Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Environmental Protection

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:28:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I see that most of my fellow Libertarians are Con Environmental Protection. I am not exactly sure why you guys are against it, as it seems like protecting the environment would fall under the government's role. Can you guys (and gals) enlighten me?
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:58:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The libertarian stance on environmental protection has nothing to do with protecting the environment. Whether they think it needs to be protected or not makes no difference, the libertarian take is that the government shouldn't be doing the protecting.

I'm pretty sure at this point that libertarians believe if we can't sustain a healthy environment without government, we don't deserve to have a healthy environment.

The conservative Republican (non-libertarian) stance is a bit different. They believe that because the US is the wealthiest country in the world, they shouldn't have to do it. They can do whatever they wish, and the other countries will simply have to pick up the slack. And if the environment gets too bad, they can make a fortune selling air-conditioned hazmat suits and oxygen.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 2:17:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The environment isn't something capable of valuation and hence isn't capable of being protected

Private property, OTOH...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 2:17:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hmm, the ... may have left something ambigous. Private property has an OWNER capable of valuation and thus protection.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 5:17:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I left it blank because I wasn't sure what was meant by environmental protection. R_R is right in the sense that one can protect the environment through use of property rights. However, I also believe that things such as air, and large bodies of water can't really fall under the normal sense of property rights and should be regulated.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mafiagame3
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 8:21:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 5:17:19 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I left it blank because I wasn't sure what was meant by environmental protection. R_R is right in the sense that one can protect the environment through use of property rights. However, I also believe that things such as air, and large bodies of water can't really fall under the normal sense of property rights and should be regulated.

Pollution is a negative externality and should be taxed for it's cost on the populous. The tax funds should be used to clean up the pollution that is taxed. This makes pollution unprofitable and allows corporations to develop cleaner ways of doing business if they are profitable to develop.

Therefore in a similar industry the company that produces not only the cheapest good for the best quality but also does it without harming others is rewarded with the largest profit.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 2:58:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The government isn't the problem... The people who are being voted into power are the problem. It seems that everyone has so much hostility and blame towards the government, yet half the country doesn't even vote. The other half are voting in the people that are making are government what it is. If anyone wants to blame and point the finger...they should be pointing he finger at the people who are voting the way they are and at the people who aren't voting at all. People need to start getting involved in politics again. Activism needs to become popular again, as it once was.

It's time to make some changes people.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 3:19:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 2:17:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The environment isn't something capable of valuation and hence isn't capable of being protected

Non-sequitur?
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 3:41:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 3:19:52 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/8/2011 2:17:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The environment isn't something capable of valuation and hence isn't capable of being protected

Non-sequitur?

What premiums do you think Lloyds of London might charge the nation for an insurance policy on say, keeping the environmental quality at a certain level within the U.S. ? I would be willing to accept environmental deregulation if we had a "carbon footprint" tax to cover the amount of those premiums. This strikes me as an equitable measure. If the quality falls below those standards, Lloyds pays out the funds to make repairs and raises the premiums, and we pass that cost on by raising the carbon footprint tax.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 3:50:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 3:41:47 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/8/2011 3:19:52 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/8/2011 2:17:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The environment isn't something capable of valuation and hence isn't capable of being protected

Non-sequitur?

What premiums do you think Lloyds of London might charge the nation for an insurance policy on say, keeping the environmental quality at a certain level within the U.S. ? I would be willing to accept environmental deregulation if we had a "carbon footprint" tax to cover the amount of those premiums. This strikes me as an equitable measure. If the quality falls below those standards, Lloyds pays out the funds to make repairs and raises the premiums, and we pass that cost on by raising the carbon footprint tax.

carbon footprint tax is an utter waste because even if global warming is anthropological, there are geothermal solutions that cost less than a billion dollars to implement.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 3:55:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 3:50:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/8/2011 3:41:47 PM, Just1Voice wrote:
At 9/8/2011 3:19:52 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/8/2011 2:17:01 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The environment isn't something capable of valuation and hence isn't capable of being protected

Non-sequitur?

What premiums do you think Lloyds of London might charge the nation for an insurance policy on say, keeping the environmental quality at a certain level within the U.S. ? I would be willing to accept environmental deregulation if we had a "carbon footprint" tax to cover the amount of those premiums. This strikes me as an equitable measure. If the quality falls below those standards, Lloyds pays out the funds to make repairs and raises the premiums, and we pass that cost on by raising the carbon footprint tax.

carbon footprint tax is an utter waste because even if global warming is anthropological, there are geothermal solutions that cost less than a billion dollars to implement.

In that case, a carbon footprint tax would be very low, wouldn't it? Since we only need to meet the premiums for an insurance policy that will cover those solutions.
LeoL
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 4:22:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not protecting the environment is ignoring future generations.
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -Douglas Adams
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 4:30:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It seems like I will differ from most Libertarians on this, as I believe that large bodies of water and such should be regulated, as those are kind of a ... common good? Not exactly sure there, but it seems about right.