Libertarianism has recently been under attack by some environmentalists who smugly claim that it is more important for libertarians to stick to their ideology than to have a reasonable approach to solving the global warming problem. Unfortunately for the critics of libertarianism who make such charges, libertarianism stands unscathed.
There are two main points that are important to remember when defending the philosophy of libertarianism (pure freedom on all counts) against avid environmentalists: (1) the ends do not justify the means, and (2) global warming does not render economic forces inoperable.
These two points remain valid even if global warming is true. There are a plethora of articles circulating the internet that are written by good libertarians, yet the vast majority of those articles attack the merits of global warming itself, assuming it is false. The more challenging task is to assume global warming is true, at least on a moderate scale as most scientists believe, and demonstrate how the free market and libertarian principles still apply. That is exactly what I do here: I assume global warming is true and will cause negative environmental effects in the future.
I will address each point separately.
- The ends do not justify the means.
- Global warming does not render economic forces inoperable.
The charge made against libertarians can be summarized as follows: "The non-aggression principle is fine under ordinary circumstances. However, desperate times call for desperate measures. Libertarians have to abandon their principled stand to save mankind from global climate change."
This charge will also be addressed below under the second point, as well, because it seems to make the false assumption that the negative effects of global climate change happen in one fell swoop. I will leave that aside for now.
The ends justifying the means is an argument touted all the time by advocates of aggressive wars. The general rule that the ends never justify the means is abandoned, because it is seen as an impediment to the end: the war. The fact is that mass murder can never be justified, so the advocates of this point of view are not concerned with means at all. Instead, the righteousness of the end is placed front and center, while the means are marginalized or viewed as unimportant altogether.
This view has been demonstrated many times throughout history: the march toward communism, where millions were slaughtered in the name of bringing about "equality" and the rise of the new socialist man; the placing of Japanese Americans in internment camps; the war against Vietnam to stop the spread of communism and the millions of military and civilian deaths that resulted; and even the current war in Iraq is a prime example. The list could go on and on.
More specifically, the ends do not justify the means because it would require violating individual rights. Should someone aggress against and kill Person A in the name of saving Person B? Should someone rob Person C in order to provide for Person D? No! No, on both counts, because it is obvious that such action would be a violation of the rights of one person for the sake of another. Once the principle of non-aggression is abandoned, there is no logical place for it to stop, and the rights of individuals would be forever lost to the endless ambitions of others.
It is exactly this type of faulty logic that global warming alarmists wish to employ. People today are to be aggressed against in the name of preserving people in the future. The aggression would be levied by government (an institutionalized rights violator) in the form of taxation (legalized theft), restrictions of voluntary trade (coercion), and wealth transfers (stealing from one to give to another) in the form of subsidies to certain types of clean or efficient energy and technology.
So, for point one alone, government coercion in the name of fighting global warming can be rejected.
Instead of initiating aggression and violating the rights of others in the name of saving future people, voluntary interaction among people in the free market should be allowed to adjust to whatever problems global warming may present in the future.
It's important to note that the climate change alarmists present the public with a false choice: either implement massive government control of the economy now or face devastation in the future. Why is this a false choice? Well, even the most outrageous claims about the impact of global warming, projects such changes to take place between the present and 2100. In other words, there isn't going to be a massive tidal wave on day one of year 2100 that sweeps up coast lines around the globe and devours possibly up to two feet. No, in actuality, such changes will take place over almost a century, which can be readily adjusted to by private actors in the free market.
Entrepreneurs in the free market adjust to increased risk in the future all the time. If, for instance, insurance providers for houses on the coast realize that over a period of years certain properties will be in danger of coastal flooding, the policies will not be renewed, which would provide an incentive for people to move slightly farther inland. In fact, demand for lands and housing in the danger or flood zone would fall drastically, which would decrease the value of the property, making such property virtually impossible to sell in the future. So, in the aggregate, there would be a tendency for people to move out of the possible flood regions and into non-flood regions. Again, this would take place over nearly a century.
Farm lands can be adjusted, if need be, over the course of the century as well. Over time, certain lands may become less valuable in their use for farming, while other lands become more valuable for farming. It is the task of entrepreneurs in the market to adjust these scarce factors of production to serve the wants of consumers. Lands that become more useful for farming will be undervalued in proportion to consumer desires, which is where the entrepreneur comes in: the entrepreneur, realizing the discrepancy in value, sees a potential for profit. He enters the market and bids the scarce factors away from their present use and toward their more highly valued use, which in this example would be providing farm land to grow food for consumers. Thus, in the long run, land most valued in its use for farming will be allocated accordingly by entrepreneurs seeking to provide for consumers. And the most amazing thing about this entire process is that no government force or coercion is necessary to accomplish it; it is accomplished entirely on a voluntary basis.
It should also be recognized that there are numerous ways that entrepreneurs can innovate in order to adjust to the changing climate conditions. However, it is certainly possible to conceive of ways, as I have done above, in which the free market would and could remedy problems that might arise at some point in the future.
So, point two further makes the need for government intervention unnecessary. The avid environmentalists lose out on both counts.
The fact is that global warming alarmists – that is, those that advocate using government force to remedy potential problems associated with global warming – look at human beings as pawns that need to be controlled by elites that know better. It is the same mentality that has permeated socialist thought over the centuries; it's merely carrying a new flag.
Why does the public continue to buy into all the hysteria? Perhaps it is because the intellectual elites over the centuries have done well at indoctrinating people to believe that human beings interacting voluntarily can't be trusted. The sad part in it all is that history has been repeating a chilling story, and it is a story no one seems to be listening to. The millions who have died at the hands of those who claimed to know better will continue to plead unheard into the dark recesses of time.
April 28, 2008
