[Cynus]

Libertarians condemn environmentalists for urging restrictions of liberty and property rights and see environmental laws as infringements on these rights. But instead libertarians and environmentalists should see that they have a common enemy in environmental destruction, the true cause of the erosion of liberty. Libertarians believe in the absolute protection of life, health, liberty, and property. (Sometimes health is dropped from the list as ones body is considered property, and thus an infringement on ones health is considered a destruction of property.) This system worked fine in early American history where there was plenty of unclaimed land awaiting cultivation. One was always free to provide for oneself by claiming property and working the land. In the Second Treatise of Government, Locke places two conditions of property acquisition: there must be enough quality land left for others, and one can not claim more than one can use. Locke never addresses how population growth could result in a case where there is no longer any unclaimed land left for others and his principle of just acquisition of property is inevitably violated. At some point all the land has been claimed by an owner. It is no longer possible to “light out for the territories” and make a living. At this point it became necessary for people to find employment in order to live.

Up until this point businesses were unregulated and free. After all, if employees were unhappy with their working conditions they were free to make a living off of the land. But once there was no longer available land free for the taking, people no longer had a choice and had to accept whatever employment they could find. It became necessary to put regulations on businesses in order to protect the right to life of the people. For example, employers could not discriminate against their employees if their employees were going to be able to find employment and so be able to live. The right to liberty of the business owner was sacrificed in order to protect the right to life of the people. Government food assistance programs also became necessary to protect the right to life since people were no longer able to provide for themselves through working the land.

To take another example, originally, people and businesses were able to dump their waste into the rivers and air. After all, a person living in relatively isolation can not produce enough waste to affect the rights of other people. However, with population growth enough pollution will soon be being dumped into the water and air that it will begin to affect the health of others. As in the first case, the response will be to limit the rights of some in order to protect the rights of others and to establish new government powers in order to achieve this. Pollution laws come into affect to make sure that the air and water is not being polluted as to harm the health of others. Similarly, eminent domain laws can be used to seize people’s property in order to provide drinking water for growing populations as was done in Massachusetts with the creation of Quabbin reservoir. Here again property rights were sacrificed for others right to health.

Science fiction writers have considered cases where overpopulation and environmental degradation becomes so severe that even the right to life of some is sacrificed to protect the life of others. Thankfully we have not yet reached this point.

All of these examples are the similar in that environmental destruction causes restrictions on the rights to property and liberty. And this is something that Libertarians do not understand, that freedom is an adaptation to environmental conditions. Perfect freedom can only exist in a relatively low population density with many available resources for the sustenance of life. As Hume writes:

Let us suppose, that nature has bestowed on the human race such profuse abundance of all external conveniencies, that, without any uncertainty in the event, without any care or industry on our part, every individual finds himself fully provided with whatever his most voracious appetites can want…

It seems evident, that, in such a happy state, every other social virtue would flourish, and receive tenfold encrease; but the cautious, jealous virtue of justice would never once have been dreamed of. For what purpose make a partition of goods, where everyone has already more than enough? Why give rise to property where there cannot possibly be any injury?
…
We see, even in the present necessitous condition of mankind, that, wherever any benefit is bestowed by nature in an unlimited abundance, we leave it always in common among the whole human race, and make no subdivisions of right and property. Water and air, though the most necessary of all objects, are not challenged as the property of individuals; nor can any man commit injustice by the most lavish use and enjoyment of these blessings.
…
Thus, the rules of equity or justice depend entirely on the particular state and condition, in which men are placed (An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals.)

Of course the irony is that, impossible though it was for Hume to see, air and water now can be the subject of injustice and that we do now possess the capability to foul the air and water sufficiently that their use and misuse can be brought under the purview of justice. But in all cases environmental destruction is the enemy of liberty, not the restrictions that attempt to protect people's rights as far as possible, and in all cases libertarians would best serve their desire for freedom by preventing the environmental conditions that require ever greater extension of the jealous virtue of justice.

[mos6507]

You know the old adage "give me liberty or give me death"? Die-hard libertarians obviously have different priorities. I mean, there is a reason why Ron Paul is a fringe Republican and not a Democrat.

[vision-master]

We are slowly catching up with the 'Old World'.

[Cynus]

I should probably say that I am very sympathetic to libertarianism. I do think that liberty should be pushed as far as possible, I am in favor of individual rights and responsibility, I'm against centralized political power and centralized economic power. But often libertarians refuse to admit that rights can conflict with each other as in the cases above where property rights can conflict with the life or health of others. And also, to be fair, libertarians do not think that one has a right to pollute where the pollution would harm another's health or property.

[mxr618]

I think that was the most well-thought out treatise I've read here!

I'm a libertarian, or classic liberal, but with the environmental bent you described.

Purists would snort at me and call me a conservative. I'm not.

Here's the only way I can describe it: as an old Scout from way back, on Sunday morning after camping with my troop when all the gear was packed and in the cars, we'd line up shoulder to shoulder and 'itsy-bitsy' -- pick up all the garbage we found, not just the stuff we created. We left the campsite better than we found it for the next troop. I believe we're screwing future generations by living in the right here and right now (printing money that will never be able to be paid back, not lifting a finger to combat global warming -- if it exists, stripping away our topsoil, etc). Our children are going to hate us.

The problem with pure libertarians is there is no grey area, no ability or inclination to back down from their beliefs. My brother is a classic lib and it's fun to twist his tail and tell him he's one of those 'pave over the world guys'. He also agrees that classic libs won't back down from their beliefs.

Small 'l' libertarians -- not the political party -- believe that government should stay out of my bedroom and out of my pockets.

Cyg, this was a very thought-provoking post!

[Kez]

As I have heard a libertarian explain it a long time ago, let's say we save a massive oil field or coal deposit, don't use any of it at all, and let our children use it instead. If you take that logic, then why should the children use it? They should save it too. And so on, and so forth.

So the logic as I understood it at the time is if you got it, use it, there's no point in saving it for another generation.

Libertarianism has many different views but I think that is what the majority of them believe concerning whether or not to utilize a natural resource of some kind.

[Ludi]

if you got it, use it,

Even if using it will be harmful for future generations, or even yourself? That doesn't seem to exhibit enlightened self-interest.

[eastbay]

It's fascinating to think that this discussion of whether or not to consume resources lead to the conclusion that consuming resources ultimately delivers suffering.

There is really no other rational conclusion. Therefore, in order to minimize our suffering, we must minimize our consumption.

But there is little chance we'll do that. I suspect humanity will simply consume and consume until there's nothing remaining to consume.

[coyote]

As I have heard a libertarian explain it a long time ago, let's say we save a massive oil field or coal deposit, don't use any of it at all, and let our children use it instead. If you take that logic, then why should the children use it? They should save it too. And so on, and so forth.

Hey, now you're on to something!

Nice OP, Cynus. The dichotomy and ecological blindness you described is the precise reason I could never think of myself as a Libertarian, even though there was a time when most of my philosophy (other than my environmental ethic) coincided with theirs. These days, somewhat less so...

[Alcassin]

Absolutely great post Cynus, I've been reading your posts about political philosophy for some time, and this one is the best. I really enjoy it.

I don't like the word libertarian, sorry, I use the word liberal instead (it's a classic European meaning).
"Liberals" and "Conservatives" in the US are children of progressvism, uniquely American philosophy.

In normal discussion with classic liberals I often start with Lockean argument on acqusition of property. If you you read this Treatise carefully his argment is basically built upon the remark that if in Europe is no place to move there is always America to settle (let's forget about its inhabitants for a moment). Locke never deals with scarcity of productive land really, and of course, he couldn't predict industrial revolution with its outcomes.

I happen to believe in some of liberal thought, it's not much, but I like the humanity of liberalism, freedoms (of speech, of thought) and rule of law. And basically these are the fundaments of modern states. But if you think globally about the problems with e.g. deforestation, soil erosion, mass extinction I oppose the solution to "privitize" oceans, forests and so on. I don't think the new owner or his children wouldn't take the lant and start to mine is, chop down forests and so on.

I don't like the idea of "sanctity of" in modern liberalism. The 'sanctity' means one thing: nobody ever has a right to question the 'saint' value.
Property is the first thing - first property is established because of the rule of law, and what modern liberals always undermine - social contract. Social contract isn't a document (some lawyers and judges see constitution as a social contract), but a state of matters when everyone respects the rules in society, and this state is quite sustainable. Social contract breaks when there is an open conflict in society - like revolution, massive strikes and so on. When dissatisfaction leads to violence the social contract ceases to exist. Under social contract property exists and I really don't think people can really "own" things, they can own food when their organism processes it. We use things, we take the resources from nature and transform them into products then we consume them and eventually dump them.
The social order is negotiable and is functional as long as it can reproduce itself. I like much more pragmatic stance on this subject than idealist one. Of course people can use the products of nature in completely stupid manner - endangering its own specie and global environment, as we can observe it right now. It's not socialism or capitalism behind the causes - it's just people... our consumption, our tool, our incentive and creativity, and our birth rate.

[Serial_Worrier]

Being a libertarian doesn't mean you have to support dumping toxic sludge in rivers. I'm an environmentalist libertarian, which means harsh environmental controls to ensure clean air, water, soil so we can LIVE. However, there are areas that are truly "live and let live", like seat-belt laws, cannabis, media, etc...