Search the Community

Stefan, I have some questions about your climate change skepticism. But firstly I have to say that I agree with you that bigger government isn't going to solve the problem, if there is one. I'm wondering if you deny desertification, carcinogenic smog, hypoxic dead zones in the ocean, ocean acidification, record breaking droughts and wild fires, etc. From my understanding of biology I recognize that humans, and most organisms on earth (except for the little bastards living off the chemicals spewing from sea floor vents) require the functioning of various environmental conditions which are very specific. Take for example phyto plankton, these little guys require a specific ph for their habitat. These humble creatures are the source of about 50% of our atmospheric oxygen. Our activities of heavily polluting the atmosphere and by leaving so much shit to run off into the oceans, we've begun to fiddle too much with the oceans conditions. Or lets take carcinogenic smog. It's likely that you've seen 'made in china' hundreds of times in your life. Chinas air pollution is horrific, I'm sure you've seen the photos. I say we don't need government to solve these problems, in fact, they make these problems considerably worse. What we need is personal responsibility for our economic demand, awareness of the effects of our purchases. Since I was born, something like 40% of species have gone extinct. I recognize that humanity is creating a new geological epoch on this small planet, we have megalopolises outstretched across our continents, and 40% of the earths land mass is now farmland. I know that in an ecosystem, all organisms are connected to each other. The earth is mostly a closed system and we're disrupting the fragile conditions our species relies on for survival. And I don't mean the people who can have their food grown and synthesized in labs. Regardless of your position on global warming/climate change, do you understand the effects of environmental pollution and degradation on other people and sentient organisms? Thanks for reading, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUA4cm0Rck

The Non-Aggression Principle presents a problem when applied to environmental pollution (damn, that's some alliteration there). Taking air pollution as an example, the idea is that if you pollute the air with cancer-causing particles and other people consume that air then you are exposing their bodies to danger without their consent, therefore you have committed an aggressive action. I think a lot of libertarians are familiar with this, and they either accept polluting acts as aggressive or they have an argument to say that it is okay. These arguments are normally along the lines of "If you don't like it, you can get out" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fZZqDJXOVg - South Park clip to demonstrate), which I hate to see coming from libertarians, or they say that your life is better and safer in a polluted world, which just disregards the NAP. There's an obvious alternative which is to say that the act of breathing is also pollution, because you reduce the oxygen content and increase the content of particles that cannot be used in respiration and of particles that your body has rejected because they are harmful. That of course makes breathing an act of pollution => aggressive, so I search with hope for an alternative. My response is to say that people have no ownership of the air being polluted, until they breathe the air in. Nothing can be owned until someone takes control of it (I'm talking about how the property rights over yet-unowned things are created, not about the philosophical origin of property rights in general). For example, you could not own some piece of wilderness just by looking at it; you would have to do something to that land (eg. build on it) in order to associate it with you for it to become someone's (your) property. You could not own an apple from a wild apple tree just by seeing it on the ground; you would have to take it in your hand for it to be yours. A body cannot be owned by anyone until the mind within it takes neurological control. Likewise, the air on the planet does not belong to anyone just by knowing that it is there; people need to collect the air in one way or another, breathing for example. It is not aggressive for Bob to pollute the air because Bill does not own that air until Bill breathes it in. Pollution is aggressive if it is done on something that is already owned. So, your thoughts on the whole problem and on my solution?

What do you think? Obviously socialising road construction and maintenance and subsidising car manufacture wasn't good for the environment.