706-263-5372 – for the film showing at Laemmles Sunset 5 Theater, West Hollywood, California – September 24 – 30. For more info see: http://www.3billionandcounting.com
Jeffrey, enjoyed your article tremendously. This “sustainability” philosophy is actually designed to promote the unsustainability of man’s life under the guise of saving the environment. I wrote these following commentaries in some other blogs that are discussing DDT but I’d like to re-post them here as it touches upon this subject.
This is all about a power grab. In the early 60′s a “conspiracy” to take over the United States was hatched up by a group of folks. The term “ecology” was invented in Germany in around 1871 by the german zoologist Ernst Haeckel. This “ecological model” was incorporated by Adolf Hitler,and was quoted in his Mein Kampf. He used this as one of the various means to rise to power and pass environmental laws. This ecological philosophy later transplanted itself to England and later on the United States were it began to permeate the culture. The “beat” generation of the 50′s started with several ” naturist ” from Germany moving to the United States. Their views began to spread and morphed into the ” beatniks ” or hippies in the 60′s. A group of these folks found a cause upon which they could build a scaffolding to rise to power and take over the United States government. The “cause” they used was DDT. Their motto was “assume the government’s function”. They cut their hair became lawyers, scientists and began in unison a paper war to take over the United States. An endless battle of litigation using DDT as the “buggy man” to save the “ecological system” and made up pseudo scientific studies to scare the population. The result was just like in germany during Hitler’s time. They assumed the government’s function and since then have held positions in all of it’s ramifications. The collateral damage of DDT being used as a scapegoat for their power grab has been 3 billion and counting deaths world wide from malaria and a ever growing momentum of social “control” policies subjected upon the american and worlwide populations. Today to further their agenda the new “buggy man” is CARBON. The results of this assault on carbon and the carbon footprint which touches upon every aspect of our lives will be much the same. Millions upon millions of deaths worldwide and a systematic take over of every aspect of our daily living. I for one do not welcome this infringement upon Freedom.
So the main point here is that the Environmental movement in the 60′s as a political force began with DDT being used as a rallying pivotal point. There had to be a compelling argument. Thus the DDT ban fit the bill. It not only provided for the population control maxim. Which is central to this ecological philosophy which revolves around the concept of the “web of life” or inter-connectedness of nature as an ecosystem. The view being that “man” is subservient to nature. This worship of nature as a religion looks upon man as a disturber of the ecological system. So this intruder must be reduced or eliminated in order to save “mother nature”. Thus we have eugenics disguised as population control.
This DDT ban also provided for another facet of the environmental doctrine. This being the protection of wildlife. It is here that the “wildlands” project comes into play. This being that room or space must be made available for the wildland habitat. Again man and industrialism is seen as a disturber of this balance.
Thus DDT was the perfect vehicle to achieve the furtherance of this nature religion into the political realm. By vilifying DDT and banning it politically. It provided for humans and industrialism, which are the major obstacle in the way of mother nature, to be eradicated in mass quantities and displaced from disrupting the wildlands.
There is so much more to this than meets the eye. But for now a good start is this revealing documentary by Dr. Rutledge titled 3 Billion And Counting. I have not seen the film yet but have done lots of digging into this topic. The website http://www.3billionandcounting.com offers a good starting point in the unraveling of the greatest hoax thus far perpetuated against mankind.
I never read Rachael Carson’s SILENT SPRING. Someday I may, but the fact that Al Gore wrote the introduction tells me more about the content’s veracity than could 100 book reviews by the NYT and leading establishment journals. I did read Gore’s EARTH IN THE BALANCE to hear what propaganda the enemies of freedom were spouting. It contains more deceit per page than the THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION, and is the same genre. The only difference is that PROTOCOLS is a none-too subtle attack on Jewry, while Gore’s book is a rather silly but seductive attack on logic and individual liberty. Gore set a record while in the Senate as the biggest spender of OPM (sounds like opium, is equally addicting, stands for Other Peolple’s Money) that body of drunken-sailor spenders may have ever known. Me thinks he would sell or mortgage your children and his own for a buck or a power bar.
interesting family, the holmgrens. gerard, david’s brother died recently after receiving much attention as a no planer. not afraid to think outside the box, apparently.
http://is.gd/gyxAyR
Comments on this entry are closed.