Do Libertarians believe in global warming?
Posted by xJohnnyBloodx@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 30 comments
I'm referring to a man-made crisis, not something natural.
Assuming you do, do you believe it goes against your freedom from interference, or your freedom from circumstance?
Do you think the issue is serious enough to warrant action? What action should be taken? Should a business have the freedom from interference to pollute?
Do you wish that it was a bigger priority for the party you agree with politically?
Even if you don't believe in global warming do you acknowledge and oppose deforestation in America?
MultiPass21@reddit
Yes, Libertarians believe in the man-made harms done to the earth.
You seem to be falling into the last generalization that Libertarians believe in NO government.
Icy-Success-3730@reddit
I believe in no STATE, aka no taxation. We can have government that is funded voluntarily by the people.
xJohnnyBloodx@reddit (OP)
Most libertarians i know vote conservative, which tends to enact policies that undersells, ignores, or just denies global warming. So, no, i'm not making the generalization you want no government, I'm just interested if Libertarians care about global warming enough to want to enact green policies.
Parabellum12@reddit
I refuse to support any of those “green policies” until they actually make sense.
Like CA forcing people to buy electric cars. It only puts more strain on our power grid and isn’t any more green than an ICE vehicle.
When those policies start targeting the root of climate change, and NOT the average person, maybe I’ll change my mind. But considering the left loves to use climate change as an excuse for authoritarian legislation, that isn’t going to happen any time soon.
HauntedTrailer@reddit
While I mostly agree that regulations can and often are authoritarian, I will say that a large percentage of the population in California lives in the San Fernando Valley, where due to the actual terrain, near-ground air pollution causes smog, so it's more of a very real air quality issue over a very wide area that effects millions of people, so generating pollution at a distance to power electric cars has immediate actual benefit. That one geographic fact explains a lot of the California Emission Regulations.
Parabellum12@reddit
According to the internet the valley has a population of about 2 million, compared to about 40 million in the state as a whole. Legislating for the 5% is a very dumb thing to do, especially when you are forcing people to buy very expensive vehicles in an economic downturn.
Even if you’re arguing for the whole of LA county, we’re still talking about less than 10 million people, less than 25% of the state population.
PTY064@reddit
Many libertarians vote conservative in the absence of viable (or indeed, any) libertarian candidates because Republicans only ask for 40% more government each election cycle, whereas the Democrats ask for 80% more government.
A vote for the lesser evil is not actually an endorsement of said evil. Try not to read it that way, even though the duopoly has conditioned you to.
xJohnnyBloodx@reddit (OP)
Well now you got a guy who is using he military on the people and asking for military parades on his birthday and he's been actively against freedom of information by taking down information on government websites that could be used to fact check him.
I don't think republican's are for less government in general, i think they are for less government in social support and for more government in cracking down freedoms.
PTY064@reddit
Trump is using the military on US citizens?
Are you sure he's not using them to protect government property in areas that have active anti-state riots, and said rioters were poking the proverbial bear by engaging military members?
And yes, the Army's 250th just happened to coincide with his birthday. Potato, potato. Which doesn't work in text form, but the point is, who gives a actual shit for which purpose it was? It was a waste of government time and resources, either way.
Every administration is against freedom of information (among other freedoms) - Otherwise conspiracy theories about Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden (or literally every other president or government official in general) wouldn't exist.
These arguments aren't the "Gotcha" you think they are.
xJohnnyBloodx@reddit (OP)
Yes Trump sent the military to California under the guise to protect property but the governor didn’t ask for him to making it unnecessary escalation that blurs the line between the military and the police
PTY064@reddit
Military and police are two sides of the same coin. One enacts and enforces the government's desires and interests here at home, and one does it abroad. The NG as a whole is intentionally capable of blurring those lines, since they are legally capable of being used both at home and abroad for various purposes.
Trump federalizing the CA NG was an interesting maneuver, I'll agree, but if the rioters didn't try to damage/destroy property that was being guarded by the CA NG, then there was no escalation involved by the NG being there, except in those whose brains house lukewarm IQ numbers.
However, to insinuate that the NG was not wanted or needed by the CA governor is irrelevant; To the Trump administration, it was wanted and needed, and they knew that the CA governor wouldn't activate their state NG to protect those federal assets. Thus, federalizing the CA NG was wanted and needed.
xJohnnyBloodx@reddit (OP)
First off, you are oversimplifying and making excuses for the guy you voted for.
Second, this was suppose to be about climate change. Your opinions about "The lesser of two evils" is irrelevant when given the facts that one party makes an effort to at least acknowledge climate change, while Trump has on record denied it.
PTY064@reddit
If this was supposed to be a discussion about climate change, you need to stop moving goalposts; You're the one who has brought about every subject change in these comments.
As for accusing me of making excuses on Trump's behalf, you can get fucked. I don't like Trump any more than you do. However, I also have some modicum of critical thinking skills, at least enough to be able to explain some of his behavior, instead of just blindly chalking it up to "Orange man bad" as you seem so desperate to do.
Horn_Point@reddit
Trumps birthday just happens to fall on the same day as the armys birthday, and the army frequently does parades/events every year for their bday. Im in the navy, and we do the same for ours in october. If come october Trump doesnt attend ours, then i'll be upset at the favoritism.
In some cases it could be necessary to have military help out if the local authority cant handle it. Im not endorsing what trump is doing in this situation, just pointing out that hypothetical situations exist where i think it could be justifiable.
I dont think any libertarian who voted for trump (myself included) is happy with him right now, but we fell into the trap that trump was the lesser of two evils (which i still think thats true, i just regret not voting libertarian like i usually do).
As far as your initial question about global warming, i think its more nuanced than it appears. From a libertarian standpoint, if my pollution is has negative effects on others, i need to be held accountable. That is an appropriate role for government, but the debate is how much should it punish or restrict? Mankind definitely has an effect on our environment, but to what extent and is it worth the benefits?
You and i might both agree that private jets are egregious in their pollution. Should government ban private jets all together, restrict with regulations, or fully allow? In order to determine this, we need to do a cost/benefit analysis.
Additionally, some benefits/costs are not quantifiable, and how people value them differs from one another. What i am getting at is i think the majority of people (including republicans) believe makind contributes to harming the planet. But the debate is moreso about what to do about it. Thats my experience with others at least.
Hope this helps
libertarianinus@reddit
Evertime I look up at the sky and see clouds moving, I think its climate change.
trufus_for_youfus@reddit
Many libertarians absolutely want the abolition of the state. Further it’s the only logically consistent conclusion. That said I am not going to let perfection be the enemy of much better.
AccomplishedPoint465@reddit
I believe in man made harms, but I don’t necessarily think that the potential “crisis” is the same thing as the harms we can cause. We can both simultaneously cause harm, and not be the cause of the end of the world, lol.
Lothar_Ecklord@reddit
And further, there are many libertarians who believe the market will move toward environmentally sustainable society. Once people accept they are the cause through the power of the purse, a lack of insane regulation will make for a lot of experimentation on products that will be both economically viable and environmentally sustainable. The problem I see now is the government puts all chips in one basket, instead of allowing for competing ideas wherein one year, it’s hydrogen fuel cells. Which failed (though there is still potential). Then it was switchgrass-based ethanol which was immediately bureaucratized into corn-based ethanol (which is actually more harmful than switchgrass). Now it’s solar and battery-electric which relies on toxic rare-earth minerals, and we’re seeing that fail as well. Who knows what’s next.
With the government determining winners and losers, nothing gets done; some libertarians believe that a lack of the ability for the government to influence the market in such ways leads to the market making the determination, much more effectively and efficiently.
Behemoth92@reddit
The analysis is usually lacking in that the action plan somehow always involves extreme taxation. I think there’s scope for government when it comes to tragedy of the commons issues but I haven’t yet seen a clear optimal strategy from first principles. For example, we have to burn oil today to keep our lives going. We’d have to let millions die today if we just put a stop on oil abruptly, so what’s the solution? Have fewer children today so someone else can have more children tomorrow? Live uncomfortably or worse die of starvation today so someone else can live well elsewhere?
xJohnnyBloodx@reddit (OP)
The government already subsidizes oil companies, so you’re technically already being taxed for the oil companies. Could we not just switch over to subsidizing alternative energy sources?
Behemoth92@reddit
Sure end all subsidies but who is going to force emerging markets to switch over to renewables?
xJohnnyBloodx@reddit (OP)
I never said we should end all fossil fuel use overnight or force other countries to comply. That would be a disaster, and I agree with you there.
What I am saying is: If we're already spending billions of tax dollars on subsidies, why not reallocate those subsidies to clean energy instead of oil companies that are already massively profitable? That’s not about expanding government — it’s about correcting a distortion that props up a dirty market artificially.
If libertarians oppose market interference, shouldn’t we oppose subsidies that favor oil just as much as subsidies for renewables — or at least give newer, cleaner options a chance to compete on fairer terms?
SJ1392@reddit
Or better yet, just end all subsidies, try and reign in the national debt before we bankrupt ourselves (might be too late for that)...
Nearby-Ad6000@reddit
Yes, they do. At least, I do. I can’t speak for everyone.
Is the issue serious enough to warrant action? I’d say so. The question is what actions should be taken. If it’s subsidies for “green energy,” I’d be skeptical that they’d be effective. If it’s a carbon tax, I could see this working in theory. In practice, I think politicians would use it as an excuse to extract more and more revenue from the private sector, harming economic growth, and wasting it on stupid things. If it’s more environmental regulations — Maybe some make sense if they are actually justified. But a lot of them now don’t pass a simple cost benefit analysis and don’t have an effect on global warming. Not a fan
Do business have the freedom to pollute? That’s a property rights / negative externality issue.
Do I wish it was a bigger priority? Nope. It’s an issue, but it’s far from our biggest issue. Bill Gates made this point recently. And all I’ve seen from politicians are expensive ideas that won’t have much of an effect.
Do I acknowledge and oppose deforestation in America? I have no idea what the point is you’re trying to make here. Is it that deforestation is killing the environment and making global warming worse? Maybe it’s bad if we’re destroying forests to put up houses and shopping centers, but there is probably no way around it. Wood and paper production isn’t causing major harm. Can you elaborate?
AccomplishedPoint465@reddit
Man made, sure. Crisis, maybe. Man made crisis, I doubt. I like common sense environmentalism. We can get stuff figured out without everyone losing their shit about activist fear mongering.
It’s like screaming about nuclear weapons while diplomacy is still on the table. Some of us in America, and most 1st world nations, are so fearful you won’t allow yourself to slow down and think about the consequences of putting all your eggs in 1 basket.
Fluffy_Antelope3430@reddit
I do.
Rustee_Shacklefart@reddit
Yes. We like it warm.
LondonRolling@reddit
I do. But I'm more anarchist (not communist) than libertarian.
Teriko@reddit
What's the point of having freedoms if there's no suitable land to exercise it on?
AutoModerator@reddit
New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more? Be sure to check out the sub Frequently Asked Questions and the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.