4 ms·

As a libertarian, you might find it useful to consider some meta evidence. Those supporting global warming and who have been pushing for this are generally pol

by lzw 16y ago

As a libertarian, you might find it useful to consider some meta evidence. Those supporting global warming and who have been pushing for this are generally politicians such as Al Gore and the IPCC. Those opposing it are generally business interests, presumably the oil producers if the pro-AGW people are correct. Businesses make their money by keeping their employees, their customers and their shareholders happy. Looking at the history of pollution from a geographic perspective on a global basis, the worst polluters are generally governments and countries where there is low standard of living or slower economic growth due to un-libertarian political government. Richer, free-er societies tend to have less pollution. Anyway, contrary to businesses government operates by edict and uses force to ensure compliance. Corporations can only plead or incentivize, governments can force. But in order to avoid rebellion, governments must make their subjects believe that they are being force to "do the right thing". In every area of life where there is government you can find propaganda saying that government control is the right thing. The Global Warming movement originated with government, government controls the purse strings and refuses to fund people who find evidence that does not support the political position, and thus this is simply a case of governments doing the propaganda thing to be able to pass laws that give them extraordinary control over their economies. Since reading all the papers is admittedly a non-trivial affair, consider the motives of the groups.

araneae 16y ago
It's true that richer countries tend to have less pollution, but it's false to say it's the result of the free market. The U.S. has strict government-mandated emission controls. I know that in car emissions the U.S. was actually the leader in such controls; the European mini was missing from U.S. streets starting in the mid 1960s because it did not meet the U.S.'s strict standards. Most societies have pretty bad pollution when they are beginning to industrialize, and then become rich enough to afford emissions controls via government regulation. Re: businesses, I do tend to favor free market solutions. But one thing that this does not work well at all for is any time there is a common resource; the atmosphere is such a common resource. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons It's actually rational for any individual or business to exploit it such a common resource. This is why many libertarians advocate private ownership of land instead of government ownership; if people are farming a rented plot of land, they'll gladly strip it of nutrients. If they own that piece of land, they'll be more likely to treat it well so it will continue to support them. As for the motives of the groups, it's obvious that neither group necessarily has our best interest at heart. Businesses are a great boon to society not because they are trying to help society, but because by trying to make money, they produce cheap goods. Governments are ostensibly in the business of trying to help society, but of course they are merely composed of people who want to get paid for doing their job. In the end both are after profit, which is fine. I don't think it necessarily says anything about who is correct about GW though.

by lzw 16y ago

araneae 16y ago

It's true that richer countries tend to have less pollution, but it's false to say it's the result of the free market. The U.S. has strict government-mandated emission controls. I know that in car emissions the U.S. was actually the leader in such controls; the European mini was missing from U.S. streets starting in the mid 1960s because it did not meet the U.S.'s strict standards. Most societies have pretty bad pollution when they are beginning to industrialize, and then become rich enough to afford emissions controls via government regulation. Re: businesses, I do tend to favor free market solutions. But one thing that this does not work well at all for is any time there is a common resource; the atmosphere is such a common resource. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons It's actually rational for any individual or business to exploit it such a common resource. This is why many libertarians advocate private ownership of land instead of government ownership; if people are farming a rented plot of land, they'll gladly strip it of nutrients. If they own that piece of land, they'll be more likely to treat it well so it will continue to support them. As for the motives of the groups, it's obvious that neither group necessarily has our best interest at heart. Businesses are a great boon to society not because they are trying to help society, but because by trying to make money, they produce cheap goods. Governments are ostensibly in the business of trying to help society, but of course they are merely composed of people who want to get paid for doing their job. In the end both are after profit, which is fine. I don't think it necessarily says anything about who is correct about GW though.