Objectivism And The Environment

Political Philosophy
1

It is understandable why Objectivists would be against legislation that would hinder economic activities (such as the flawed Kyoto protocol) since more often then not, the anti-Greenpeace route is often the most profitable.

However, there are times when consequences of unrestricted industry are damaging to all partied concerned, such as acid rain. Since it is generally more profitable to be a major polluter, as opposed to investing a lot of money into being eco-friendly, to what extent would objectivists be able to tolerate environmental legislation?

Or, if they can not tolerate any environmental legislation, what incentives would they suggest do exist to lessen unecessary environmental damage?

2

None. A system of pure, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism would protect property rights… including the property rights of those who do not want to be polluted upon.

Furthermore, the unregulated economy would produce technological breakthroughs at an unheard-of rate… eliminating much of the necessity to “do something” about pollution.

3

Furthermore, the unregulated economy would produce technological breakthroughs at an unheard-of rate… eliminating much of the necessity to “do something” about pollution.

Although I understand that an unregulated economy would create the greater technological advancement, I am still unsure about how quickly that would realistically happen.

Example, at the moment, even though nuclear energy is cleaner, environment-polluting-coal is cheaper. Rather then sit around and wait for tech advancements to come around to solve the problem (my understanding is that the recent “clean coal” trend is a euphamism) wouldn’t it make more sense simply to to place higher tax on coal plants and less tax (or none at all) on nuclear plants?

I understand that theoretically, all we have to do is wait for a tech to come along that makes clean coal a reality, but since that takes time, wouldn’t it make practical sense to force a change to get an immediate benefit, as opposed to waiting for an unknown ammount of time for an advancement that may not come when it is most needed?

4

I understand that theoretically, all we have to do is wait for a tech to come along that makes clean coal a reality, but since that takes time, wouldn’t it make practical sense to force a change to get an immediate benefit, as opposed to waiting for an unknown ammount of time for an advancement that may not come when it is most needed?

No, that would not make more sense, since a truly unregulated economy would force people to either do what makes the most sense or to go out of business.

It does not make sense to force a change because if it made economic sense to make that change, you would not NEED to force it.

5

That is, of course, speaking in strictly economic terms and ignoring the moral monstrosity of what you propose.

6

However, there are times when consequences of unrestricted industry are damaging to all partied concerned, such as acid rain. Since it is generally more profitable to be a major polluter, as opposed to investing a lot of money into being eco-friendly, to what extent would objectivists be able to tolerate environmental legislation?

I don’t see why there’d be any environmental legislation; in fact, there would be none. So long as the pollution didn’t significantly affect (i.e. as long as the pollution’s affect wasn’t a reasonably measurable health concern) the rights of other individuals, it wouldn’t be a problem.

Example, at the moment, even though nuclear energy is cleaner, environment-polluting-coal is cheaper. Rather then sit around and wait for tech advancements to come around to solve the problem (my understanding is that the recent “clean coal” trend is a euphamism) wouldn’t it make more sense simply to to place higher tax on coal plants and less tax (or none at all) on nuclear plants?

It takes energy to manufacture everything. If we were to only use nuclear energy, it would cost manufactures, as well as those who extract the minerals necessary for production, more money to produce/extract. Therefore, the cost of all commodities would necessarliy rise. This would irrevocably hinder the economy and the life styles of millions of people—so much so that none of the environmentalists would have enough time to protest, since they’d be too busy earning a living.

It makes more sense to me to allow for cheaper production of products at the cost of the “environment,” with a highly probable chance that new energy-efficient technological advances will occur, then it does to implement a new source of energy at the expense of the economy and everything else that follows.

what incentives would they suggest do exist to lessen unecessary environmental damage?

Their own self interest. It would be foolish for a logging company to simply ransack a rainforest (i.e. jungle–if we are to speak non-euphemistically) w/o some sort of “rainforest compensation.” How could the logging company expect to earn $ in the future if it has destroyed its potential earnings? In other words, after cutting down an X amount of trees, it would be in the company’s interest to plant seeds, or do whatever is necessary, in order for newly cut area to flourish.

Same with air pollution (or any other enviro problem). If the air pollution is bad enough to where it is threatening our breathing air, it would be in the producers interest to fix the problem–since its consumers (as well as the consumers) need to breathe in order to consume :blush: .

Also, if we know Company X is unnecessarily polluting the environment, how likely are we to buy their products? Nothing like the beauty of the boycott.

7

It makes more sense to me to allow for cheaper production of products at the cost of the “environment,” with a highly probable chance that new energy-efficient technological advances will occur, then it does to implement a new source of energy at the expense of the economy and everything else that follows.

Thank you, that is what I was trying to express. Better to foster growth and reap the rewards than to force changes that might not even be necessary at the cost of ENSURING that advancement will not occur.

I would also like to add that human civilization cannot be sustained at a fixed point or rate. Growth is a requirement for civilization. The Environmentalist movement’s stated goal is to end growth and freeze civilization at a fixed point. It’s infantile fantasy to think that you can do that without mass slaughter and the unavoidable collapse of civilization.

8

On embracing Objectivism, I find the idea of reconciling environmental “protection” with unbridled capitalism difficult to conceptualize. However, upon more reading I am understanding that it is always important to remember one principle: The value of the environment is only valuable to the degree that it is valuable to man.

Since the ultimate standard of value is life (ie. man’s life - not the public good, not the environment etc…), it is only logical that a healthy environment which is conducive to promoting life, would be of value. The primary is man’s life, and consequence is a healthy environment. Understanding this also requires one to understand the nature of property rights and that private property rights are the only means to allow individuals to hold a stake in the environment (ie. since it becomes their property and it is in their self-interest to maintain it).

I love camping and hiking and observing the tranquility of untouched nature, unscathed by industry, unpolluted by cars etc… But upon thinking beyond the range-of-the-moment (ie. “me here now, lovely trees and singing birds”) while I enjoy nature’s beauty, I realize that I can enjoy nature only because I had a car to drive me to the nature trail (produced by industry), I have warm clothes and a nylon tent (produced by industry), I have a warm house heated by fossil fuels to return to, and the list goes on and on. So, to separate the environment from the needs of man becomes irrational because it requires you to think of nature as having some “intrinsic value” independant of man as the valuer. This is the very essence and mystical quality of the environmentalist movement.

So what about those that really want to preserve portions of nature untouched by man? There’s certainly a lot of people who hold that value. In a free market where all property is privately owned, those people could pool their money together and purchase those lands (ie. such as State and National parks) for that very purpose of leaving it alone.

One more thing. For some empirical evidence of the worst environmental catastophes that have ever occured in human history, observe the environamental record of collectivist states vs. capitalist ones. Soviet Russia anyone? I rest my case.

9

None. A system of pure, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism would protect property rights… including the property rights of those who do not want to be polluted upon.

All people on earth receive negative effects from pollution. Those “who do not want to be polluted on” are presumably all people. And everyone pollutes. Methinks its not that simple.

Furthermore, the unregulated economy would produce technological breakthroughs at an unheard-of rate… eliminating much of the necessity to “do something” about pollution.

Though that may be plausible, its a little bit naive to think that switching to an unregulated economy would result in a colossal shift in environmentally friendly technology. Things would probably get a lot worse before they got better.

10

All people on earth receive negative effects from pollution.  Those “who do not want to be polluted on” are presumably all people.  And everyone pollutes.  Methinks its not that simple.

What’s your definition of pollution? If by saying “everyone pollutes” you include things like exhaling oxygen then I think your definition of pollution may be a little broad. Pollution should only mean substance that can easily and objectively cause negative health effects.

Though that may be plausible, its a little bit naive to think that switching to an unregulated economy would result in a colossal shift in environmentally friendly technology.  Things would probably get a lot worse before they got better.

What proof do you have of this statement? Why would thing get worse in a society that fully respects individual rights before they get better? How does this follow from the premise of a rights protecting society that laissez-faire necassarily entails?

11

Beat me to the punch, there, Rational_One. :lol:

12

None. A system of pure, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism would protect property rights… including the property rights of those who do not want to be polluted upon.

Furthermore, the unregulated economy would produce technological breakthroughs at an unheard-of rate… eliminating much of the necessity to “do something” about pollution.

How would you handle natural resources which are currently publically owned, for instance rivers and parks? Would you just ‘give’ them to the highest bidder (although they arent yours to give), or would they be up for grabs to whoever was able to grab and defend them. Taking a concrete example, I live in London and very much enjoy Hyde Park (it probably occupies a similar place in the city as Central Park does in New York, although I’ve not been there - in any case, it’s a vast ‘publically owned’ park in the centre of London) - what would happen to it under laissez-faire? I would utterly oppose anyone who wished to build a multistorey car park or a McDonalds on the land, simply because it is not theirs to do so and it would not be in my best interests to allow this. The same applies to rivers, and the land which will supposedly be protected from pollution by private interests - how is anyone going to become an owner of it in the first place, and why should anyone recognise the rights of another who claims it as theirs?

You seem to be starting from a point where property and land are already distributed and noone has any complaints, but it’s unclear how we would get there in the first place.

13

How would you handle natural resources which are currently publically owned, for instance rivers and parks?

I’ll answer with a question: how did the private property that exists become owned in the first place?

I know you don’t want a car park in place of “your” Hyde Park, but it isn’t yours. If someone can make more money parking cars than charging admission to the park, then that’s what’s going to happen. Unless YOU want to buy it maybe?

And I say that the gov’t should auction off public property to the highest bidder. How else are they going to pay off the HUGE debts they racked up by being a welfare state? Taxes? (i.e. out of MY pocket?)

Personally, I hate going to the city and having nowhere to park (or paying waaaay too much for it). That’s why I don’t go there if I can help it.

14

How would you handle natural resources which are currently publically owned, for instance rivers and parks? Would you just ‘give’ them to the highest bidder (although they arent yours to give), or would they be up for grabs to whoever was able to grab and defend them

Interesting question. I can’t see a problem with giving the land to the highest bidder…except that implies someone having ownership of that land. However, b/c the “public” owns the land, it only makes sense that the highest bidder would be paying the public.

So pretend the billionaire buys a national park for 500million dollars. That money would be divided back to the public, each man getting his fair share.

Those who owned part of the national park (i.e. the public) must be compensated for their “share” of the park, since their $ helped maintain it and what not.

Other than that, I don’t see any other plausible way–especially in terms of persuading the public to let go of the land. After all, if your taxes are paying for something, which help keep that something running, and then all the sudden someone comes in and buys that something w/o compensating you, and injustice has occurred.

15

I’ll answer with a question: how did the private property that exists become owned in the first place?

Those that were strong killed/enslaved those that there weaker, grabbed what they were able to defend, and managed to hold on to it for many years (although I assume a lot of it did change hands during this period when the original occupants were slaughtered by wandering tribes or other states). After numerous generations passed the original rituals of ‘ownership’ were forgotten or ignored, and those that held the land were deemed to have a legitimate claim to it. Once property ownership had been widely accepted in this way, the modern ‘rights based’ system emerged where people were decreed to own whatever they had at the time of institution, and also whatever they obtained in the future from others through the proper legal channels. And I agree with this, but the question of how property is legitimately acquired in the first place remains problematic. There are exceptional circumstances where someone finds undiscovered land and makes it productive (this is what could happen if we went to Mars), but it isnt what happened in most historical cases and it certainly doesnt apply to privitising parks and rivers.

It’s like a game of pass the parcel - when the music of widespread slaughter stops and ‘rights’ are created, you get to keep whatever is in your hands. But without the music, how do we allocate new presents?

I know you don’t want a car park in place of “your” Hyde Park, but it isn’t yours. If someone can make more money parking cars than charging admission to the park, then that’s what’s going to happen. Unless YOU want to buy it maybe?

Their desire to make money doesnt trump my desire to enjoy the park in circumstances where noone actually owns it. If they already owned the land then they could do what they want with it, but I do not recognise their desire to make money as being a more justified claim than someone else’s desire to sunbathe - in both cases the land is being used for the rational personal interest of the people in question.

Even leaving aside non-commercial interests, how would you decide which corporations should be allowed to build on it? I mean we are talking about several square miles of land in the centre of one of the largest and richest cities in the world - it’s hard to think of land which could be more valuable and potentially profitable. I assume pretty much every corporation in existence would jump at the chance to build something there.

16

So pretend the billionaire buys a national park for 500million dollars.  That money would be divided back to the public, each man getting his fair share.

Those who owned part of the national park (i.e. the public) must be compensated for their “share” of the park, since their $ helped maintain it and what not.

But what if I dont want to sell ‘my’ share?

17

But what if I dont want to sell ‘my’ share?

Hey now, don’t be a party-pooper :frowning:

I’m not sure what would happen–but prior to the selling of the land, the public would have to get a majority vote agreeing that the selling of the land was okay–in which case, even if you didn’t want to sell your share, it wouldn’t matter; it would still be sold and you’d still be compensated in proportion to what you owned.

18

Hey now, don’t be a party-pooper :frowning:

I’m not sure what would happen–but prior to the selling of the land, the public would have to get a majority vote agreeing that the selling of the land was okay–in which case, even if you didn’t want to sell your share, it wouldn’t matter; it would still be sold and you’d still be compensated in proportion to what you owned.

The only way to do it would be to sell to the highest bidder and either pay off government debt or divide the money equally among all citizens. No majority voting to do it: the concept of public property is invalid and should not be allowed to continue to exist.

19

The only way to do it would be to sell to the highest bidder and either pay off government debt or divide the money equally among all citizens. No majority voting to do it: the concept of public property is invalid and should not be allowed to continue to exist.

The point is that you cant sell that which you dont own. Look at it from the point of view of the individual - imagine I have a spot in the park where I go to sunbathe every afternoon. Imagine further that I have been going to this spot for several years. One day I go there and am told by a man that he “now owns” this piece of land (whatever that means), and that I must move. Now, why should I recognise his claim as being more legitimate than mine? The fact that he can produce a piece of paper saying he has bought it from someone who didnt own it in the first place means absolutely nothing. At best you could say that our claims are equally legitimate since the land is unowned, but this implies that if he has the right to force me to move, I have the equal right to firebomb whatever he builds on that spot.

20

The point is that you cant sell that which you dont own. Look at it from the point of view of the individual - imagine I have a spot in the park where I go to sunbathe every afternoon. Imagine further that I have been going to this spot for several years. One day I go there and am told by a man that he “now owns” this piece of land (whatever that means), and that I must move. Now, why should I recognise his claim as being more legitimate than mine? The fact that he can produce a piece of paper saying he has bought it from someone who didnt own it in the first place means absolutely nothing. At best you could say that our claims are equally legitimate since the land is unowned, but this implies that if he has the right to force me to move, I have the equal right to firebomb whatever he builds on that spot.

You only thought you had the right to sunbathe there because the gov’t told you it was “public” property. You were lied to. Go take it up with the government. Like I said, they could distribute the cash equally.