Free Market Environmentalism

[Dan Rowden]

I think it is a perilous assumption that private business cares about sustainability. This may be true in some instances and not in others. History surely bares this out. The stock market is proof that the market isn't always concerned about such things. Given this, I think it is a serious mistake to believe it's perfectly ok to hand over critical resource management to the private sector.

[Unidian]

I think it's funny that libertarians want to invade New Hampshire when it is just a stone's throw away from Vermont, which is by far the most progressive state in the Union. Vermonters elected an admitted socialist (Bernie Sanders) first to the House and more recently to the Senate. It is also the only state in which there is an active Progressive Party, and it is the home of Democratic golden boy Howard Dean, who formerly served as Governor.

Libertarians really want all of that in their own backyard? Hehe...

[Philosophaster]

I think it is a perilous assumption that private business cares about sustainability. This may be true in some instances and not in others. History surely bares this out.

I agree, but I have to admit that many governments also care little for sustainability, for example the Bush admin's approval of ANWAR drilling, nuclear testing in all sorts of places, and the Chinese government's treatment of its environment. I'm not really sure who has a crappier environmental record: government or private business. Both have been pretty bad on the whole.

[Unidian]

Well, that seems to presume (or at least imply) that "government" is more or less an ideologically monolithic entity. I don't think it is. Democrats, for example, have a significantly better environemental record than Republicans. And if that is the case, then simply voting for Democrats is a potentially viable alternative to handing the kids the keys to the candy store - and one I find much more sensible.

[Philosophaster]

Well, that seems to presume (or at least imply) that "government" is more or less an ideologically monolithic entity. I don't think it is.

True, but neither is private business. There are quite a few nonprofits that specialize in conservation of lands and species, plus for-profit businesses that engage in more environment-friendly practices and make that a selling point of their products. Of course, these aren't nearly as numerous as they ought to be, and the biggest companies still give little more than token attention to environmental concerns.

In the end the actions of both government and business will depend on the degree to which voters and consumers hold them accountable.

[Dan Rowden]

I think it's funny that libertarians want to invade New Hampshire when it is just a stone's throw away from Vermont, which is by far the most progressive state in the Union.

Pah, screw Vermont. That place is full of feminists and Leo Bartoli.

[Dan Rowden]

I think it is a perilous assumption that private business cares about sustainability. This may be true in some instances and not in others. History surely bares this out.

I agree, but I have to admit that many governments also care little for sustainability, for example the Bush admin's approval of ANWAR drilling, nuclear testing in all sorts of places, and the Chinese government's treatment of its environment. I'm not really sure who has a crappier environmental record: government or private business. Both have been pretty bad on the whole.

That's a fair enough observation, which I suppose brings us to the real crux of the matter: human nature. If we don't fix that I'm not sure it will matter how it institutionally manifests.

[Unidian]

Pah, screw Vermont. That place is full of feminists and Leo Bartoli.

Well, as I'm sure you know, feminism is a pretty big part of almost every leftist movement these days. I'd imagine it's kind of strange for you, given that you're pretty much a pinko commie in every other regard.

In fairness, the level of feminism in leftist circles these days bugs me a bit, too. I'm not an anti-feminist, but I'm not into the whole Gloria Steinem approach, either. Some of it is fairly putrid. Between that, the rabid abortionists, the "overbearingly gay" lobby, and the "humans are a virus" tree-hugger crowd, I'm pretty well unable to actually associate with leftist groups myself.

Jeez, I sound like a Repuke, lol.

[Sage]

Ron Paul wants to solve air pollution by defining air as private property. I'm sorry, but if people can't see the basic screaming insanity of that, nothing I possibly could say about it is going to help.

It seems to me that free market capitalism should be especially appealing to thinking people, such as on these forums. It is the only economic system that is based on seeing reality as it is; if you refuse to accept reality, you will have to accept the consequences.

In ethics, that is called "the naturalistic fallacy," meaning that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." I wouldn't get my hopes up about getting an enthusiastic response from a community of "thinking people" when you propose a basic fallacy that people learn about in Philosophy 101. However, since a certain number of philosophy fans here at Genius Forum haven't bothered to learn even the basics of their own self-proclaimed discipline, it might do reasonably well in this particular venue.

Oh, and lest I forget...

RON PAUL 08!!! Wooo-hooooooo! RevolutioN!!!! I don't like taxes!!!!!11!1!11eleventyone

First of all, the naturalistic fallacy and the ought/is fallacy are two distinct errors of logic. For you to be trying to teach me about basic philosophy isn't very believable if you don't know it yourself. Secondly, I don't see how that applies here. Can you offer some proof?

P.S. Saying Ron Paul wants to privatize air is an oversimplification. If you want to see what libertarians think about air pollution and private property, watch the video this thread is about.

[Unidian]

First of all, the naturalistic fallacy and the ought/is fallacy are two distinct errors of logic. For you to be trying to teach me about basic philosophy isn't very believable if you don't know it yourself.

It's closely related and the terms are often used interchangeably in informal discussion.

Secondly, I don't see how that applies here. Can you offer some proof?

Lassiez-faire capitalism is simply a natural economy. It is amoral, but many of its proponents insist it is somehow "good."

P.S. Saying Ron Paul wants to privatize air is an oversimplification. If you want to see what libertarians think about air pollution and private property, watch the video this thread is about.

I don't care what libertarians think about anything. What they think about economics is sufficient to reveal their values and priorities to me - and they are not ones I am interested in.

[Nick]

I don't care what libertarians think about anything. What they think about economics is sufficient to reveal their values and priorities to me - and they are not ones I am interested in.

Supporting a politician based on whether they have the same values and priorities as you is exactly whats wrong with the voters in this country. Christians vote for the christian candidate, liberals vote for the pro-choice candidate, people who fear terrorism vote for the candidate who supports the Iraq war. Essentially it exposes the people's dictatorial desires and how they wish to impose their will upon the masses. What makes this even worse is that these issues are used to manipulate and distract the people from the real problems in this country. On the other hand we have people who support the Constitution and believe the best way for humans to exist is when everyones values are allowed to co-exist and compete evenly within the Rule of Law. It's called Freedom. For instance, I'm sure me and Ron Paul have vastly different values but we do agree that a Constitutional government is the best Government when it comes to dealing with the human animal. If you don't believe this you are just plain ignorant and/or hopelessly selfish.

[Unidian]

So, in other words, don't vote your values unless those values are really important to you.

Oooookay.

[DHodges]

Supporting a politician based on whether they have the same values and priorities as you is exactly whats wrong with the voters in this country.

From what I've heard on the radio, it sounds like people generally support a candidate based on what they think of them as a person, more than because of any particular issue.

[DHodges]

Lassiez-faire capitalism is simply a natural economy. It is amoral, but many of its proponents insist it is somehow "good."

I agree with that. Free markets are sometimes appropriate, and sometimes not. There are situations economists refer to as "natural monopolies" - usually utilities - which generally are highly regulated, and that seems to work out pretty well.

Some industries seem to do pretty well with self-regulation - forming their own voluntary regulatory bodies rather than relying on government regulation. This is probably the case in situations where the functioning of the industry relies on specialized knowledge that politicians are unlikely to have. An example might be professional societies that have their own standards of certification, ethical standards, and discipline processes.

This could possibly work with some environmental issues - for instance, a body that will certify that lumber is harvested in a responsible, sustainable manner - if people are willing to pay slightly more for lumber that is certified than for lumber that is not, thus creating an economic incentive to get that certification.

[integral]

Unidian: regarding free-market capitalism being amoral...
I would argue that when it is compared to government socialism it is moral.

Here's the logical breakdown of my argument:
1. The initiation of violence is immoral.
2. Government socialism is rooted in the initiation of violence.
3. Therefore government socialism is immoral.
4. Free-market capitalism does not require the initiation of violence.
5. Therefore, in comparison, free-market capitalism is moral.

What do you think?

[Unidian]

It's wrong.

And please do not PM me.

[Toban]

Nice one integral! You defeated Nat with that beautiful logical sequence.

[Sage]

Wow Unidian, you got schooled!
I'm not surprised you're afraid to actually debate the issue.
After all, logic and reason aren't for everyone!

[Tomas]

Wow Unidian, you got schooled!
I'm not surprised you're afraid to actually debate the issue.
After all, logic and reason aren't for everyone!

Don't you two know that Nat's gotta get up early in the morning? He likes to be first in line at the Welfare Department for the checks. Then he has to hustle over to the Food Bank for his free commodities.

He needs his rest! He has integrity...

ps- He's a weekend warrior at Genius Forums - get with the program.

Tomas

.

[Dan Rowden]

In Nat's absence I will briefly show why Integral's little logic sequence not only doesn't make a argument that defeats anything, but is itself absent of any argument:

1. The initiation of violence is immoral.

That premise doesn't have any intellectual force of itself unless everyone agrees that the initiation of violence is necessarily immoral.

2. Government socialism is rooted in the initiation of violence.

There is no demonstration or proof that government action constitutes an initiation of violence.

3. Therefore government socialism is immoral.

That would follow if one ignores the empty nature of the premises, but this isn't that kind of [purely formal] argument.

4. Free-market capitalism does not require the initiation of violence.

Another premise without demonstration or proof. Formally acceptable, practically useless.

5. Therefore, in comparison, free-market capitalism is moral.

I mean, let's get serious here, guys. What was offered is a sound enough syllogistic sequence of logic but to suggest that it has in some sense made an actual argument is insulting.

[integral]

Dan: Yes I didn't elaborate on any of the premises. Perhaps I should have, since the belief in the State is an even bigger myth than belief in God.

In order to conserve my time I will attempt to retrieve an already written article qui defend each premise.

[Dan Rowden]

I sincerely hope its content relates to real world facts and it not pure theory.

[DHodges]

1. The initiation of violence is immoral.

That premise doesn't have any intellectual force of itself unless everyone agrees that the initiation of violence is necessarily immoral.

Why is that? Are you saying that morals are (only) determined by consensus?
Do you disagree with it as a moral principle?

[Sage]

Dan:

Firstly, an argument is defined as a set of claims (premises) which establish another claim (conclusion).
So, integral's post does constitute an argument.

Secondly, the way critical thinkers analyze arguments is as follows:
1- Determine the validity i.e. whether the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. (You do acknowledge that his argument is deductively valid.)
2- Determine the truth value of the premises.
If the argument is valid and the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.

As per the steps in analyzing arguments, after determining the validity we now expect him show the premises to be true. Just because the premises are not initially supported does NOT mean it is not an argument.

[integral]

OK Dan,

1. The initiation of violence is immoral.
(a) Morality is determined by reason.
(b) Violence initiated on a man paralyzes his ability to reason.
(c) Thus, man is rendered morally impotent by the initiation of violence.

2. Government socialism is rooted in the initiation of violence.
(a) Government socialism is funded by taxation.
(b) Taxation is initiated by the government. If I do not want to pay taxes, I am kidnapped and thrown in jail. If I protect myself, I will likely be shot. Thus, taxation is an initiation of violence.
(c) So, all government socialism is rooted in violence and is immoral.

3. Therefore government socialism is immoral.
- From 1 and 2

4. Free-market capitalism does not require the initiation of violence.
(a) Free-market capitalism= the social system based on the use of instruments of production where individuals can exchange without the initiation of violence.
(b) The initiation of violence e.g. taxation, is incompatible with a free-market.

5. Therefore, in comparison, free-market capitalism is moral.
(a) Government socialism is rooted in the initiation of violence and free-market capitalism is not.