A conservative look at "environmentalism." and a "right" approach to stewardship

[BlackShanglan]

Trust me, fellas. It's so much more fun playing dumb than it is playing smart. See, when I play dumb, people joke and have fun. If I played smart, I'd be engaged in endless, cyclical debates about things in which I'd have no real effect, aside from voicing my insignificant opinions on a erotic fiction message board . I'd rather have fun.

I can, of course, speak only for myself, but my goal has never been to affect the way events unfold in the world at large. I'm interested in learning. Debate can be a good medium for that.

 

[flavortang]

I can, of course, speak only for myself, but my goal has never been to affect the way events unfold in the world at large. I'm interested in learning. Debate can be a good medium for that.

Oh, I didn't mean you, Shang. But there are some that like to debate purely for their own self-satisfaction, by showing everyone how 'infallible and correct' they are. I have no beef with you, obviously.

 

[Lee Chambers]

The truly simple solution to the problems with the environment is this: wipe out the human race.

Short of that, you're not going to fix these problems. At our current rate of expansion, we're continually eating up more and more resources and generating more and more waste. No matter what "solution" we come up with, it's a stop-gap at best.

The real problem is the western lifestyle. True mostly of Americans, but I imagine other western counties and cities suffer this is well, is that our world has become incredibly fast paced. Everything that we have that causes damage to the environment has become a necessity in this world.

We must have cars because not everyone can be lucky enough to have a job two blocks away. We must have fast food because, at least in America, we get about twenty or thirty minutes for lunch and then it's back to the cube (or in my case, the assembly line). We have to have more roads and more houses because we get more and more people moving into cities every year and more and more people on the road. This causes traffic to slow down and causes people to be late for work, which causes them to be fired. So we need more lanes and roads to get to our work places faster.

And the pollution isn't something we need, but we can't avoid it because we have to drive our cars because the places we have to go are spread all across Hell and back.

So , kill the humans to save the world. Other than that, like Graham said...we're fucked.

 

[flavortang]

The truly simple solution to the problems with the environment is this: wipe out the human race.

Short of that, you're not going to fix these problems. At our current rate of expansion, we're continually eating up more and more resources and generating more and more waste. No matter what "solution" we come up with, it's a stop-gap at best.

The real problem is the western lifestyle. True mostly of Americans, but I imagine other western counties and cities suffer this is well, is that our world has become incredibly fast paced. Everything that we have that causes damage to the environment has become a necessity in this world.

We must have cars because not everyone can be lucky enough to have a job two blocks away. We must have fast food because, at least in America, we get about twenty or thirty minutes for lunch and then it's back to the cube (or in my case, the assembly line). We have to have more roads and more houses because we get more and more people moving into cities every year and more and more people on the road. This causes traffic to slow down and causes people to be late for work, which causes them to be fired. So we need more lanes and roads to get to our work places faster.

And the pollution isn't something we need, but we can't avoid it because we have to drive our cars because the places we have to go are spread all across Hell and back.

So , kill the humans to save the world. Other than that, like Graham said...we're fucked.

Frighteningly true.

 

[amicus]

Shanglan: “…*cough* Ahem. I'm trying to take you at your word, Amicus, on the topic of not intending to affect a tone of disdainful superiority, but you don't "always make that an easy task. Might we play a touch more gently with each other? Hold up your end of the bargain, and I will refrain from pointing out how hateful and helpless your name-calling makes you look.”

Let us begin there, as that is where you began. I regret that my ‘tone of disdainful superiority’, offends you; perhaps I can explain. I am not a Christian. I do not ‘turn the other cheek’ to be twice abused. Since day one of this forum, I have been repeatedly slapped in the face for having the audacity to even question the supercilious attitude of left wing liberals and such issues as Abortion, Gay Rights, Global Warming and Environmentalism. I am also a man. Some one slaps my face they get a knuckle sandwich.

I trust you can discern from some of our conversations, that I can be very polite, sensitive and intuitive in terms of judging the quality of my opponent. I also don’t spank children or beat my wives.

As this forum is so very politically and socially one sided, I usually find myself responding to a dozen or more rabid combatants who stoop to any means to deliver their remarks.

***

“Now, I am curious about two things. The first is this:”

Quote:
The absolute and easy answer to environmental degradation by whomever, is simply this: Property rights, clearly defined and protected.



“While I realize that this is followed by this rather uninviting statement -”

Quote:
You have to figure it out, if interested, or pay me for lectures...and I ain't cheap.

***

“Uninviting statement”

Yes you can interpret it that way. However, I am going to paste the tip of the iceberg in what it has taken a lifetime of study and research and I must say that I often feel my labor to explain a position resembles casting pearls before swine.


http://www.geocities.com/historymech/economics.html



Key words: Laissez faire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Comparative economic systems
American School
Collectivism
Communism
Corporatism
Dirigisme
Japanese Economic Miracle
Market socialism
Mixed economy
Planned economy
Socialism
Social Market Economy
Third way

[edit] See also
Look up laissez faire in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Anarcho-capitalism
Capitalism
Planned economy
Classical liberalism
Criticisms of capitalism
Economic Democracy
Economic liberalism
German model
Government ownership
Liberalism
Libertarianism
Manchester capitalism
Market fundamentalism
Objectivist philosophy
Ordoliberalism


http://www.bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/library/economists/timeline.htm

Timeline of Famous Economists

"Below is a timeline of famous economists organised by their date of birth. Beside each of them is a label that classifies them as (Neo-)Classical, Monetarist or Keynesian. Clicking on the label will take you to some more information about that group of economists, and clicking on the economists themselves will take you to some information about the work they did and the policies they recommended."


(Partial list, some omitted some added)

Adam Smith 1723-1790

David Ricardo 1772-1823

Jean-Baptiste Say 1776-1832

Friederich August Von Hayek 1899-1992

Ludwig Von Mises 1881-1973 http://www.mises.org/content/mises.asp

Milton Friedman 1912-2006

Murray N. Rothbard (March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995)


* Hayek is often associated with Monetarists because of the nature of his views on money supply, but he disagreed with Friedman over many aspects of macroeconomics and methodology. We have classified him as a Monetarist here for simplicity.


***

“
- I'm going to ask for more explanation anyway, on the grounds that if you would like us to take an idea seriously and be persuaded by it, Amicus, you might have some stake in explaining enough of it to make it appear plausible. And to be clear, I'm not hostile to this concept, but I have questions about implementation that I think I'd need to see answered in order wholly to understand the proposal and its merits. These are my questions:

(1) Are you suggesting individual private property rights to all tangible real objects and properties, including all land?“

***

Economics is referred to as the ‘dry’ science and I had my fill of formal studies early on. However, as an individuals economic well being plays a key and central part in everyone’s life, I began a different avenue of learning; that of following economist to economist, book to book, reference and follow ups in what seemed like a very long and winding road of theories and models of economic behavior.

I was not a very practical student or man and as Roxanne has pointed out, I am more concerned with the moral and ethical behavior than I am with the ‘practicalities’ and details of the ‘dry science’. I leave that to bean counters and musty old scholars and I reference them whenever necessary.

(1) Are you suggesting individual private property rights to all tangible real objects and properties, including all land?“

Yes, I am. Man has the innate and unalienable ‘right’ to his own life. As a corollary, man has the ‘right’ to acquire and ’own’ the material goods needed to sustain that life, i.e., property.

***

I suggest for those of you who wish to understand the essential necessity of private property individual ownership, that you undertake the same learning process I have done, as I cannot, ‘give’ it to you on a silver spoon. And that, Shanglan is the source of my` ‘uninviting comment’, not in the least a superior attitude, rather a humble one, acknowledging the difficulty of the task.

***

(2) Are you considering a solution that involves joint ownership of some properties or objects? If so, what's wrong with the current approach of the government essentially acting as the de facto representative for the joint owners (all citizens)? If not, how we will handle ownership of things like air and water that move around and are not markable into individual plots?

Government is an abstraction; it simply does not exist in real terms. It is rather a contract, a mutual agreement among individuals to guidelines and rules formulated to benefit those who institute it.

An analogy might be a roadway into and through a given location. The land for that roadway is voluntarily contributed, the construction and maintenance of the roadway is mutually shared and guidelines and rules are created to facilitate use of that roadway.

The function of government is to administer that roadway, enforce the guidelines and rules, but never to ‘own’ the roadway or any other property as that simply is not the function of ‘government’.

That is simplistic, I realize, but as a beginning to understanding the essential moral and ethical role that individuals and governments must adhere to in a free society that functions for mutual benefit.

Laws concerning property ownership and disposition are very complex and complicated and requires formal legal training to comprehend. The Courts also, must acquire an understand of the legislation and eventual laws that pertain.

Some find this area of expertise challenging and fascinating, especially when questions such as eminent domain arise. What legal, moral and ethical course of action is permit to take by ‘force’ the property of another individual? I personally find the procedures of law and administration to be boring as hell, but essential to the well being of all.

I will not address the rest of your post at this time as it basically repeats from other directions your initial questions concerning property ownership, private versus public.

Many who think about such things in great detail, boil the issue down to this: The function of government is limited by Constitutional Law, to providing a military to protect the sovereignty of the people; to establishing a Court system to decide when conflict arises and a police force to protect individual rights and property.

Of course, it has never been that way and is much more complicated than I intimate, but time and space are limited and for those of you who wish to understand there are means by which you can do that.

Amicus

 

[Pure]

ami's pipeline to No-God.

The function of government is to administer that roadway, enforce the guidelines and rules, but never to ‘own’ the roadway or any other property as that simply is not the function of ‘government’.

since the modern age began, governments have owned some roads, and in democratic countries the people agree with that idea.

how exactly did amicus come to know that all these governments abuse their powers?

perhaps this privatization existed in feudal times, occasionally, but not in the heydays of Greece and Rome.

Amicus is a bit like the fellow who goes around saying "rabbits are sacred to the Lord and must never be eaten."

is the teaching from novels?

i don't think Adam Smith or any of the major economist before 1900 thought this way. (or tell me who),

did he sit in an armchair and just reason it out?

====

ANY OTHER PERSON, either socially or intellectually trained or skilled would say,

"You know there's an interesting idea in Ayn Rand; let all roads be privatlely owned. I like the idea because [ the roads would be cleaner].
It's never been tried before in modern times, but what do people think? Is it a good idea, or not? why?"

AMICUS, however, gets papal as simply says "I know that the government should not own roads. I've studied the matter, and that's my conclusion, and if people weren't so left brainwashed they'd see it too."

 

[BlackShanglan]

Let us begin there, as that is where you began. I regret that my ‘tone of disdainful superiority’, offends you; perhaps I can explain. I am not a Christian. I do not ‘turn the other cheek’ to be twice abused. Since day one of this forum, I have been repeatedly slapped in the face for having the audacity to even question the supercilious attitude of left wing liberals and such issues as Abortion, Gay Rights, Global Warming and Environmentalism. I am also a man. Some one slaps my face they get a knuckle sandwich.

I trust you can discern from some of our conversations, that I can be very polite, sensitive and intuitive in terms of judging the quality of my opponent. I also don’t spank children or beat my wives.

As this forum is so very politically and socially one sided, I usually find myself responding to a dozen or more rabid combatants who stoop to any means to deliver their remarks.

I do understand your position, truly. Political fights get ugly, and I didn't mean to imply that you were the only person who joined in that. I was only observing the effects of responding in like. It doesn't stop people who insult you - they just get into it and wallow in it, if that is their nature. And to those who are trying to see your polite and interesting side, it's distracting, sometimes to the point of obscuring the good things that you have to say. I am actually interested in those. So call it selfishness on my part; I like to be able to see them better.

Government is an abstraction; it simply does not exist in real terms. It is rather a contract, a mutual agreement among individuals to guidelines and rules formulated to benefit those who institute it.

An analogy might be a roadway into and through a given location. The land for that roadway is voluntarily contributed, the construction and maintenance of the roadway is mutually shared and guidelines and rules are created to facilitate use of that roadway.

The function of government is to administer that roadway, enforce the guidelines and rules, but never to ‘own’ the roadway or any other property as that simply is not the function of ‘government’.

Yes. I think that we quite agree here and I do understand your example. So that answers one part of my question - whether you think that that is an acceptable role for government.

Now, that leads me to the other side of it, which I'm assuming must be where your objections now lie - how do you think that our current model of government differs from that? I realize that the world of actual accounting and purchasing and legal rights is a morass, and one I'm no more eager than you to tread into. Do hop up on my back and we can skirt it together. However, speaking in more general terms, couldn't we see the way our government now works as a sort of extension of the above model? People pool and donate their property (through taxes) and allow the government to make and administrate the road. The government ultimately holds the deed to the land, perhaps, but then as you say, the government itself is an abstraction. Its "possession" of the land is really only a way of saying that the community now holds the land in common ownership, as everyone contributed together to the road and it would be unreasonable for individuals to start reclaiming 2X2 patches and taking them home.

Do you find that model acceptable? Do you feel that our government / ownership model does work this way in the broad sense? Would you object to eminint domain in all cases, in no cases, or in some cases? I'm curious how you view the intersection of the individual and of a government established by a group of individuals.

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

I do understand your position, truly. Political fights get ugly, and I didn't mean to imply that you were the only person who joined in that. I was only observing the effects of responding in like. It doesn't stop people who insult you - they just get into it and wallow in it, if that is their nature. And to those who are trying to see your polite and interesting side, it's distracting, sometimes to the point of obscuring the good things that you have to say. I am actually interested in those. So call it selfishness on my part; I like to be able to see them better.




Yes. I think that we quite agree here and I do understand your example. So that answers one part of my question - whether you think that that is an acceptable role for government.

Now, that leads me to the other side of it, which I'm assuming must be where your objections now lie - how do you think that our current model of government differs from that? I realize that the world of actual accounting and purchasing and legal rights is a morass, and one I'm no more eager than you to tread into. Do hop up on my back and we can skirt it together. However, speaking in more general terms, couldn't we see the way our government now works as a sort of extension of the above model? People pool and donate their property (through taxes) and allow the government to make and administrate the road. The government ultimately holds the deed to the land, perhaps, but then as you say, the government itself is an abstraction. Its "possession" of the land is really only a way of saying that the community now holds the land in common ownership, as everyone contributed together to the road and it would be unreasonable for individuals to start reclaiming 2X2 patches and taking them home.

Do you find that model acceptable? Do you feel that our government / ownership model does work this way in the broad sense? Would you object to eminint domain in all cases, in no cases, or in some cases? I'm curious how you view the intersection of the individual and of a government established by a group of individuals.

Shanglan

~~~


I read your post a few times and no suitable direction of thought for a reply came forth...so I went on to the rest of the mail and the threads...came back and still found no avenue.

So I took a little stroll into the garden, said hello to my eight foot tall sunflowers and sweet corn plants, all doing well, thank you...noted a few tomato's about ready to harvest, nodded at the Morning Glory's setting out to conquer the entire front garden and stroked the large green pumpkin, now about 18 inches in diameter...imbibed more coffee and tobacco and here I am again...

What I have settled on may not satisfy your question and will surely inflame most on the forum....but for the short term, it will have to suffice.


Choose your own description, but while the theories of Statism, Socialism, Communism, Command Economies, Planned economies, managed or directed economies, all seem very feasible and reasonable on paper and in theory.

It seems such a lovely idea and solution to direct the energies and resources of a people towards suitable ends with maximum efficiency and humanitarian concerns, that it is a wonder everyone doesn't appreciate it.

Everything is alloted so that everyone is employed, all have sufficient housing and food, all are provided medical services and education, cradle to grave security and comfort.

Why does not such a humane concept work?

I have witnessed, in person and through television, examples of automated, mechanized, robotized factories and manufacturing plants and been amazed at the efficiency of the process, often from raw material to finished product without a human hand being raised except to push a button.

I once had a grand idea of an automatic supermarket, where in one simply drove up, or reclined in a lovely atmosphere and spoke the order for the products desired. Machinery gathered the order, packaged it, billed your account and delivered your purchases to you or your vehicle.

How sweet, I thought.

Why has it never materialized?

Because people want a choice. Since women mostly shop, they want a, 'hands on' experience of freely picking and choosing their purchases and because the human experience makes them desire contact with others, gossip, chatter, human contact.

It seems so logical and efficient that if 'government' owned all the means of production, all the resources and directed labor, assets and resources to fulfill the chosen goal or end, that everything would be just peachy.

Why does it not work?

It is, of course, my usual soap box premise of individual human freedom and liberty, the right to choose how one expends his assets and energy.

We have a mixed economy; partly command, regulated, restricted, controlled,but still retaining a degree of free choice.

It is, if I correctly recall my old college days, a Keynesian model, a bastardization of socialism and a free market economy. The theory basically being that a free market should be allowed to function, but government must regulate the money supply and control the overall direction by, 'tinkering' with various aspects of the means of production, labor and capital.

Even that has a 'chilling effect' on entrepreneurship; mixed economies limit the movement of resources by rewarding some and penalizing others according to goals set politically or socially that are not supply and demand responsive and thus not reflective of the desires of the people involved.

In partial answer to your question, when funds acquired by taxation are directed towards unproductive goals or ends, bad money follows bad money and you end up having people dig holes and fill them in again for an income, but producing nothing.

By that I mean to imply that even a little 'tinkering' with an economy always expands and affects a larger and larger percentage of the overall economy; that is just the nature of the beast.

As examples, I note the vast expenditure of tax funds as subsidies to the areas of wind generation and solar generation of electricity. Both insufficient to meet demand and both more expensive that other forms of energy generation, in other words, useless and unwise allocation of capital and resources directed by a government hell bent to be politically correct.

I also point out the same scenario in the Ethanol scam. Huge amounts of tax funds to provide subsidies for a transition to an environmentally acceptable fuel. Resources diverted from food production that has already burdened the least able with higher prices, a high cost of living in all areas.

This in turn, like a pebble in a pond, spreads in all directions without control.

In a free economy if a project or a venture is not efficient, it is discarded before the corporation is bankrupt. When government instigates such programs, success is not a goal and the funds, through taxation, are endless.

It is always amazing to me that people point fingers at the greedy businessman, the terrible corporations, the awful financial world and the terrible people who work for a profit from their endeavors. Then they trust government to make those same decisions with hired workers who have no vested interest, no skills, no expertise in anything but bureaucracy and no concern on success or failure of those programs and ventures.

Every once in a while I like to remind of the definition of, 'bureaucrat' "An official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment."

In your post, boldfaced as above, you asked if it is not the same when 'people pool their efforts..."

The essential defining characteristic in my mind is that they are not permitted to 'choose' how they pool their assets nor the goals and ends they work for.

I find that immoral and unethical.

Sorry for such a ramble and I doubt I really satisfied your questions but it is Wednesday, the middle of the week and I so hate being in the 'middle' of any thing...

chuckles...


amicus...