I really hope somebody will come with a good libertarian theory of conservation of natural resources based on private property.

Thanks for visiting. I’m sorry I didn’t note this post and your questions/comments earlier. Believe it or not there IS a well-developed body of libertarian/free-market literature on environmental issues; perhaps you’ll find that the following links to resources I have assembled and my own commentary scratch the surface a bit:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/11/cordato-humans-cannot-harm-the-environment.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/pages/environmental-markets-links-to-austrians.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/10/15/elinor-ostrom-austrian-praise-for-the-nobel-laureate-and-a-reprise-of-my-posts-on-her-thoughts-on-how-human-communities-successly-manage-commons.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/10/16/positive-sum-games-get-yer-elinor-ostrom-here-a-reprise-of-tokyotom-posts-on-rolling-up-our-sleeves-to-address-real-problems-that-at-present-quot-markets-quot-aggravate.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/20/bruce-yandle-on-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-the-evolution-of-cooperation-and-property.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/06/18/a-handy-list-of-tt-posts-on-bp-the-tragedy-of-the-government-owned-commons-corporations-and-oil-serfdom.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/09/27/too-many-or-too-few-people-does-the-market-provide-an-answer.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=amazon

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=avatar

By the way, I must praise this post by Dr. Reisman; despite the glaring flaws in his thinking, he’s he’s still come a long way towards productive discourse:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=Reisman

Sincerely,

TT

Best regards,
Elildo

Either the natural environment has intrinsic value or it does not. If you accept that it does, then the next question is whether you set that standard above that of Man’s life (Man’s well-being). As a matter of consistency you are likely to (indeed it appears that you already have). This approach is opposed by Prof Reisman for obvious reasons.

Lemmywink’s example does not demonstrate what you assert. That the arrangement of matter arising as a result of someone’s action can harm to others is entirely solvable by the proper and consistent application of property rights. In Lemmywink’s example the context is that of tragedy of the commons (where the commons are unowned) or a govt grant of special priviledge for some to violate the property rights of others. His example is an illustration of the absence of properly construed individual rights including the property right.

Returing to the issue at the heart of the enquiry- is the standard to apply that of Man’s value or is it environmentalism (as in the well-promoted ideology)? Dealing with the examples you cite, is the arrangement of matter in each case an advancement in well-being? Or is it a deteriortion? Who decides? The environment? The point is that it is Man who is the sole source of value. The environment is mute. It does not think, it does not evaluate and it does not act (in the sense of a rational, self-directed entity). It is Man who does that.

That final sentance of the quote you posted is the strongest part of the entire essay. It encapsulates the exact philosophic choice that must be made. If Man sets value and if it is his life that is the standard, then the environment is his to alter to his purposes and as he sees fit to suit his values.

On the other hand, if the environment has intrinsic value, if it is the source of and standard of value, then necessarily Man is out. For consistency it is not then possible to consider Man’s welfare as the standard. It is always available to be trumped. It is the environment that has intrinsic value and hence it must be protected from that which would alter it. That is, from Man. Man’s interests, life and values are therefore superceded by the existence of an argument of appeal to environment (whatever “environment” may happen to be at a particular instant).

Sione

Insofar as the essential nature of production and economic activity is to improve the relationship between the chemical elements constituting the earth and man’s life and well-being, it is also necessarily to improve man’s environment, which is nothing other than those very same chemical elements and their associated energy forces. The notion that production and economic activity are harmful to the environment rests on the abandonment of man and his life as the source of value in the world, and its replacement by a nonhuman standard of value — i.e., the belief that nature is intrinsically valuable.

That final sentence is surely nonsense, as Lemmywinks’ example of the mercury-polluted river shows. The notion that SOME production and economic activity are harmful to the environment rests on objective fact. Those who disagree should try arguing their case with Minamata victims, or those Iraqis giving birth to deformed children probably caused by depleted uranium.
And as Lemmywinks pointed out, the environmental movement at least in its early years rested on valuing human life.

This begs the question of why the fencing of land does not establish ownership, why it does not qualify as “use”. In some of your examples, it does not seem that you reject this possibility (namely, of fencing establishing ownership rights, you simply qualify certain size and time limitations on what you deem to be non-use). I’m not going to get into a hair-splitting match over what constitutes use.

“Fencing alone cannot be the basis of land ownership.”

Why not, exactly?

If I am able to successfully encircle previously unowned land, why does this not establish a right on my part to exclude subsequent entrants? No encirclement and subsequent occupation and use touches *all* of the land, yet you don’t seem to doubt that this residual is owned by the original encircler. Encirclement does establish an objective boundary that latecomers must cross in some way to access the land within. This objective boundary can indeed serve as basis for separating mine from yours, ie, a basis for property rights.

I think that it is a good idea to give this third form we belong to a new name. You have dead matter belonging to the exosphere. These can be called matter forms. You have beings belonging to the biosphere. These can be called life forms. And then there is us, who belong to the noösphere. I suggest the name noös – forms.

If beings from another solar system and planets are developed further both in technology and economy, they are also noös – forms.

When I was about 16, I read a book that showed an encounter between one human and an alien culture. It has had a profound influence on me, because, although it describes a kind of Utopian, and never realizable Super-Socialism, it gave one of the clearest examples of a culture that is so much different from that of ours, that it made me question anything and everything about our own culture. Especially, because the description of that culture was so very, very detailed.

After having read that book, there was nothing about our own society I took for granted.

When I was young, I believed that the writer actually had had that encounter he describes in that book. But when I became older, I began to see more and more that such an Utopian socialism as described in the book could never exist, and therefore the whole story had to be fabricated.

Nevertheless, the book was the beginning of all of my thinking about technology, economy, and even mental development. This, because it described a culture that was supposed to be 1000 years further advanced than us, technologically, economically, and mental. Therefore it made me study science and technology, economics, and mental processes. I am very interested in meditation, for example, and every effect it can bring about. Also I am very interested in science, and especially interested in how economy can be made into a science. That is what my own book is about.

Recently I found, that a translation of the entire book can be found on the web.

If you are interested, this is the link that contains a translation of the book.

http://www.galactic.no/rune/iarga.html

In your previous example, you note that the untouched tree is still being used by the person who fenced off the land on which it resides, eg for shade, etc. In what way do I not similarly “use” (in quotes since there’s clearly a subjective sense here) the fenced-off 100 acres? After all, I now enjoy it’s pristine state safe in the knowledge that I prevent others from despoiling it (and can offer like-minded outdoorsmen the same opportunity). Please explain.

From above: “Boy, I really wanna be a libertarian.”

I gather certain aspects of the existing libertarian concept of property give you pause in becoming one. Yet you still consider the option.

“I really hope somebody will come with a good libertarian theory of conservation of natural resources based on private property.”

It’s already in there, respect for individual rights and non aggression. There is confusion and conflict concerning the integration of the concepts of ownership of property and individual rights. You may witness this in any of the discussions concerning intellectual property that occur with regularity on this site. Progress will be made, and you may be the one to make it.

Cordially,
Don

“I do not simply valuing a certain arrangement of chemicals. I´m saying that there is a balance in nature that must be properly considered by any theory. By technical standards.”

This is a indeed subjective valuation. You value certain ideals. You value, accept and employ particular standards.

Whose “technical standards” do you employ? Why so? Why not some other ones? Is someone who has different values from you necessarily wrong? Is it permissable to impose force, frauds or coercion upon him solely because he prefers to, say, mine his own land rather than preserve it in exactly the original state it once was?

“There are limits to growth. The earth is not infinite. The author gave the impression that, as the earth is a bunch of chemical elements, and as we only scratched its surface, we have no limits. This is false.”

Actually Prof Reisman is correct. As he demonstrates the Earth is so massive in comparison to the present activities of Man that it imposes no resource limits or, at least, none in the real sense that resources are going to “run out.” What limitations that do exist are down to Man’s knowledge, his ability to employ the knowledge he has in his possession, his ability to discover new knowledge (wrest it from reality), his subjective values (what people individually want) and the application on an individual basis of the real disciplines of production (focus, work, expenditure of effort, investment, striving for excellence, identification of tasks, performance of tasks, postponement of pleasure etc.).

What he is pointing out is that the “environmental” politics of “we gotta do something about the resources running out” is corrupt and wrong. That goes for “biosphere” just as surely as any other component or system of resource superset Earth. Take note that he is not saying that one can behave in a destructive manner without concern for consequences. Indeed it is his contention that one must bear the long term consequences for one’s actions in mind when deciding on a course of action. He has written a text “Capitalism” which explains the situation in some detail. Worth the investment of purchasing.

–

As I recall there was a Mises daily essay about water ownership rights some while ago (actually there have been several). I can’t recall the name of the author. If you are seriously intersted in the issue then you can search the site for relevant essays on that topic. As a start you could try the search term “water rights”. There are other terms you could try as well. Have at it and have fun! Suffice to say this issue is not much of a problem for libertarianism. There are plenty of mechanisms available to deal with it given a free society operating within a free market.

Finally, this brings us to one of the most valuable aspects of this site. The Von Mises Institute provides many of the important works of libertarianism right here. Among their number may be found the great works of Mises (including Human Action) and Rothbard and so on. It is all free. That is there is no charge to gain access to this vast resource of knowledge. All you need to is download it and study it. How good is that!

If anyone is interested in a particular issue and how it is addressed in a libertarian system, then all one has to do is learn libertarianism and apply it consistently! My recommendation would be to start by studying the basis for libertarianism in the main texts and then progress from there into specific areas of enquiry. That way the main principles can be understood first and then applied to specific context.

Cheers

Sione

“A fence is an obstacle, there is no right in an area of unowned land to simply place obstacles in the way of other free people. They have every right to knock the obstacle down and go on their way. ”

OK, so if you have some trees in your yard that are very old, they have never been altered by human activity, you’re saying these aren’t really your trees, they’re unowned? I can jump over your fence and establish residency in them? Or I can use a crane from my neighboring property to pluck them from the ground? I doubt you believe this. Surely you can’t mean that every square inch of land must be “used” for it to be part of one’s property.

I agree with you that I used the term “biological productivity” in a vague sense, and also that man must act upon nature in order to survive. But the point is that biological productivity is not an abstraction. I was thinking about primary production, the fixing of solar energy by the plants and the subsequent transference of this primary productivity into the food chain. Of course, we can manipulate biological productivity within certain limits and even increase it for our wellbeing (e.g. by agriculture, farming, etc). But we also may ruin it.

This is not a subjective valuation. It is a fact. We may increase soil erosion. We may silt rivers and even induce floods and droughts. Blame the government if you like.

I do not simply valuing a certain arrangement of chemicals. I´m saying that there is a balance in nature that must be properly considered by any theory. By technical standards.

There are limits to growth. The earth is not infinite. The author gave the impression that, as the earth is a bunch of chemical elements, and as we only scratched its surface, we have no limits. This is false.

So we have this problem, and I´m not defending here government intervention or other collectivist solution to this problem. I´m just saying that libertarian reasoning is still quite weak in this regard. Lemmywinks gave a good example based on water basins. I really hope somebody will come with a good libertarian theory of conservation of natural resources based on private property.

Elildo

Can we all please stop insulting each other for a second and actually look at the argument being made?

I find the responses he received to be totally inadequate. He didn’t get a straight answer. And that leaves the reader with the impression that those answering him don’t really know the answer.
Simply mentioning that most libertarians have abandoned “mixing labor” explanations of homesteading for something else without saying what that “something else” is, is kind of silly.

And I don’t think the issue is as cut and dried as people here have made it out to be.

Let’s say you have abandoned the “mixing labor” explanation of homesteading in favour of something like Kinsella’s “objective link” explanation.
You still need to show how it’s possible for an individual to demonstrate an “objective link” to unaltered land. If the land has not been interfered with by any human ever, then how can anybody make a justified claim to it?