The “extremists” among you openly call for the death of 1 to 6.4 billion human beings. The “moderates” among you openly call for the forced reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 90 percent within a few decades, which would serve to reduce energy use almost to the same extent. Such a severe reduction in energy use follows from the fact that there are no presently existing large-scale viable alternatives to fossil fuels other than atomic power, which is regarded by most members of your movement as a death ray and is opposed more vehemently than fossil fuels. Furthermore, the likelihood of ever finding and developing such alternatives will be greatly reduced by destroying the energy sources we do have and need to increase. So what your movement advocates is mass death or, at the very least, dreadful mass impoverishment whose outcome will be tens or hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths and a life of misery for those who survive.
If your motivation in calling yourself an environmentalist is merely such things as that you like to see flowers bloom on open meadows, and love trees, whales, and polar bears, and the like, then you owe it to yourself to put as much intellectual and moral distance as possible between you and those who advocate mass impoverishment and mass death.
The first step you need to take is to stop using the same word “environmentalist” to describe both them and you. So long as you do use the same word, people cannot help but think of you all in the same terms.
Don’t think you can solve the problem by calling yourself a “free-market environmentalist.” That’s like calling yourself a “free-market Communist” or a “free-market Nazi.” They’re contradictions in terms.
The free market exists to promote prosperity and human life, and that is what it has accomplished, splendidly, with breathtaking brilliance. In the industrialized world, the average person today enjoys a standard of living superior to that of kings and emperors of the past. The whole world’s population is capable of enjoying the same marvelous results, if it adopts economic freedom. But if you call yourself an “environmentalist,” you mark yourself as sharing the goals of mass destruction and death. A socialist dictatorship is the vehicle for achieving those goals, not a free market.
It is true that many American businessmen, some of them extremely talented and successful, now call themselves “environmentalists” and are stumbling over themselves in a race to prove how “green” they are. In the early 1930s, many talented and successful German businessmen did essentially the same thing when they began to call themselves “Nazis” and raced to prove their devotion to National Socialism. It’s possible for people to be geniuses in one area of their lives and fools, or worse, in other areas. In any event, the outcome for the German businessmen, and for all other talented individuals who joined either the Nazis or the Communists, was that they ended up as accomplices of mass murderers. The same will be true in the
If you care about your moral character, don’t place an indelible stain on it by supporting a movement that seeks to destroy Industrial Civilization and all the human lives and human well-being that depend on it. Accept moral responsibility for the ideas you propound and stop standing in the service of mass destruction and death.
Do not come back with the argument that if we uphold individual freedom, our great grandchildren will have to live in an uninhabitable planet, one that is either too hot or too cold. Sooner or later Nature itself will make the climate considerably warmer or considerably colder than it is today (most likely colder). The only significant question is what is the best method of coping with such change? Is it the free market or a centrally planned dictatorship that reaches down into every detail of everyone’s personal life and productive activities, that, indeed, wants to control the carbon content practically of every breath that anyone draws?
Even if you are absolutely convinced that human activities are responsible for global warming and, if nothing is done, will ultimately result in an intolerable rise in temperature, there is a very simple test that you need to apply. Pretend, for just a moment, that that same global warming is coming about independently of human activities, that it is strictly the product of natural forces. Then ask yourself, what would be the best fundamental method of coping with it? Maintaining a free market or establishing a centrally planned socialist system?
More fundamentally, what is the appropriate fundamental method for Man to use in dealing with Nature in general? Is it the motivated and coordinated human intelligence of all individual market participants that is provided by a free market and its price system? Or is it the unmotivated, discoordinated chaos in which one man, the Supreme Dictator, or a handful of men, the Supreme Dictator and his fellow members of the Central Planning Board, claim a monopoly on human intelligence and on the right to make fundamental decisions?
Suppose even that the warming caused by Nature were such that what was required to deal with it was some sort of space program, perhaps emitting thousands of tiny mirrors that would prevent some sunlight from reaching the earth by reflecting it back into space. Suppose further that as a practical matter, given our present state of social organization, the only realistic means of carrying out such a program was through governmental action–a kind of public works project, as it were. In which circumstances, would such a program be more likely to be feasible: in those of the primitive economies characteristic of third world countries or in those of advanced industrial economies? And would they not be more likely to be feasible in an economy substantially more advanced than our own is at present?
The answer to the question of how best to cope with intolerable global warming caused by Nature is obviously the maintenance of the free market, not its replacement by Socialist central planning. Indeed, the answer is to make the free market freer than it now is–as much freer as is humanly possible. This is because while the primary reason for advocating a free market is the greater prosperity and enjoyment it brings to everyone in the course of his normal, everyday life, a major, secondary reason is to have the greatest possible industrial base available for coping with catastrophic events, whether those events be war, plague, meteors from outer space, intolerable global warming, or a new ice age.
In effect, what the environmentalists would have us do as the means of preparing for coping with a coming global warming is analogous to the imaginary absurdity of the United States in the 1930s having reduced its economy to the level, say, of Poland’s economy. Then, when World War II came, our country would have had to fight the war with horses instead of tanks and planes. In the same way, the environmentalists would have us cope with global warming by waving little fans instead of using air conditioners, refrigerators, and freezers.
Now what, if anything, changes if we assume that global warming is an unintended by-product of the human productive activities that make life possible and enjoyable? How does it possibly follow from this that the only means of stopping this much-less-than-certain outcome is by suffering the absolutely certain impoverishment and death that will come from the destruction of most of our present sources of energy?
Is there absolutely no other way to deal with global warming than the destruction of our economic system? Is that how we would deal with it if global warming were the product of Nature, and not the by-product of our activities? Would the environmentalists then ask us to engage in what in the circumstances would be a merely ritual sacrifice incapable of accomplishing anything beyond itself?
If they would not do that, then they would have to look for other alternatives as the means of coping with global warming. Why aren’t they looking for those other alternatives now? Why on earth should the first and only solution for global warming as a by-product of human activity be the scuttling of our energy base? Do we deserve to be exterminated for our unintended by-products? Must we really choose to live in poverty and misery, surrounded by death, in order to avoid excessive heat? Can absolutely no other way be found? (The likely answer is actually no more complicated than having the greater energy base required to build bigger and better air conditioners.)
Do you environmentalists who do not want to think of yourselves as misanthropes, as recycled Communists or Nazis, do you really want to entrust your lives and material well being, and the lives and material well being of everyone who may matter to you, to the power of government officials to tax carbon emissions and to limit the total of such emissions? Are you willing to entrust this power to today’s President (who at least has the good sense not to want it)? Do you want to entrust it to any of the candidates with a realistic chance to succeed him (who do want this power and may even crave it)? Do you want to entrust it to the members of the United States Congress? To the members of the United Nations General Assembly?
Do you want them to decide how much man-made energy is to be available to you in every aspect or your life, by their imposing carbon taxes and carbon caps? These will be taxes and constraints on you that are tantamount to adding extra dead weight to your body and to restricting your power to move your own limbs. And they will go on increasing in severity, to the point that you, or your children or grandchildren, will drop from exhaustion. For the effect of every loss of energy use is a corresponding imposition on the meager power of human muscles and the human frame. And if the impositions cannot be borne, the products that depended on the lost energy use can no longer be produced. If the environmentalist agenda is imposed, the day will come when your descendants, if they have any awareness of it at all, will look back on our time as a mythical Golden Age never to be achieved again.
Is that what you want?
It’s not too late for you to change your mind, abandon any support you may have been giving to environmentalism’s program of impoverishment and death, and come over to the side of the values of human life, wealth, and happiness–the values Mises fought for under the banner of genuine Liberalism.
Copyright © 2008, by
{ 92 comments }
← Previous Comments
Mark Humphrey’s comments illustrate how Dr. Reisman’s prose strikes deep emotional chords with fellow clear-thinkers and infects them with the same sloppy prelidection to avoid rational argument in favor of strawmen.
1. Mark says:
“[T] values that lie at the base of environmentalism … are malignant, because they flow from a misconceived premise: that the peaceful pursuit of one’s properly understood self interest constitutes a crime against other people, and against all of nature.”
How accurate, much less helpful, is this? Mark, Ludwig von Mises made the following observations: “The extreme instance is provided by the case of no-man’s property referred to above. If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is utilized without any regard to the disadvantages resulting.
“It is true that where a considerable part of the costs incurred are external costs from the point of view of the acting individuals or firms, the economic calculation established by them is manifestly defective and their results deceptive. But this is not the outcome of alleged deficiencies inherent in the system of private ownership of the means of production. It is on the contrary a consequence of loopholes left in this system. It could be removed by a reform of the laws concerning liability for damages inflicted and by rescinding the institutional barriers preventing the full operation of private ownership.”
Is Mises expressing malignant values? Or is Mark’s statement a strawman that posits a false premise as to what motivates “enviros” and omits to note that Austrian analysis itself is very sympathetic to their concerns?
2. Mark further broadly posits that (i) some enviros are “vicious”, but the majority who are not vicious (ii) are “ignorant and unquestioning”, (iii) have no clue that free enterprise under capitalism and markets are a key well-spring of social wealth and (iv) are deliberately out to “destroy” these institutions and “then move on to live happy idyllic lives as subsistance farmers and artisans”.
Are these anything more than vague and empty strawmen? Mark, like Dr. Reisman, doesn’t tell us who are the “greens” he is discussing and simply ignores all of the many concerned groups and individuals who certainly do know how markets function and are NOT Luddites – men such as Branson, Soros, the founders of Google and other techno-optimists in Silicon Valley.
3. Like Dr. Reisman, Mark writes paeans to the glorious accomplishments of man, and posits that enviros generally – whoever these people are – view the “pursuit of one’s self-interest is somehow depraved or unnatural”.
While this may be true of some enviros, does this strawman help us to address those who are troubled by the relatively unfettered exploitation of a number of open-access commons or ineffectively owned or defended resources? Shall we ignore what these people think simply because some ignorant people think that man’s pursuit of self-interest is itself wrong? [If so, should we we not also attack all established religions for discouraging narowly self-interested behavior and favoring self-sacrfice on behalf of a wider community?]
4. Mark also relates a couple of ancedotes that he thinks illustrate enviros contempt for individual self-interest. But he fails to note that the disapprobation that certain nature-lovers displayed to him is EXACTLY the type of non-statist behavior that libertarians point to as proof of man’s ability to handle problems of “externalities” INFORMALLY, without using the state. Gene Callahan makes precisely this point his essay “How a Free Society Could Solve Global Warming”:
“Even when economic transactions generate so-called negative externalities (activities that shower harms on third parties), I still contend that the free market is the best institution for identifying and reducing the problems.
“One way negative externalities can be addressed without turning to state coercion is public censure of individuals or groups widely perceived to be flouting core moral principles or trampling the common good, even if their actions are not technically illegal. Large, private companies and prominent, wealthy individuals are generally quite sensitive to public pressure campaigns.
“To cite just one recent, significant example, Temple Grandin, a notable advocate for the humane treatment of livestock, asserts that McDonald’s is the world leader in improving slaughterhouse conditions. While many executives at the fast-food giant genuinely may be concerned with the welfare of cattle, pigs, and chickens, undoubtedly a strong element of self-interest is also at work here, as the company realizes that corporate image affects consumers’ buying decisions.
“But that self-interest does not negate the laudable outcome of the pressure McDonald’s has applied to its suppliers to meet the stringent standards it has set for animal-handling facilities. Similarly, to the degree that the broad public regards manmade global warming as a serious problem, companies will strive to be seen as “good corporate citizens†that are addressing the matter. And this isn’t ivory-tower speculation on my part—I can see the “green friendly†ads already.
“Critics of libertarianism sometimes denigrate it as a political program of “market fundamentalism†that, if put into practice, would reduce all human values to the price they can fetch as mere commodities. But that is a caricature of the social arrangements advocated by any sensible libertarian. The great figures of classical-liberal and libertarian thought have always recognized the vital contributions that nonmarket institutions, such as churches, families, charities, social clubs, communities of scholars and their students, art foundations, conservation groups, neighborhood associations, and youth athletic leagues, make to the healthy functioning of a free society. What libertarians offer as an alternative to statism is not a social order that judges every human interaction solely on a miserly calculation of profit or loss, but a society in which every desirable form of voluntary association is allowed to flourish, free from coercive interference by the state.” http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/19/cool-rationalists-or-conservatives-and-neocons-on-the-environment.aspx.
5. Finally, like Dr. Reisman, Mark offers strawmen of “fervent envornmentalists” who embrace Unreason, based on shared “felt convictions” that “reason can only limit and distort understanding; that ultimate questions are impenetrable to logical inquiry; that whatever one feels deeply is ‘truth’.”
How ironic that those who would clothe themselves in Reason in fact, through rather baldly projecting on others their own “fervent” and shared Manichaean fantasies, display so little Reason themselves!
TT
From Callahan via TT:
“”One way negative externalities can be addressed without turning to state coercion is public censure of individuals or groups widely perceived to be flouting core moral principles or trampling the common good, even if their actions are not technically illegal. Large, private companies and prominent, wealthy individuals are generally quite sensitive to public pressure campaigns.”
That sounds fine… but will it be enough? If you think so, why not take resorting to government action off the table?
Categorizing environmentalists as Nazis, Fascists, Stalinist etc. is counterproductive in terms of conducting a civil exchange of ideas. The real problem is that Nazis, Fascists and Stalinists are exploiting the ignorance of the average environmentalist and turning them into “useful idiots”. I’m sure the average environmentalist, who does not enjoy breathing smog, swimming in sewage contaminated water or eating fish poisoned by mercury, would be horrified to be informed how many MILLIONS of third world babies have died, unneccesarily, from malaria as a result of the environmentalist’s push for a global ban on DDT. I’m sure that Rachel Carson does not think of herself as a Hitler or a Stalin, even though her action was instrumental in causing these deaths.
I think it is more constructive to give people the benefit of the doubt. For instance, to quote Obama -”I want to tax corporations who take jobs offshore and give tax breaks to corporations who keep jobs at home.” If Obama were to learn Austrian Economics, he would accomplish what he desired simply by lowering (or eliminating) corporate tax rates and reducing the cost of complying with government regualtions. The Republic of Ireland has done this in the EEU, much to the disdain of other EEU members.
Huh, G.A.P.? I thought the point of ‘homesteading’ went to the tune of people ‘having the right own to land provided they are doing something productive with it’. That to simply to knock up some sort of border around vacant land and doing nothing other than chase out ‘trespassers’ and never having any intention to do something with the land is being an exclusionist land troll. Likewise what if Sth. American farmers were hoping to clear more of the Amazon so they could create greater food production and help move their people away from poverty towards a modern society with a modern standard of living for their fellow people, yet at the last moment Greenies appear, erect some sort of border and declare the forest is now off limits because they want to protect the trees and critters (most of which are probably disease carrying mosquitos and are a large cause of sickness in the Sth. American community, say)? Is it not fair to say the Greenie are land trolls in the sense they are keeping the land vacant for their personal gratification and have to intention of doing anything with the land? That they are misanthropic because they are excluding farmers from feeding more people and stunting the local economy? That they are condeming people to hunger and sickness because the forests contain dangerous pests whereas farms are relatively safe for people (esp. children) in comparison?
If the Greenies could turn the forest into a profitable tourist destination then things would be different, doubly so if it was a great boon to the local economy and the locals could now see a point to keeping the forest in its pristine condition whereas before it was simply seen as dangerous, vacant overgrowth. What did I miss out on?
Kevin_Carson: If you engaged those who disagree with you, with the same frequency you expect of George_Reisman, you probably:
1) Wouldn’t have written a whole book where you used the term “Misean”.
2) Would have an explanation by now how it’s possible to reject landlordism, yet endorse the use of one’s home as collateral (thus favoring the right of a non-occupier to evict an occupier).
***************************************
Oh, I don’t know.
1) You probably “engage” in more comment threads than almost anyone else here, and yet you’ve repeatedly shown yourself unable (unwilling?) to grasp the simplest point, no matter how many attempts are made to pound it into your head.
2) I could not only have an argument by now, but have repeated it a thousand times, and it would still pass through your head without leaving a trace.
Regarding point 1), I discussed the arguments in the draft value theory chapters of Mutualist Political Economy in an Austrian Economics yahoogroup with several economics professors on it, and developed those arguments in extended debates there. So far as I know the only person to make a big deal out of the missing “es” has been Walter Block, from whose review you no doubt got this second-hand.
Regarding point 2), it’s interesting you want to resurrect that argument. The original is a shining example of your passive-aggressive style of willful obtuseness in these discussions. For anyone masochistic enough to want to revisit it and examine Person’s idea of argumentatio, it can be found “here.”
I have previously specified that even in a usufructory property system in which juries were unwilling to enforce a long-term rental contract as such, they might be willing to evict an occupant from his house for obtaining it fraudulently or under false pretenses, or pursuant to its being pledged as collateral for a mutual bank loan. I discussed those issues “here.”
In my previous exchange with you on the subject, I summed up my frustration in these words:
I’ve made all the substantive arguments about houses as collateral for mutual banking, RIGHT HERE ON THIS THREAD. There is nothing significant on this subject in my debates in the libertarian alliance forum that I haven’t already repeated here.
You’re the one who seems to place such great importance on whether or not I discussed it in the past, and how it affects your tactical position in this argument. You’ve also displayed a fondness for claiming that others who make an assertion have the burden of proof for backing it up. So if you wanna play “gotcha,” and think whether or not I discussed something before is so important, do the digging for yourself. Now you expect me to do your homework for you. I don’t think it’s that important.
I’m making the arguments here and now, and you seem more obsessed with when I first made them than you do with actually addressing their substance. Arguing with you is really *weird*. For you, apparently, anyone you argue with is supposed to make the effort to repeat everything in the context of this aging comment thread, so you don’t have the burden of looking anything up for yourself. You get to make assertions about who said what, and when, and push the work of digging up the evidence on others. At the same time, you get to make statements about what I wrote based entirely on a hostile review, without bothering to read the original material for yourself. In short a debate between you and anyone else requires effort mainly from the other person. Could it be that you’re just *lazy*?
Geoffrey: Thanks for the question. No, I don’t think public pressure and private action will alone be enough – mainly because this a problem that relates to a shared global commons and can’t be resolved purely within the bounds of the US and requires a shared understanding globally.
That said, much can be achieved domestically by freeing up markets and allowing greater competition – by removing subsidies for energy consumption, better enforcing property rights, deregulating energy markets to allow consumers to chose energy providers and to face marginal (as opposed to regulated average) costs, etc. These are the kinds of things that we can all support and should be getting behind, even as we may disagree on other points.
There was a good discussion on these issues by Ronald Bailey (Reason Science Correspondent), Lynne Kiesling (economist, Northwestern University) and Fred L. Smith, Jr. (President of CEI) last October at a Reason event; I just found that the video is now available here: http://reason.tv/video/show/246.html
TT
TLWP Sam:
“What did I miss out on?”
I thought you were criticizing me for saying they couldn’t appropriate the land and that this implied they were land trolls, which I wasn’t arguing. Were you in fact criticizing me for arguing that they can appropriate land in order to keep it in a pristine condition? Why shouldn’t they be able to? I did qualify the claim with the sensible point that they, like anyone, can’t just go running to an huge unowned tract of land, plop down a tent, and proclaim their ownership.
Thanks for the link TT. Would you happen to be able to tell me what Bailey’s views are on cap-and-trade and carbon taxes? I read an article or two a while back that seemed like he was actually in favor of them. Hence, why I called him a statist ‘libertarian’ a while back.
Person, I hope that you will forgive Kevin Carson for engaging with you on items not germane to this thread – stay focussed on the isses at hand. As a carrot, allow me to respond to this, and to invite your reply:
“FWIW, I think the criticism of current energy use based on externalities is weak. Let me explain why. Let’s say you tabulated the total genuine net environmental externality of burning oil. How does that compare to the taxes currently levied by governments? The latter is probably larger, meaning oil users already incorporate the externality into their decision to use, and the only problem is that governments don’t apply the tax monies properly.”
That’s an interesting observation, but not persuasive. Why? For the same reason that gas taxes themselves do not obviate the problem of traffic congestion resulting from the public ownership of roads. Where use of the resource at issue is not itself priced, the incentives to overuse it remain. To the extent that any regulatory approach does not focus on the supposedly undesirable output (CO2, other GHG, soot, etc.) but solely on inputs into an economic activity, it will not have much effect on incentivizing reductions of the undesirable output.
What do you think (and can you ignore Kevin’s provocations)?
Regards,
TT
Geoffrey, Ron Bailey reviewed the carbon tax vs. cap and trade proposals last year and announced his preference for carbon taxes as the least harmful, least susceptible to rent-seeking and most efficacious – and came down on the side of carbon taxes. His discussion is here:
“Carbon Taxes Versus Carbon Markets;
What’s the best way to limit emissions?”http://www.reason.com/news/show/120381.html
I note that Bailey was essentially channelling, but did not link to, Yale’s William Nordhaus, who’s most relevant discussions are here:
“To Tax or Not to Tax: Alternative Approaches to Slowing Global Warming,” http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/nordhaus_carbontax_reep.pdf
“After Kyoto: Alternative Mechanisms to Control Global Warming”, http://www.fpif.org/pdf/papers/0603afterkyoto.pdf
As you may know, Bailey used to staunchly oppose any action on climate change, both out of libertarian principles and his view that the science did not merit any action – aptly captured in the CEI book he edited, called “Global Warming and Other Eco Myths How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death”.
He explained how he changed his mind at these posts: “We’re All Global Warmers Now; Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place”, http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html, “Betting on Climate Change It’s time to put up or shut up”, http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html, “Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled”, http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html, and “Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore; Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming”, http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html.
You might note that Ron has a post up that links favorably to the new carbon proposal by The Prometheus Institute: http://reason.com/blog/show/124813.html.
TT
Araglin,
Is there any way to reduce such features of the natural environment to rightful ownership by persons seeking, for example, to create a wilderness preserve?* If there is not, then there would be no way (consistent with libertarian rights) to prevent the first “Reismanian” to come along with a bulldozer or cement truck from turning this would-be preserve into yet another stripmall.
I think that if a man were to actively husband a wilderness preserve, making physical improvements to the land for the benefit of its plants and wildlife, he would be entitled to claim all of the land he looked after.
And once he acquires title to the parcel and records the deed, he can transfer ownership. The grantee takes in fee simple without the obligation to either occupy or mix his labor with the land.
But from a practical standpoint, environmentalists who eschew coercion need not buy possessory interests in land they wish to protect. The proper thing to do is to form a land trust, then go out and negotiate conservation easements with whoever’s got title to the lands you’re after. So if a fellow owns the only large tract of undeveloped land where hot young Spotted Owls like to party and get knocked up, obviously he’d want to buy all the development rights in perpetuity. But if his concern is for the sex life of some less fussy bird, he might only buy the development rights on farmland, such that the land could always be farmed and occupied, but could never be subdivided and developed for a more intensive use. It’s not cheap, but it’s forever, and you always have the right to make sure the servient tenement isn’t being used in a restricted way. The court will compel compliance.
And there’re loads of tax benefits in it for the grantor. My Gran’s house sits on about 150 acres of mostly undeveloped land–woods, streams, natural springs–it’s beautiful. We all told her none of us wanted the house to ever pass out of the family. Because we didn’t. And yet, if we did end up selling to a developer someday, even split six ways that would be at least …. Well anyway, her lawyer had a chat with her and the next thing we knew they’d snaffled that easement right out from under us and into a land trust. I had a tiny feeling of resentment towards her lawyer until he explained the tax consequences to me: They’re substantial. And now nobody’s cutting down her forests–ever.
“I agree with the free-market approach. However, many economists fail to truly acknowledge that natural resources are not unlimited.”?
What do you mean NOT UNLIMITED???
Do you mean “not unlimited” in the same sense that the milky way is not unlimited?
While what you say may be tautologically true its irrelevant. The real problem is the scarcity of capital goods.
We can gather all the energy in the world but if its a problem its a problem of capital goods alone.
“What a bunch of simple minded reactionary claptrap. I’m not a in position, nor am I inclined to use my time, to write a detailed counter to this. ….. Anti-communism” is alive and well it would seem.”
The commenter, PCLP, seems to think that “anti-communism” is a bad thing. He uses the term “reactionary” which is a particular codeword in the lexicon of communists to refer to the those who defend the old regime they seek to overthrow.
What in the world makes a communist think his opinion about an unabashedly and logically consistent free-market economist like Reisman has any value to anyone on the von Mises corner of the web?
Communists are illiterate when it comes to economics, liars when it comes to history, sociopaths when it comes to ordinary moral decency. They are monsters and apologists for monsters.
So, honestly, PCLP is not in a position to write a rebuttal, because he lacks the moral and mental stature to do so.
I am still amazed that anyone would think anti-Communism was a bad thing. How many millions of people have to die in service to communists ideals before the idea is rejected?
John, it’s hard to see why people could in fact think otherwise.
Is this author’s rants consistent with the philosophy of Mises??
Does Free Market mean everything is fair game for monetization, no matter what the destructive impact?
Is it a credible business model that a Standard Oil be allowed to contaminate a Nigerian delta, once inhabited by thousands of fishing communities, destroy their lively hood and ‘environment’ (there is that dirty word), hire a private Blackwater mercenary army of thugs to impose this, protect their assets and keep the current corrupt government in power while draining an enoumously resource rich land of it’s assets, plunging the entire population in poverty. Is this Free Market? No restraints?
There seems to be a utopian concept that Free Market corrects the dark side of human nature….
to tokyo tom:
george soros may have a great talent for playing the market, but i seriously doubt his economic sense. check out brookesnews.com editorial of july 24, 2007.
“too much competition and too little cooperation threaten democracy†– these are soros’ words. he criticizes markets for “excessive individualismâ€, and ignoring “common interestâ€.
this is what victor niederhoffer, a fellow hedgefunder, said of soros:
“Most of all, George believed even then in a mixed economy, one with a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest.”
his theory of reflexivity is opaque, but seems to draw heavily on keynes’ “animal spirits” – ie speculators’ humours are a danger to the economy, and must be tempered by state intervention.
check out his charities before you dig yourself in too deep. “move-on”, grameen bank etc, gun-control lobby-groups, not to mention his funding of various pro-democrat action groups in the run-up to the 2004 elections.
that’s not to say all of his philanthropic work reflects a statist stance – he funded solidarnosc and supported drug liberalization worldwide. though the latter, along with euthanasia, seems a uniting theme in all major green parties.
I know I said I would bow out and I feel a bit of a fool for bothering to check back here at all. I just had the feeling I’d receive an ‘attack dog’ response from somewhere.
Ok J Wright, I’ll dignify you with a response.
“The commenter, PCLP, seems to think that “anti-communism” is a bad thing. [etc.]”
Anti-anything is, in my opinion, a poor way to formulate or support an alternate ideology. As I had hoped was clear in my subsequent post.
“Reactionary” is a codeword in the lexicon of the English language. There are several online dictionaries that allow participants of this forum to ‘decode’ it at their leisure. Reisman’s argument does little to support the causes of liberalism or progressive change, it simply denigrates the character of “environmentalism” in strokes. Hence I believe it is an appropriate term.
“What in the world makes a communist think [etc.]”
No idea, not being a communist myself. I’m certainly not fond of “crazy solipsism” (thanks Hess) but I absolutely have no time for authoritarian statism of any sort. Which appears to be the only model of communism you seem to, very roughly, comprehend (though comprehension does not, in general, appear to be your forte).
“Communists are illiterate..[etc.]”
I’m afraid you’ve misplaced that unreasoning fanatical hatred. Certainly if it’s specifically aimed at me.
You have no idea who I am or what my moral and mental statures are. You have leapt to an assumption that I am some kind of Stalinist simply because I used the term “Anti-communism” in the pejorative.
“I am still amazed that anyone would think anti-Communism [etc.]”
I’m more amazed that I bothered to type this.
Once again. I was referring to “anti-communism” when used as a propagandist tool (e.g. The Red Scare, McCarthyism) which seeks to provoke support for one ideology by demonising another and creating a disingenuous bi-polar relationship between the two. Much “Anti capitalist” agit-prop is just as guilty of the same, but is not as relevant in critiquing G.R.’s original post.
(I have completely failed to read the “Don’t feed the troll” signs, haven’t I?)
Ping: “There seems to be a utopian concept that Free Market corrects the dark side of human nature….”
Actually, Austrians care very much about the environment. We just think the best way to protect it is via stronger protection for property rights. For example, how is it possible for Standard Oil to pollute Nigerian deltas? Because the government owns the land and those in power don’t care. If the locals owned the land, they wouldn’t allow Standard Oil to pollute their water.
George Reisman wrote:
“If your motivation in calling yourself an environmentalist is merely such things as that you like to see flowers bloom on open meadows, and love trees, whales, and polar bears, and the like, then you owe it to yourself to put as much intellectual and moral distance as possible between you and those who advocate mass impoverishment and mass death.”
Judging by some of the comments here, this paragraph was simply lost on you.
There is no doubt in my mind the the environmentalists are out to destroy us. This is evident merely from their proposals to cut our energy base, which is the base of our industrial production. (It is also evident from the fact that they are running a continuous and, as far as I can see, successful campaign to ridicule every “climate sceptic” and pretend that their agenda is a “settled issue”.) Well, not distancing oneself from such people is certainly a very different thing from just wanting “to see flowers bloom on open meadows”.
We should be grateful that there are a few lonely voices (such as George Reisman’s) to oppose this trend. The only question in my mind is whether there is still time to stop it.
I’m not sure what Ping is reading exactly on Austrian economics. Mises’ own quotations provided by TT demonstrate that he was deeply concerned about the status of common, unowned land.
If Mises was concerned about common lands, did he address the destructive aspects of the industrial revolution and child labor. Please advise.
Yes, strenghtening property rights is a powerful tool but is not effective retroactively in regions where the ‘Standard Oils’ have had their way for so long. They have effectively installed the government that suited their ‘Free Market’ purposes and anyone who got in the way answered to their mercenary security forces.
Also, strenghtened property rights dosn’t protect me from a factory upwind dumping mercury into the air I breath or contaminating the groundwater.
The devastation and toxic production occuring in China’s new embrace of unfettered Free Market is striking.
I don’t understand how these issues are bridged.
“Judging by some of the comments here, this paragraph was simply lost on you.”
Not lost, no. We just don’t think his preferred method of distancing is particularly constructive or strategically advantageous.
Dennis,
The problem with “private property” as one of your alternatives is that there are many alternative variants of it, with different rules for transfer and abandonment; and none of them, neither Lockean nor usufructory, can IMO be self-evidently derived from human self-ownership. All alternative private property systems are attempts to maximize humans’ ownership of their labor-product mixed in with the land, given the unique problems created by the non-portability of land. But none of them is entirely satisfactory, and each of them promotes ownership of the labor-product better in some circumstances, and worse in others, than its rivals.
The socialist movement of the 19th century was a very broad spectrum that included some classical liberals like Hodgskin and Tucker (and the other American individualists), and a wide variety of cooperativist strands as well. Many of them assumed some version of private property (usually usufructory). Tucker’s classical liberal wing identified socialism with the economic power of the working class, specifically labor’s receipt of its full product, and saw the means of accomplishing this as eliminating the state-enforced privileges and monopolies and artificial scarcity-rents that existed under capitalism, and opening up the supply of credit and land to full-blown market competition.
Even Engels, the most vulgar of vulgar Marxists and most statist of state socialists in his time, did not view state ownership and planning *as such* as equivalent to “socialism.” Even for Engels, socialism was primarily defined by the political and economic power of the working class. He saw state control of the economy as something that would be brought about under capitalism, by the capitalists at the helm of the state using state power to promote their own interests. It would become “socialism” only if workers replaced capitalists in control of the state and used state control to socialize profit for workers rather than stabilize it for the capitalists.
Mises took state ownership and planning, as such, as the defining characteristics of socialism.
Dr. Reisman appears to champion the un-hyphenated versions of libertarian and genuine liberalism. There is no need to be a “libertarian environmentalist” – the concern for one’s own property embodied in the word “libertarian” implies a concern for the environment.
Brian: “Dr. Reisman appears to champion the un-hyphenated versions of libertarian and genuine liberalism. There is no need to be a “libertarian environmentalist” – the concern for one’s own property embodied in the word “libertarian” implies a concern for the environment.”
Two points:
1) That “un-hyphenated” approach is inadequate strategically. If we’ve learned anything from the history of liberty, it is that marketing is important and getting and keeping control of popular labels is an important part of that. (Witness the history of the term ‘liberal’.)
2) That “un-hyphenated” approach may allow for the possibility of an environmentalist concern for the environment but it does not emphasize it. It’s perfectly compatible with a libertarian hating pristine nature and preferring the concrete jungle. The whole point of the “hyphenation” is to emphasize something that certain libertarians believe to be of particular importance to them. It distinguishes them from libertarians in general and from that kind of libertarian in particular. I happen to prefer cities myself, particularly for living in, or suburbs near cities rather, but I would like to preserve some pristine and near-pristine tracts of nature for sight-seeing, hunting, etc. Some libertarians couldn’t care less. Hence, the “hyphenation.”
Eliza correctly displays how free markets can handle conservation desires in country that has some respect for private property and rule of law. However, there are obvious and frequently severe difficulties with these approaches outside of the western economies, and with respect to regional or global commons (as noted by Ping and fundamentalist, and implied by Araglin). The challenge is what to do in these cases – other than saying that enviros hate mankind.
Bastiat notes: “Either environmentalism is about coordinating individual human action according to indivudual judgements of value, including judgements about one’s environment; or it is about adding judgements about the alleged “intrinsic value” of the environment. These are two different things, and deserve different terms.”
Really? Why don’t we just apply the Austrian understanding, and recognize that those who speak of “intrinsic value” or “damage to the ecosystem/environment” are, in fact, simply speaking of their own preferences or their suppositions as to the preferences of others?
TT
Geoffrey: You ask of private action on climate change – “How is this consensus and cooperation coming about? Who is engaging in it?”
Do you mean to tell me that while you’ve been so focussed on the statists that you haven’t noticed and private action and non-statist cooperative efforts?
One would think that good Austrians, both those who care about the use of the commons and those who simply want to hold off statist action, would be closely monitoring and loudly trumpeting the growing wave of private and voluntary efforts on climate change.
Ironically, it seems to me that, to the extent that commenters here have noted any private efforts on climate change, it has only been to mock and ridicule them.
newson, my point was not that Soros is a paragon of virtue, but that the stereotype of ignorant or evil enviros simply isn’t helpful.
TT,
You don’t help matters with your own mocking tone. They were simple questions and ones that didn’t call for such a response. And you wonder why I took such a disliking to you during our previous exchanges months ago. Moreover, the questions were clearly in response to your statements referring to negotiations involving, but not limited to, state actors. When state actors are involved at all, the questions I asked become relevant.
Per-Olof notes: “There is no doubt in my mind the the environmentalists are out to destroy us. … We should be grateful that there are a few lonely voices (such as George Reisman’s) to oppose this trend. The only question in my mind is whether there is still time to stop it.”
Those of you who think that the best way to persuade people is sweep them alogether and call them evil, feel free to do so.
But I fail to see how it is remotely accurate or useful – nay, it is even counterproductive.
Manicheaen thinking like yours may be emotionally satisfying, but it renders one singularly incapable not only of raising an effective voice against unwise public policy, but also of seeing and seizing opportunities to move forward Austrian-based proposals that would increase economic freedom and commopns sense – such as decreasing energy-regulations that are a huge block to a more rational energy market and more efficient enerrgy use.
TT
Looking back at the full context from which you rip those questions, TT, your mocking response appears either downright disingenuous or extremely careless and hasty.
I wrote: “How is this consensus and cooperation coming about? Who is engaging in it? See, if it is only elites among various NGOs and states, then no I don’t think real consensus and cooperation is going on because what is being decided for all isn’t even remotely close to being unanimous and voluntary.”
Clearly I was referring to consensus and cooperation involving states and yet somehow you claim my questions were in reference to solely private actors. How strange.
Geoffrey:
You’re right – I’m sorry.
I had mentioned “consensus and cooperation” both in the context of international negotiations and purely private actions. I see that you are inquiring only about the international level. Accordingly, I see that I didn’t really respond to your question and that my rhetorical question to you about private actions was out of place. (However, I stand by the last three paragraphs as observations to the board generally.)
The comment you wished me to address was “See, if it is only elites among various NGOs and states, then no I don’t think real consensus and cooperation is going on because what is being decided for all isn’t even remotely close to being unanimous and voluntary.”
Allow me to share your concerns without agreeing with your conclusion. First, what has been agreed to date? Non-binding agreements by all signatories to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (including the US) to start monitoring and reporting GHG emissions and other activities that may nudge the climate, to cooperate in more intensively studying the climate, and for certain Kyoto Protocol signers, un unenforceable agreement to implement measures to reduce GHG emissions. In this case, your objection seems to be solely that our governments should not pencil such treaties at all, and they are not “voluntary” even if ratified by Congress, as they represent acts of state.
Perhaps, and probably even more so for discussions for alternative arrangements and follow-on agreements. But these discussions are not closed, and are closely followed by interested persons, many of whom contribute vitally in any manner of ways.
Yes, the agreements resulting are signed by states, which do not perfectly represent the varied and conflicting interests of their citizens. But there are many states involved, and their discussions are very similar to the types of discussions between other users – with differing interests – of common resources.
TT
to tokyo tom:
Hannah Arendt in her book – Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil – has this to say about adolf eichmann:
“Despite all the efforts of the prosecution, everybody could see that this man was not a ‘monster,’ but it was difficult indeed not to suspect that he was a clown”
“evil” i would only use with extreme parsimony, but the above extract shows how seemingly ordinary people can participate in extraordinary acts of evil when the system is itself morally bankrupt.
and no, i don’t consider soros evil, but i do consider his economics clownish, and his vast wealth gives him a credibility that he doesn’t deserve.neither mises nor hayek ever made a fortune, however brilliant their insights on philosophy and economics.
“Not lost, no. We just don’t think his [Reisman's] preferred method of distancing is particularly constructive or strategically advantageous.”
And:
“Those of you who think that the best way to persuade people is sweep them alogether and call them evil, feel free to do so.
But I fail to see how it is remotely accurate or useful – nay, it is even counterproductive. ”
If the point those gentlemen are trying to make is that there are environmentalists who embrace environmentalism “in good faith” (i.e. not realizing what they are actually advocating), then I believe this is true.
But I think this makes it even more imperative to point out the actual *nature* of environmentalism. (If one is to mend one’s evil ways, one first has to see that they are evil, right? One won’t mend them as long as one thinks they are good.)
Since George Reisman does just this in his latest post, I think there is no need for me to belabor the point.
Prof Reisman writes,
“Free market environmentalism” is not a contradiction in terms. Environmentalism can (and I would argue only can) be achieved through the free market.
Why should we give up the term “environmentalist”? Shouldn’t we force them to give it up?
This has been our mistake for too long. We run away from words. We ran away from “liberal,” when we should have fought to keep it.
Prof. Reisman writes,
No, I don’t. Why shouldn’t we call those who want mass destruction and death anti-humanists, as they are?
Mr. Carson:
I see the immobility of land as a meaningless distinction. If I buy a cell phone and an acre of land both in the same year, and plan not to begin using either until eighty years later, it would surely be strange to see that one has been usurped and the other not. If it is just for one to usurp land that hasn’t been used in fifty years, why not cell phones that have not been used for fifty years? And if it is unjust to usurp an unused-yet-owned cell phone, why wouldn’t it be unjust to usurp unused-yet-owned land? Either way, if I’ve invested my money in these things, I should be secure in them. And should I die, both should re-enter the state of nature (assuming I have written no will), where they can be homesteaded by whomever wants to homestead them.
(Note: I’m not trying to imply that you hold usufruct or Georgist views–I really don’t know where you stand on the question. I’m just pointing out that immobility is an arbitrarty distinction, in my opinion.)
It seems to me that the argument that nothing, outside of one’s own body/mind, can be owned–than to say that ownership is a temporary property. But if it is a temporary property, for what length of time does the ownership last, and how is said length of time to be determined any more arbitrarily than the state determines age of consent? Thus, it seems to me that our alternatives are limited to total propertarianism and total anti-propertarianism.
Can anything, Mr. Carson, “be self-evidently derived from human self-ownership”? I think you agree with me that it can, and that leaves us with the propertarian approach, with the Rothbardian conception of the homesteading principle. In other words, if land can’t “be self-evidently derived from human self-ownership,” than neither can cell phones or any other possession (save for, of course, one’s own body); but that would leave us with with communism and without a free-market–certainly not the mutualism you desire.
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
Per-Olof Samuelsson writes: “If the point those gentlemen are trying to make is that there are environmentalists who embrace environmentalism “in good faith” (i.e. not realizing what they are actually advocating), then I believe this is true.”
You missed the point. We do not embrace Professor Reisman’s abritrary definition “in good faith.” We do not embrace his arbitrary definition in bad faith either. We simply don’t embrace his arbitrary definition period. This much, at least, should have been clear from the beginning.
“But of course any significant reduction in energy consumption would impose crippling poverty. After all, we all know that energy inputs per unit of economic output are necessarily a constant–or at least it’s the underlying assumption of everything Reisman writes, although he’s never actually substantiated it.”
It will impose crippling poverty Kevin. It will impose crippling poverty particularly for many who would have climbed out of poverty in the contrary scenario of having expanding energy production.
The economy progresses typically via a lengthening of the structure of production. Hence in the first instance we might expect energy consumption to outpace the growth in consumer goods consumption just as the growth in GDR outstrips the growth in GDP.
Now it might be the case that energy efficiency improvements can be happening as well as all this. But we ought to see that as sort of “after the fact.” And any reduction in the ability to expand energy production will therefore sit on our ability to expand wealth like a piano sitting on your back.
I don’t think any of us need worry about some sort of lack of incentives of business to improve energy efficiency. Its whether they have the resources to do so that I’d worry about. The environmentalists have manoeuvred us all into a growing crisis. Some of you may think that the idea of “peak oil” is pure crankery. But the environmentalists, repulsive people that they are, have dropped us into a situation that will make this predictive model painfully relevant.
Substitution away from the primary energy source is a slow process. And the environmentalist movement has been hampering this process for three or four decades now. Not only that, they are getting in the way of all sorts of oil drilling. We have a serious crisis ahead of us. Because there’s a considerable time-lag between getting approval for energy production undertakings and when it is that these projects get off the ground. It may be all indirect, but these environmentalists are setting things up to be killing people by the bushel. Denying the environment the extra CO2 is surely a bad enough put-upon.
Per-Olof:
“Those of you who think that the best way to persuade people is sweep them alogether and call them evil, feel free to do so.
But I fail to see how it is remotely accurate or useful – nay, it is even counterproductive. ”
In response, you say that “there are environmentalists who embrace environmentalism “in good faith” (i.e. not realizing what they are actually advocating)”, but that “this makes it even more imperative to point out the actual *nature* of environmentalism. (If one is to mend one’s evil ways, one first has to see that they are evil, right? One won’t mend them as long as one thinks they are good.)”
P-O, may I suggest that perhaps those who are truly evil are those who should know better but, rather than focussing on the many and obvious resource problems (conflicts between the preferences of different users) that arise axiomatically when resources are not clearly owned, managed or enforced, or are “public” and rife with rent-seeking, prefer – in lieu of any heavy lifting or good faith engagement – the lazy and emotionally satisfying retreat of hand-wringing over the evil nature and unfairness of those who have different preferences (and every right to have concerns and to express them)?
In other words, some of you had better start looking in the mirror.
As I’ve noted before, hostility won’t solve any problems, and Dr. Reisman and others have not even begun to build a case for hostility, which would entail – at the least – establishing that if all evil enviros could be pesuaded or compelled to hold their breath more or less permanently (as suggestion that has been made any number of times here at LvMI), that there would be, ipso facto, no further resource issues to resolve.
That those who most rant and blow about enviros here make no attempt to demonstrate how what they most desire would be the least bit efficacious betrays that, fundamentally, the seriousness they profess is empty, and they are not exercising their reason but venting their emotions.
The emotion they express may be sincere, but it is certainly not mature.
TT
FWIW, here is an example of what I consider to be honest and constructive engagement on environmental issues:
Steven F. Hayward, Is “Conservative Environmentalist” an Oxymoron? How to End Environmental Policy Gridlock, August 2, 2005,
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.22934/pub_detail.asp
Goddamn Kevin_Carson is funny when pissed. I think he’d be a lot less funny and a lot more helpful if he ever figured out how he can oppose landlordism while accepting the validity of putting up a possession as collateral, instead of referring to copious amounts of things he’s written that er, may or may not solve the problem, which just so happens to undermine the basis of pretty much everything he’s argued. But yes, let’s stay on topic.
TokyoTom: Road congestion is not an externality of oil: it is an externality of *road usage*. If I use a solar-powered car, I can cause congestion just the same. If I run my Hummer full throttle on a private race track, I cause zero congestion. The externalities of oil usage are *already felt* by consumers through taxes; it’s just that the taxes are not actually applied to the victims or to canceling the damage. Yes, let’s charge for congestion; but it’s separate from oil. I have gone on record favoring congestion charges high enough to make traffic flow smoothly, which would lead people to more efficient organization now that they can put a price on their use of the road.
So, I take it you agree people sufficiently incorporate externalities of oil usage.
Now, as a libertarian, I will absolutely agree with you: oil usage causes negative externalities. So, let’s do an honest accounting of those externalities *including subtracting off the positive externalities like my brother not dying because of plastics in the hospital*, tag it on as a “tax” (actually, tort compensation fee), and then apply the revenues to the most efficient way the market can find to undo these damages.
And then, we’ll phase out all illegitimate government activities.
And finally, if consumers see that price of oil, with that tax, and smirk at how trivial it is, WE MUST ACCEPT THAT. The externality is canceled; there is no longer reason to oppose it.
The problem is, for most self-labeled environmentalists, that was NEVER the goal. The goal is not to cancel the oil externality. The goal is to control people’s lives. They simply don’t like SUVs. They want to be the high priests that calculate your carbon footprint and tell you what kinds of products you must use to minimize it, instead of letting the market, *given the externality tax*, treat those environmental damages as economic inefficiency and thereby guide people to the right behavior, which simultaneously really does fix the damage. The fact that unilaterally reducing your oil usage simply allows others to use more, does not bother them at all.
I will absolutely agree with environmentalists: REAL environmentalists, that actually want to protect the environment and have a clue about economics.
Basically wanna input which you have a quite good internet site , I enjoy the pattern it genuinely stands out.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.