I have a question regarding the environment and libertarians?

Discussion in 'Libertarian' started by edwhys211, Jan 27, 2013.

  1. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    Actually most of the climate change and global warming fears are not proven they're just theory.


    Still our politicians and EPA pumps hundreds of millions of dollars on things like Global Warming (Which is only based on 200 years worth of research to push their agenda.)

    In this case, (and many other cases, Liberals make knee-jerk policy decisions that infringe on our freedom, the worse part about my experience with Liberals is, they don't at all mind infringing on the freedom of the minority (Providing that the majority agrees with it)

    These are things Liberals should be questioning in their own party.(I would never be in a party that silenced whistle blowers, then turned around and yelled about people who don't want to buy more government.)


    I wish you guys luck in awaking. (It's a long and hard road, out of your dream.)
     
  2. sunfighter

    sunfighter Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    3,814
    Likes Received:
    292
    Policies based on science cannot be called "knee-jerk".
     
  3. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    From the 2012 Libertarian Party Platform:



    2.2 Environment

    We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

    And scratcho, the government of Somalia has nothing at all in common with Libertarianism, nor do Libertarians wish to "eliminate ALL regulations and oversight so that people,corporations-and politicians can do anything they want", nor do Libertarians propose an "everyone- for -themselves example of utopia".

    Actually, I think it would be advisable to read the Libertarian Party Platform before making assumptions or accusations, I find it quite well reasoned, and promoting a solution to many if not most of the problems we face today.
     
  4. sunfighter

    sunfighter Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    3,814
    Likes Received:
    292
    Yes, exactly, the Libertarian platform relies completely on "property rights", which means that justice relies on ordinary people being able to successful sue polluters, which is a pipe dream.
     
  5. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Justice should rely on proving your case, be it an ordinary citizen, citizens, community, city, or State.
     
  6. sunfighter

    sunfighter Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    3,814
    Likes Received:
    292
    Again, you are living in a fantasy world where everyone rich and poor gets equally strong representation in court. We all know the big corporations have teams of high-priced lawyers and you and I can barely afford anybody. Not fair.
     
  7. LetLovinTakeHold

    LetLovinTakeHold Cuz it will if you let it

    Messages:
    7,992
    Likes Received:
    60
    It's not fair in today's system, but there's things that could be put into place that would work more fairly and more efficient using property rights.

    As of now, government has full control. Polluters payoff the government so that they can pollute, and the government protects them from the people. Remove the government control and place the power onto the people by creating avenues for the people to have equal footing. Simplify the laws so that a good lawyer cannot twist things and find loopholes to get around it.

    Government profits from pollution at the expense of the environment and its inhabitants. Trusting profiteers to keep their profits low is a fools game.
     
  8. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    sunfighter,

    I live in the real world, and nowhere have I claimed that everyone, rich or poor, are being treated equally under the law, but I do promote changes which would bring that about, which I believe most, if not all, Libertarians favor.
    Do we need laws which are thousands of pages long, with additional thousands of pages of regulations providing legal loopholes for those who can afford to find and exploit them?

    Wake up and smell the roses. You might find that the general population have much more in common with one another than they do with those who they elect to represent them.
     
  9. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,843
    Likes Received:
    15,016
    I don't have time now, but I need a definition of Classical Liberalism, Liberalism, Progressive-ism, conservatism, and Libertarianism.

    I seem to favor Classical Liberalism which I don't think has a whole lot to do with Liberatarianism.

    But we need a mix of them all.

    Again I don't have time but look up the state of the environment before major governmental regulations were imposed. Back when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire 13 times, the great 1948 Donora smog that killed 20 and sickened 7,000, Love Canal....and so on.
     
  10. Cherea

    Cherea Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    47
    They would "protect the environment", to the extent that it needs to be "protected", the same way they protect shopping malls. When was the last time you saw a shopping mall be as dirty as Central Park? Tragedy of the commons.

    If anyone other than a money-grubbing bureaucratic machine was interested in "protecting" the environment, there's no reason why it wouldn't in a free market. Especially since these huge oil-spilling monopolies/cartels are precisely the work of government subsidies and regulatory barriers to competition.
     
  11. sunfighter

    sunfighter Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    3,814
    Likes Received:
    292
    You're right and I apologize. I wasn't fair.

    Well, if you can show me a political path to get from where we Americans are today, where the rich and powerful have clear advantages in court, to a system that I suspect you and would both favor which treats everyone equally under the law, then I might become a libertarian.
     
  12. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    Classic Liberalism practically IS Libertarianism
     
  13. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    A good start might be for all of us to put politics aside and deal only with the issues. As this thread poses a question about the environment, are there any people, regardless of political views, advocate harming the environment?

    Personally, I feel that if the voters put more effort into identifying the issues they see to be problems with intent to reach a non-party aligned consensus on an acceptable solution, it wouldn't matter so much which party came to power if the voters would hold them accountable in representing them.

    No one, including our elected politicians, fully understands or is capable of clearly explaining vast number of laws, rules and regulations that have been created to govern us, not to mention the loopholes that exist due to the complexity of the laws that one politician admitted would require a team of lawyers to explain one he was questioned about. If the law makers don't understand fully the laws they are passing, how can the general public, with the exception of those who can afford a team of lawyers feel confident and safe that they are complying with the laws?

    Years ago I remember a lecture where I believe it was one of the founding fathers who was said to be asked a question about how the laws should be written, and his reply was that they should be clear enough that the farmer could understand them. If anyone has heard that in school and remembers who it was that was asked, please let me know as it has been over 65 years ago and I haven't been able to find it on the Internet.

    Societies are made up of people, and it is the Federal goverments responsibility to represent all the people of each society, and NOT just the segments within each State who resulted in their winning an election.

    I may be wrong, but I think Libertarians promote government from the bottom up, rather than the top down. In other words local issues resolved at the local level and only if need be, passed on to the State or Federal level for resolution.
     
  14. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    16,544
    "Government from the bottom up" That sounds reasonable,but how in the world do we get back to that when the power of wealth seems to be the driving force in the decisions our "life time" politicians make? I think the founding fathers(warts and all) wanted to try and guarantee that our guiding written document ,our constitution, would create a well run "machine-like" government apparatus that paid no special attention(or at least-not much) to whomever was serving as representitives at any given time,but would serve the interests of the citizens down through the ages. My use of Somalia as an example of complete freedom was hyperbolic-that I would agree with. Part of the distortion of our government,as we ALL can plainly see presently,is the influence of large institutions and corporations on policies(politicains) such as the endless meddling in the politics of other countries that has gone on for such a long,long time. Not to mention the wars that are sapping the wealth and good will around the globe from a country(us) that has been seen to be a bastion of freedom and a place where people could come and get a fresh start from whatever it was they felt they needed fleeing from. "a non party aligned consensus" as you said, free from the politics of division would be a good start in returning power to the citizens,but again--how in the world do we attain it without overcoming the lock the present parties have on the process?

    To me it appears that SOME--repeat--SOME, on the right side of the political spectrum have no conscience at all and want power ,privelege and position at all costs (which has become possible and and IMO,has distorted the economic and political process). Conversly,it appears to me that SOME--repeat--SOME ,on the left continue to offer vast give-aways to placate their voter base(which has caused the same distortion,especially to us-taxpayers) and so what we have now seems to be just a giant,inequitable sleight of hand game that really benefits some citizens and not others.

    What to do? Do we somehow try to eliminate money from elections? Bar lobbyists? Write a new constitution that more reflects a modern sense of fairness? Start 3rd,4th and/or 5th parties? How would any of this be realized? Is it too late? Does it matter? Is concern over the environment unimportant because it will equal out? Questions,questions. Wish I knew how the fate of this country was going to play out.
     
  15. Cherea

    Cherea Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    47
    You give them more of the benefit of the doubt than I. I have a feeling the whole Somalia thing is a deliberate strawman.
     
  16. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    The new 2012 Constitution of Somalia doesn't seem to be based on Libertarian views, and even sets Sharia Law above that of their Constitution.

    In my opinion Libertarianism promotes equality under the laws, and small but efficient government, with the people as the primary source of "how" their government works. Obviously there is NO form of government in which ALL the governed will agree on and find acceptable, which is why strength of government should be exercised beginning with the people at the local level, and Laws written at the State and Federal level, clear and concise, allowing compliance to be defined by the people and the Courts to intervene should their compliance be found inadequate or improper.
     
  17. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    As I see it, the only path to change beneficial to all would be for the people to begin to set aside differences that eliminate rational conversation, and recognize that they hold but one power alone to impose changes from the bottom being applied at the top, and that is the ballot box, where they have the ability to select who will fill the positions of government at the local, State, and Federal levels. Rather than allow the media and the political parties to provide the choices, if the people would concentrate on finding candidates they can trust to represent them as they would like to be represented in government and back them strongly in opposition to the candidates supported by either the Democrat or the Republican parties might we begin to gradually implement changes that we, the people collectively, would like to accomplish.

    Is it too late, or is it even possible at this time? I don't know, but I think things will only grow worse until the people retake control of their government. How bad does it have to get?
     
  18. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie
    But you have argued against democracy and even suggested that wealth be given greater voting power so it can block the will of the majority.

    As to ‘rational conversation’ there are a number of threads that you’ve left because you seemed unable to defend your ideas from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

    Again what ‘people’ are you talking about in the light of your ideas (eg on voting rights above) and that most of your ideas would seem to vastly increase the power and influence of wealth to the detriment of the majority and the environment?

    Again with ‘the people’ - I’m beginning to see this usage in the same way you throw out ‘freedom’, basically it’s a smoke screen to try and hide the rather bad ideas you wish to promote.
     
  19. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Scratcho

    To me and many other the problem with the US at the moment is that wealth has gained too much power and influence and there needs to be a re-balancing of society.

    The problem I see is that many seem to have become indoctrinated with the belief that the solution to the problem is not a re-balancing but instead to give vastly more power and influence to wealth.
     
  20. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    16,544
    Yes,that's true,but how to change it was the (recent) question. We--all of us--must find some way to come together in the middle somehow. Indi argues his position--you argue somewhat the opposite. I think that I get what would/could be a combination of most ,if not all(tea-party-3rd grade type, my way or I'm not playing and I'll make sure you can't play either methods aside) beliefs ,that have to come about to cure up the ills of this society. There is and can't be IMO, a one size fits all government. Something VERY differant has to begin soon, because the endless political fighting resulting in the meaness and obfuscation we see today is deleterious to good governance. Even we citizens are sniping at each other in nasty ,uncompromising ways and I say that it comes from the top-the existing power structure. What to do? I don't know,but ALL of us somehow need to chill out,and begin to seek reasonable and rational changes regarding the power structures. As R. King(corpse now) said--"can't we all just get along."
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice