Libertarian ideology cant handle AGW, so they pretend it doesnt exist.

[Threegoofs]

This is a great article on how libertarians cant really fit environmentalism into their ideology, so they just... pretend its not an issue.

Trying to build a system based upon property rights doesnt really work when your actions interfere with other properties - especially if those properties are in different nations.

Environmentalism poses a problem for libertarian ideology | MattBruenig | Politics

And a nice little is in todays Dish - discussing how the libertarians ( the Cato insitute, specifically) are now saying that since the US wont be affected by climate change nearly as much as some other nations, that the US should cede leadership on this to someone else.

Let Them Build Seawalls « The Dish

Writing from his perch at the Cato Institute, Charles “Chip” Knappenberger explains why the U.S. should avoid taking a leadership role in any climate negotiation: because others have more at stake:

Such information is carefully concealed in Obama Administration reports, such as the one issued recently by the Council of Economic Advisors that predicts escalating costs the longer we delay serious climate change mitigation efforts. Instead of focusing on domestic costs of climate change, the report is built around an estimation of the global cost for carbon dioxide emissions—which, by the Administration’s numbers—is some 4 to 14 times greater on a per ton of emitted CO2 basis than those projected for the U.S.
Translated: climate change is going to be worse for Bangladesh, so let them deal with it. And it is going to be worse–it already is. People are starting to evacuate their island nations as seas rise. It’s true we may lose Miami, but we’re well off enough, perhaps, to take the hit.

What a clownshow.

 

[PoS]

Wow, what is it with these anti-libertarian threads all of a sudden?

And why does every political movement have to have an ideology on everything? This is the problem with politics in America right now- the Dems and the GOP wants a million laws to govern them instead of common sense.

 

[Threegoofs]

Wow, what is it with these anti-libertarian threads all of a sudden?

And why does every political movement have to have an ideology on everything? This is the problem with politics in America right now- the Dems and the GOP wants a million laws to govern them instead of common sense.

Ummm. Ideology means 'a system of ideas', so I'd be a bit suspicious if a political movement that doesn't have an ideology.

 

[ARealConservative]

cookoo. cookoo.

the only idealogy that was willing to allow consumption to shrink in 2008 was.....yep - libertarians. As I recall, McCain and Obama both were willing to suspend election activities and figure out a way to get Americans consuming again.

 

[Verax]

This is one of the reasons I abandoned anything to do with "libertarianism". It's exactly as said in the OP, it doesn't fit with their narrative so they have to dismiss it. This is a failure of subscribing to an ideology completely as when it fails there is no recourse. Ideology should be a tool, a perspective to view the world, not a set of defining ideas that must be adhered to 100% at all times without exception. That is when ideology takes on a religious characteristic and you have to start making excuses for it's shortcomings because it cannot adapt to change and issues outside of it's scope.

 

[Master PO]

this is a great article on how libertarians cant really fit environmentalism into their ideology, so they just... Pretend its not an issue.

Trying to build a system based upon property rights doesnt really work when your actions interfere with other properties - especially if those properties are in different nations.

environmentalism poses a problem for libertarian ideology | mattbruenig | politics

and a nice little is in todays dish - discussing how the libertarians ( the cato insitute, specifically) are now saying that since the us wont be affected by climate change nearly as much as some other nations, that the us should cede leadership on this to someone else.

let them build seawalls « the dish



what a clownshow.

you do not understand libertriansm,....property rights are the cornerstone of all rights.

Without property rights, we are nothing.

 

[ARealConservative]

Ummm. Ideology means 'a system of ideas', so I'd be a bit suspicious if a political movement that doesn't have an ideology.

democrats and republicans system of ideas are those things that get votes.

so once tackling AGW is a viable winning position, you can bet they will fight over the ideas. until then? not so much

 

[AlbqOwl]

Not calling anybody a liar here--I don't do that as a general rule--but I don't believe for a minute that anybody left libertarianism because libertarians pretend that nothing exists that doesn't fit their ideology. I don't believe it because I've never known a libertarian who not only did not hold an opinion on just about everything like that, but could make a reasoned argument for the opinion he/she holds.

Also there is a huge difference between saying a problem does not exist and in saying that the federal government is not the appropriate means to address a problem. That is the one area in which libertarians (small "L") most often part company with those on the left.

 

[TeleKat]

This is a great article on how libertarians cant really fit environmentalism into their ideology, so they just... pretend its not an issue.

Trying to build a system based upon property rights doesnt really work when your actions interfere with other properties - especially if those properties are in different nations.

Environmentalism poses a problem for libertarian ideology | MattBruenig | Politics

And a nice little is in todays Dish - discussing how the libertarians ( the Cato insitute, specifically) are now saying that since the US wont be affected by climate change nearly as much as some other nations, that the US should cede leadership on this to someone else.

Let Them Build Seawalls « The Dish



What a clownshow.

OP proves he doesn't understand libertarianism. There are plenty libertarians out there that believe in environmental protection, myself included. Arguably, protecting the environment is a legitimate function of government as pollution and other forms of environmental destruction violate the NAP and infringe on the liberties of others.

Hell there's even a whole party of green libertarians:

Green Party of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You, like many, have been fooled by the Koch Bros. into thinking that libertarianism is owned by the right. Expand your vision beyond the GOP "libertarians" that, from a historical viewpoint, aren't even libertarians in the legitimate sense.

 

[TeleKat]

This is one of the reasons I abandoned anything to do with "libertarianism". It's exactly as said in the OP, it doesn't fit with their narrative so they have to dismiss it. This is a failure of subscribing to an ideology completely as when it fails there is no recourse. Ideology should be a tool, a perspective to view the world, not a set of defining ideas that must be adhered to 100% at all times without exception. That is when ideology takes on a religious characteristic and you have to start making excuses for it's shortcomings because it cannot adapt to change and issues outside of it's scope.

Hey Verax :2wave:

I think you ran off because of the right-wing nuts that have taken over the ideology. That, like I've said before, only encourages them and ends up paving the way for further dilution and perversion. Unfortunately many have fallen into the trap of believing that GOP shills like Rand Paul are the be all end all of the libertarian philosophy, and few take the time to look into it's history and underlying principles.

 

[Threegoofs]

Well, heres a solution. Bet the libertarians will still maintain denial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2cba4e-2a01-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

 

[Master PO]

Well, heres a solution. Bet the libertarians will still maintain denial.

A climate for change: A solution conservatives could accept - The Washington Post

what is the solution you propose.....a tax.....that's a new concept for government.

 

[Threegoofs]

what is the solution you propose.....a tax.....that's a new concept for government.

See? There you go. The sensible solution is a form of a tax, so therefore the libertarian response is.... "well... it cant be happening then!".

 

[Master PO]

See? There you go. The sensible solution is a form of a tax, so therefore the libertarian response is.... "well... it cant be happening then!".

well so to fix the problem, we need a NEW tax.....what an original idea.....why didn't someone think of this years ago!

 

[ARealConservative]

See? There you go. The sensible solution is a form of a tax, so therefore the libertarian response is.... "well... it cant be happening then!".

the more sensible solution is to require those entities that profit from fossil fuels to pay fully for the costs, including defense of shipping lanes.

 

[AlbqOwl]

the more sensible solution is to require those entities that profit from fossil fuels to pay fully for the costs, including defense of shipping lanes.

Who doesn't benefit or profit from fossil fuels?

You may be onto something though. If we would require all those who import oil from the Middle East to provide for their own security, that would certainly create sufficient shortages and anger from the entire population that the environmental wackos in Washington would have to loosen up restrictions on domestic production. I'm pretty sure AGW would become a much less attractive doctrine real fast.

 

[ARealConservative]

Who doesn't benefit or profit from fossil fuels?

those that profit from it should pay for the expense they incur in their attempt to seek profit. they then pass that added cost to the consumer, who presumably decides if they are willing to pay the extra cost based on if they find the transaction beneficial.

 

[fedup]

This is a great article on how libertarians cant really fit environmentalism into their ideology, so they just... pretend its not an issue.

Trying to build a system based upon property rights doesnt really work when your actions interfere with other properties - especially if those properties are in different nations.

Environmentalism poses a problem for libertarian ideology | MattBruenig | Politics

And a nice little is in todays Dish - discussing how the libertarians ( the Cato insitute, specifically) are now saying that since the US wont be affected by climate change nearly as much as some other nations, that the US should cede leadership on this to someone else.

Let Them Build Seawalls « The Dish



What a clownshow.

WTF are you talking about? There's plenty of libertarian environmentalists.

 

[AlbqOwl]

those that profit from it should pay for the expense they incur in their attempt to seek profit. they then pass that added cost to the consumer, who presumably decides if they are willing to pay the extra cost based on if they find the transaction beneficial.

The point is we ALL profit from it. We ALL use electricity or some sort of heat source. We ALL use some form of transportation whether to go places ourselves or have things delivered to us. We ALL benefit from whatever infrastructure is used to accomplish delivery of the energy or the products that it makes possible. It is ALL interrelated. We ALL have no choice but to pay the cost of what we purchase or utilize so what profit is there to any of us to make it more difficult for those who produce the energy we all need?

 

[polgara]

The point is we ALL profit from it. We ALL use electricity or some sort of heat source. We ALL use some form of transportation whether to go places ourselves or have things delivered to us. We ALL benefit from whatever infrastructure is used to accomplish delivery of the energy or the products that it makes possible. It is ALL interrelated. We ALL have no choice but to pay the cost of what we purchase or utilize so what profit is there to any of us to make it more difficult for those who produce the energy we all need?

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

If we have to go back to sending smoke signals to get information to one another if electricity is no longer available, at least it will be quieter in our future. :lol: How the environmentalists will handle haranguing about air pollution should be interesting, though! :mrgreen:

 

[Mithrae]

If we would require all those who import oil from the Middle East to provide for their own security, that would certainly create sufficient shortages and anger from the entire population that the environmental wackos in Washington would have to loosen up restrictions on domestic production. I'm pretty sure AGW would become a much less attractive doctrine real fast.

Whereas the involvement of foreign governments in the Middle East has been all flowers and candy :lol:

Are you saying that you, as a libertarian, believe that massive government subsidies to oil companies in the form of diplomatic and military engagement with foreign governments and organizations is a good thing?

Without that, this dependency on fossil fuels probably would not have come about in the first place.

 

[Verax]

The cost of AGW mitigation should reside on all societies that have benefited from fossil fuel energies. The obvious solution is a tax. Taxing the fossil fuel industry is fine but it will be passed onto the consumers as well. High taxation on fossil fuels could provide revenue as well as make alternative energy more competitive.

The problem with all this is the fossil fuel industry isn't interested in its death so they would rather see the world burn than lose 100's of billions of future profits. The end game is to stop using fossil fuels altogether and never emit the remaining carbon into the atmosphere.

 

[Verax]

Hey Verax :2wave:

I think you ran off because of the right-wing nuts that have taken over the ideology. That, like I've said before, only encourages them and ends up paving the way for further dilution and perversion. Unfortunately many have fallen into the trap of believing that GOP shills like Rand Paul are the be all end all of the libertarian philosophy, and few take the time to look into it's history and underlying principles.

The term has been sullied. :lol:

I really hate labels, I'd rather have a positions profile that characterizes users opinions on various issues. I tend to think of Progressive as something of a Green liberal / left libertarian mix. I've noticed many on this board use Progressive as a pejorative.

 

[Mithrae]

I've noticed many on this board use Progressive as a pejorative.

Just as liberal, libertarian, socialist, conservative and probably moderate and centrist get used as pejoratives too :lol:

 

[Verax]

Whereas the involvement of foreign governments in the Middle East has been all flowers and candy :lol:

Are you saying that you, as a libertarian, believe that massive government subsidies to oil companies in the form of diplomatic and military engagement with foreign governments and organizations is a good thing?

Without that, this dependency on fossil fuels probably would not have come about in the first place.

Just getting rid of the subsidies would be a great start, it really kills me that we do this. Though I have to say I go off into conspiracy when it comes to why we're over in the middle east. We have this need for fossil fuels which gives us a need for trillion dollar defense budgets to secure it. The military industrial complex plus the fossil fuel industry is a pretty massive power structure.