The fundamental ideal of libertarianism is: "All individuals are right to follow their own dreams in their own ways, so long as, in doing so they don't infringe on the rights of others".  This can be distilled further. Individuals by definition are distinct in their society, with their own goals, desires, wants and are set apart from others when expressing their goals, desires and wants. It follows that, if you are an individual, you already are pursuing your own dreams in your own ways.

"Individuals are".

I've missed the last part of the sentence, though. "so long as ... they don't infringe on the rights of others". This can be summed up in 4 words. "No unwanted side effects."

So it becomes: "All individuals are, with no unwanted side effects"

I've distilled my view of what libertarianism is. I also have to add one more thing. Not only are individuals not supposed to infringe the rights of others, they shouldn't infringe the rights of individuals that have yet to be. i.e Our future offspring.

A recent topic on the environment is "Global Warming". Whilst some of the claims of CO2 emissions causing doomsday scenarios appears to us as exaggerated, the claim that "Increase in CO2 levels is caused by human kind" cannot be denied. Nonetheless, many of us suspect the government for using it as an excuse to increase its size. That could be true but think about this:

Let's say CO2 DOESN'T cause global warming (This is what some, but not me, believe in, but let's say its true). That means CO2 at 1000 parts per million would suddenly become acceptable. What would we do given this prospect?

"Use it up", of course. And in a century's time, we'll find ourselves with CO2 at 10000 parts per million. (The economy grows exponentially.)

10000 parts per million is 1%. Given the history of politics, I don't believe at that point we'll be able to stop ourselves from moving to 2%, and then 4%, and up.

If it costs us trillions of dollars a year to stop emitting CO2 when we're at 0.03%, imagine how much it'd cost a future generation to stop emitting CO2 when it's at 40%?

CO2 might not be killing us at 0.3%, but it certainly would have an effect at 40%! I am asserting this without any scientific evidence because it isn't just about the CO2.

Remember my 'distilled' form of libertarianism? "All individuals are, with no unwanted side effects". We simply DON'T KNOW what side effects on the environment will cost us, or others in the future (look at CFC for an example, my country now have the highest rate of skin cancer because our ancestors didn't know what CFC did to the ozone). Therefore, as individuals we have to not only care about, but prevent, side effects our activities have on the environment. We must figure out a way to enforce this without letting governments grow. If we don't, eventually the government WILL grow bigger AND infringe our freedoms, because the point of governments is to solve problems individuals can't. (like national defense)

(I've thought about it..... to decrease emissions: a law requiring miners of carbon products like coal and oil, etc to pay for some carbon offsets, proportional to the amount of CO2 the coal or oil emits. The proportion depends on how much CO2 to be reduced...)

BlackSand wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 5:12am:


No, I'm not.

Land of Freedom wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 3:10pm:


Wait what? Since when???????

Quote:

Shall I start a logging company and chop down all the trees on the world so that they become extinct (and bribe all the environmentalists on the way)? Since freedom is my right.

There will be no more left for the future generation... but "no trees = death" is a hoax so it doesn't matter?

My neighbours house is unlocked, maybe I go in and grab a cup of coffee uninvited, without the use of force?

Was CFC a hoax too? It evidently isn't, else the ozone layer would still be intact. They thought CFC was harmless because it didn't react with anything in their experiments. Despite their good intentions we now have to bear the cost of higher skin cancer. (or cost of buying sunscreen, whatever.) That isn't fair, even if they didn't know about the harmful effects of CFC.

My point is, even if a consequence of some side effect on the environment is unproven, we should still seek to prevent it, based on the above.

It's all about property rights. The environment isn't just our shared property, it is our future generation's too. We shouldn't be ruining it (or even changing it, for that matter. How would you like your neighbours to be renovating your house for no reason, into pink color?).

Land of Freedom wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 9:48pm:


Quote:


Anyways, it doesn't matter if CO2 is proven to contribute to warming or not. Did you understand the point I was making? It isn't just about the CO2... ugghhh I shouldn't have dragged that in here, you become way too focused on it. (by ignoring the rest of my post...)

Quote:


As libertarians we try to minimize the number of rules we need for society to function, not to eliminate them. It isn't just about getting maximum freedom (even though it is the main goal)

meric wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 11:21pm:


It matters who is setting rules and if people can voluntarily follow such rules.

Private property or entire private towns can set their own rules that people agree to if they choose to live there. People can freely associate with others.