Protecting the Environment Without Protection Rackets
When governments are trusted with the responsibility of protecting the environment, it does not change the nature of government. These protection rackets’ only incentive to protect the environment is to preserve their credibility in order to serve their special interests in more important ways. When they can, they will gladly sacrifice the environment to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Even when their true intent is legitimate conservation, or the people so demand it that they are forced to try, these violent institutions are not very effective.
Governments cannot effectively protect the environment because in order to exist, they have to impose a warped view of property rights. Because governments exist to serve their sponsors and have monopolies on courts, their courts will almost never provide justice to individuals suffering from the effects of pollution. The policies of corporatism remove accountability at every level possible. This is especially true of “government-owned” land that is rented and severely damaged by people who have no legitimate ownership stake in it.
Because we all have the right to claim natural resources as our own by putting them to use, we have the right to claim land that is not being put to use. Governments depend on the ability to arbitrarily claim land and they extend that false right to their favored citizens. It is an essential human right to be able to claim a plot of land to make a home or to be productive. Already, under most governments, this is nearly impossible. Instead, people with money or the right connections are allowed put up fences (real and virtual) around massive plots of land. When people can use the land in accordance with their rights, the true landowners will have an interest in preserving its value. When we demand a proper respect for property rights, and a consistent standard of what constitutes fair use of environmental resources, we will put an end to the squandering and destruction encouraged by government.
The same fundamental principles apply to the preservation of rare species and other natural treasures. Making it illegal to kill endangered species means poachers will only have to get around a government. Giving people an ownership interest in the most valuable of resources, possibly a widely-distributed ownership, means anyone who would violate their property will have to defeat security commensurate with the value of those resources. Governments put corrupt people in charge of managing precious natural resources who will never be as capable of defending them as those who truly value them, and the experts who understand their value. People who have an interest in preserving rare species have an incentive to protect them. Turning to governments to protect endangered species is hoping we can cast a vote and forget about the problem. We are turning our backs on them when we entrust their future to such an ineffective system.
Climate change has become a favorite excuse for governments to tighten control over the energy industry. No matter how big a problem climate change may be, it does not justify more coercive control. Whatever challenges humanity faces, we will address them more effectively by cooperating. Governments are already experimenting with weather modification in ways that are harmful to the environment. Only because it is being pursued by governments is it possible with so little transparency and accountability.
Many environmental issues are large and complicated, so most people are eager to avoid responsibility and trust governments to maintain access to clean food, air, and water. But even the problem of air pollution can be attributed to government subsidization of the oil, gas, and auto industries, especially by paying for the roads. If the cost of pollution and roads were not removed from the price of driving, we would have a natural incentive to develop technologies that avoid those costs, or at least deal with them more efficiently. Governments remove many natural incentives to develop cleaner and more efficient technologies.
A free market system will provide for the optimal usage of natural resources and properly value them, from the least to the most precious. Owners make better guardians than renters and governments rob us all of our chance to take a responsible ownership stake in our planet. Through conscious consumerism, or by the usage of ostracism and boycott when necessary, we can all play a role in setting appropriate standards for the use of natural resources. Regardless of our personal views on what resources are important, turning to coercion to protect them will only serve the needs of government sponsors.
Chapter 7 Section V From FREEDOM! by Adam Kokesh
I am the author of FREEDOM!, a book endorsed (I mean banned) by the US Department of “Justice.” You can get a copy here. I’m running for Not-President in 2020 on the platform of the peaceful, orderly, and responsible dissolution of the United States federal government. You can find out more here. You can find an event near you here. Whoever has the top comment on this post after 24 hours can claim a free signed copy of FREEDOM! by sending me a message with their address.
Our health and the preservation of the environment walk hand in hand. The government has reapetiadly shown they will sell our health out for money. Big pharma is a prime example and the FDA which regulates our food will compromise to save money and poison us to keep customers coming back for medicine. Sad.
We don't need the state to be our nanny! We have to take charge!
Interesting post, @adamkokesh. I have been leaning towards this libertarian approach recently (at least for economics and social issues), but haven't thought about it in regards to environmental protection. I'm not sure if an environmental responsibility mindset would prevail under a completely liberated country though, just looking at the track record of a MORE libertarian country USA and what we have done to the environment vs more socialist European countries and their strong effectiveness in protecting the environment (at least compared to the US). But perhaps if the USA was to completely release governmental control of this issue, things might start to change. Who knows! Nice post.
Bombing other countries isn't really libertarian, and that itself is one form of pollution that the USA does without environmentalists concern, not to mention humanitarians concern.
But you also might look at communist countries which have done massive destruction of the environment such as what the Soviet Union did to the Aral Sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea
Another way states increase pollution is through fiat currency. When they expand their debt and expand the money supply they are destroying peoples wealth, which means they need to work and expend more resources to offset for inflation. For example, look at how much the price of college tuition and real estate have inflated. That means people are in debt much longer, and need to work more hours of their life, expend more resources to overcome these debts. And by increasing taxes to pay down the debt it also means that people have to work (driving cars and moving resources around) and expend resources for a longer portion of their life until they are unable to work anymore and are forced to retire.
Beep!Beep! @shadow3scalpel & listkeeper @chairborne have your six new veterans, retirees and military members on STEEM. We’ll be patrolling by to upvote your posts (because you are on the list) and we'll answer any questions you leave us. Comment by @shadowspub. This is a opt-in bot.
Thank you as always!
Seriously, is @adamkokesh supposed to be a parody of ancap thought or what?
Yeah that's the beauty of free market - it's simple and self regulating, with meritocracy being valued.
As opposed to governments, that's is full of simple minded people, insist on regulating others, and hate meritocracy, as it shows them up to be as crap as they are...
You're most welcome.
Literally none of what you just said is true.
https://steemit.com/blog/@lucylin/does-laughing-at-the-mental-ill-do-any-good-apart-from-being-funny-of-course
The last thing government cares about is the land/environment, if they truely cared they wouldn’t back up fossil fuels, nuclear energy etc... they would back up solar power, environmental safe options for heating, and fuels etc... unfortunately they will never go for environment safe options until it’s to late!!
The US government is the biggest polluter in the world! Expecting them to care for the environment is like asking a lion to care for a gazelle.
You seriously believe abolishing government would make things better?
I do, I wrote a book about and am running for President on that platform. http://thefreedomline.com/freedom/
What a wild idea. Allowing the market to protect the planet by removing it's biggest threat: government.
A system based on infinite growth and the need for jobs will always lead to the environment being viewed as nothing more than an inventory for exploitation
The land does not belong to us. We belong to the land.
SSgt Lamb, USMC (Ret.) (aka Sgt-Dan)