No Coercion

Today is Blog Action Day, organized to try to use coordinated blogging on a single topic to try to affect change. It seems to be focused on statist (i.e. violent) solutions to problems such as poverty, human rights, deforestation, health care, education, etc. The topic this year was declared to be “Climate Change.” Naturally, I’ll be attacking this from a libertarian, voluntaryist, market anarchist angle.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the doomsayers are right about the warming of the planet and its degree of anthropogenicity.  My response is, “So what?” Does that give you the right to hold a gun to my head and prevent me from producing, selling, or buying certain types of vehicles, light bulbs, air conditioners, etc.? Does it give you the right to use violence to force me to spend money to modify my production facilities to meet special emissions caps you’ve set? Does it give you the right to forcibly stop me from raising cattle or the right to take money from me and give it to someone else with a spiffy electric car company? The answer to all these questions is NO. Nothing other than my invading someone’s person or property can provide moral justification for him to commit any of those acts of aggression against me. And of course the State therefore also lacks such justification.

Supporters of government action (violence) to stop or reverse global warming often talk about scenarios such as rising sea levels displacing coastal populations, melting polar ice killing off the polar bears, dramatically altered weather patterns turning productive land into desert, etc. What they never seem to consider is that all of this could happen completely independently of any human action whatsoever. If that was the case, surely they wouldn’t be calling for acts of violence against their neighbors. If it was clear that the planet’s temperature was suddenly rising due to natural causes (like volcanic eruptions, solar activity, or the spontaneous appearance of an army of Megan Fox clones), would these pro-government-action folks be clamoring for the use of force to tell their neighbors how to run their businesses or what kind of TV they can have? Of course not. They would recognize that you do not punish or control people as a reaction to natural phenomena over which they had no control.

But how much different is that than the current situation as they describe it? If they’re right about the anthropogenicity of the latest warming trend, all we can say is that billions of people have interacted in the market place in order to meet each others’ needs and earn a living, thus dramatically improving their standards of living while unintentionally altering the atmosphere to the point that temperatures start to rise. This, to me, seems to be a fairly natural process, and the warming was entirely accidental. Does this call for violent solutions, the likes of which you might employ against an evil supervillian who intentionally poured carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to cause destruction? I don’t see how it can.

And the situation becomes even more untenable for the pro-coercion camp when we look at the fact that the climate system is so complex that we really have no idea if their plans to reduce human economic activity (an inhuman “solution” if ever there was one) will do anything at all to stop or reverse the trend. It’s not pleasant to contemplate all the needless misery and death resulting from the foregone improvement in standards of living (especially for the world’s poorest) if temperature trends are not affected by the statist schemes. Layer on top of that the fact that it’s entirely possible that a slightly warmer Earth, though possibly including higher sea levels, could easily result in vast amounts of currently frozen, unproductive land to become arable or otherwise incredibly beneficial to human utility. And regardless of how things turn out, individuals (again, especially the poorest) will be best able to mitigate the downsides and take advantage of the positives if they remain as free as possible to innovate, produce, and exchange on a voluntary basis, free from government coercion.

One final note is that as societies develop economically, they become ever more able to think beyond their daily survival and consider the costs of their actions on the environment. There is widespread pressure from consumers in the developed world for the companies they patronize to use ever more eco-friendly materials and production processes (even Walmart has begun experimenting with green-topping some of its stores). There are even investment funds that put together portfolios of only companies that meet certain standards of ‘greeness’ and energy efficiency (because consumers are demanding it). Advanced market economies naturally produce participants who are attuned to ever more diffuse effects of their actions, and companies will be forced to compete on those bases. There seems less and less need, even by the standards of the pro-government faction, to use force (a necessarily inefficient and thus eco-UNfriendly mechanism) to force companies to ‘be good.’

It seems to me an inescapable conclusion that the only moral position is to oppose the use of the organized, legal violence of the State to combat climate change and just allow the creation of wealth and happiness that flows from the unimpeded interaction of billions of free individuals spontaneously working together to improve their standards of living.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

John Kerry claims that a failure by government to address what he believes to be a coming catastrophic climate change will lead to an increase in war that will threaten U.S. national security:

Kerry panel looks at climate change and national security

Interesting.

Here’s how I see it.

Scenario 1: Government does nothing, and individuals continue to prosper and (if they deem it prudent for themselves) prepare for changes in climate as best they can under current government controls; the feared climate changes either come to pass in the next century or so, or they don’t; and the climate changes, if they do occur, will just as likely open up new resources as destroy current ones, and those people negatively affected would at least have been able to further develop economically in the meantime, which is the best way to mitigate any negative effects.

Scenario 2: Government cracks down even more on carbon dioxide emissions, thus plunging the world into a severe economic downturn, driving billions of people into poverty, and forcing much of the world’s population to start to consider extreme measures to survive; and all this without even having a clue if those drastic and coercive government controls will have any positive effect on the climate (however one defines positive in this case).

Which scenario seems more likely to lead to massive conflict?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I just saw an amusing ad on TV. It’s from a climate change activist group of some sort and puts forth what they apparently believe is a bullet-proof argument that we can both cool the planet and boost the economy by capping carbon emissions, thus forcing an explosion of renewable energy production. This is the kind of “green economics” that the Obama administration and many Democrats (and a few Republicans) tout.  But such a concept is neither green nor economics in any meaningful sense.

To be green, I suppose it would have to be good for the environment. Unfortunately for the green pro-state folks, history shows us that the environment is healthiest under conditions of free markets and private property rights and least healthy under conditions of increasing state meddling. Specifically, the aim of these activists is to cool the planet. But we don’t know if the planet is truly warming–data from recent years apparently indicates a fairly flat trendline. Beyond that, since much climate variation seems to be due in large part to solar activity, we don’t know how much we could affect it by reducing carbon emissions. To complicate things even further, we don’t even know if a warmer planet would actually be worse. It may well result in a dramatic increase in arable land and help mitigate any future (and far more deadly) global cooling.

As for the assertion that the forced limiting of fossil fuel use would somehow boost the economy, that’s patently absurd. Making energy more expensive means everyone will have less money left over to spend on other things, thus lowering our standard of living. We would end up with a net loss of wealth and well-being in our society.

Keep that in mind when you hear someone self-righteously proclaiming the mystical goodness of the “green economy.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I ran across this New Scientist piece about how Al Gore’s group thinks a regime of forced greening of the U.S. economy could actually lift us out of our current financial turmoil. It’s the same thing Obama (and, to a lesser degree, McCain) has been blabbing about on the campaign trail. The idea is that having the government force us to use ‘green’ technologies will result in a new economic boom.

Well, let’s think about that for half a second.

Say I’m a business owner who makes widgets and employs a certain number of people at a certain wage, while earning a profit that keeps me coming to work every day. Now the government comes along and says that the fossil fuel plant in my area from which I get my electricity must shut down and be replaced by a “green” power plant of some kind. Now, we know this new green facility will be quite a bit more expensive to operate and will charge more for its output (because if it was cheaper, it would already be there due to market forces). So, I must now pay more for my power, which means I have to raise the prices of my widgets or find other places to cut back. If I raise the prices of my widgets, consumers now either pay more for them (meaning they have less money to spend on other things) or they opt not to buy them—either way, they’re made worse off. If I don’t raise my prices, I need to cut costs somewhere. If we assume for the moment that I’m already operating extremely efficiently due to market competition, my only options are to reduce wages or lay off one or more employees (either way, one or more employees are made worse off) or to reduce my profits (in which case, I’m made worse off). In fact, if my profits are forced down too much (maybe even just a tiny bit below what they currently are), I may find that I can make more money working for someone else. Then I lay off everyone, close the business, and the widget market is less competitive, making society worse off.

Of course, those involved in building and operating the government-mandated “green” power plant and delivery infrastructure are better off, but because their endeavor was not a market action resulting from myriad voluntary decisions using the price system to efficiently allocate resources, it necessarily costs society more than if it had not been done (otherwise, society would have already done it). In other words, this one government policy destroys a significant amount of society’s wealth.

In addition, the government, in order to fund the various bureaucracies that will implement this scheme, will be either directly taking more of my income in taxes or printing more money (which devalues my dollars). I then have even less money to spend on goods and services or with which to pay employees.

Now, apply this to each of Obama’s enviro-economic policy proposals, and you end up with severe and widespread destruction of wealth throughout society. Could it make our air cleaner? Sure, I suppose it’s a possibility. Will it reduce global warming? That’s entirely up for debate. But to suggest that these policies will somehow help the economy and create wealth is bizarre.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

 Veeeerrrrrry interesting:

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

More evidence for a lack of consensus on climate change. As I’ve said before, even if we were significantly affecting the climate in some way, it’s such a complex system that we have no clue what affects various proposed policies might actually have. And since such policies are typically estimated to impoverish humanity to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars and necessarily require the initiation of force against individuals, there is absolutely no way–no way–to morally justify any action by government to ‘fix’ the climate (I should specify–the government should take no positive action; the government most certainly should take the negative action of immediately abandoning all publicly owned property and ceasing all taxation, regulation, and other coercion, which would not only do wonders to help the environment but would allow economic growth and productivity on an unimaginable scale).

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

We all learn in Econ 101 that there’s nothing inherently beneficial about buying locally produced goods. That’s not to say that you can’t derive happiness from supporting local growers or that you can’t prefer the taste of a local strawberry to one from the side of the country, but those are just personal preferences that have nothing to do with the actual economics of localization. Nevertheless, there’s a growing trend toward buying local among those who consider themselves environmentally and socially conscious.

Over at Coyote Blog, Warren Meyer talks about some of the significant reasons NOT to push for localization of markets: Sustainability Through Poverty. I especially like his first point:

It doesn’t work.  The total energy used for transport, say of food products, is a small percentage of the total energy used in the total production process.  The energy transportation budget is generally smaller than efficiency gains from scale or from optimizing location.  For example, a wheat farm in Arizona on 50 acres is going to use a lot more energy (and water, and fertilizer, and manpower) than a wheat farm on a thousand acres in North Dakota.

To elaborate on that a little, I would say that people who think they’re “reducing their carbon footprint” by buying local are most likely mistaken. If, as Warren points out above, more energy is used to produce food in a nearby location that’s less suited to such production than another place far away, you’re actually causing MORE carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere when you buy local. Increased use of energy is reflected in higher prices. So it probably makes more sense to buy whatever is cheapest if you want to cut back on your carbon dioxide contribution. Just something to think about.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Well, today is Monday, October 15, 2007–Blog Action Day. I signed up along with thousands of other bloggers to post an entry dealing with the environment today. Figured I should do my part to counter the vast majority of coercion-based posts with one based on freedom. I thought I’d do this via an environmental news roundup with my libertarian response to each item. So here goes:

1. First and foremost, let’s look at Al Gore’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to terrify the world about climate change. He shared this prize with the U.N.’s totalitarian (no, that’s not too strong a word) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is absurd almost beyond description. Gore fosters a growing irrational hysteria about global warming and prefers extremely coercive government actions be implemented. Government inherently breeds conflict and misery, while voluntary, free society creates peace and prosperity. Giving Gore and the IPCC the Peace Prize is like giving a “Completely Sane” prize to Tom Cruise or a “Best Mom” award to Britney Spears. It’s a mockery of the whole idea of recognizing great achievements, and says to me that the Nobel Committee has lost its way. Interestingly, on the very day Gore was awarded his prize, the renowned Dr. William Gray criticized Gore and his scare tactics in a speech at UNC. The libertarian solution to climate change, quite simply, is to keep the government out of it. There’s no justification for using force to slow or halt economic activity (that is, violently restricting your ability to freely enter into a mutually beneficial transaction with someone else) in order to have some affect on the extremely complex and poorly understood planetary climate system based on scientific studies that have been fueled in large part by a desire on the part of unethical scientists to receive government grants and get their names in the paper–an affect, by the way, which could very well end up being worse than if no government action had been taken.

2. The government of Costa Rica is expropriating privately owned land to protect a certain type of sea turtle. Let’s put this another way: a group of people didn’t like that an endangered turtle was disappearing from their neighbors’ land, so they banded together and coercively took the land from their neighbors. That they did so under the cover of the Costa Rican government is immaterial. What they did was wrong. Initiation of violence and force is never the way to get what you want. If so many people felt so strongly about protecting this turtle, why didn’t they simply pool their resources and offer to buy their neighbors land? That would be the libertarian way to do it.

3. Well, it seems tuna fishing is causing destruction of sharks, turtles, and endangered sea birds. Environmentalists want governments to initiate force against the offending tuna fishers. Again, let’s look at the libertarian solution. Overfishing and accidental catching of non-targeted species is a result of a lack of property rights. When governments prohibit the natural development of property rights, we end up with overuse and misuse (i.e. pollution) of resources. Private entities should be allowed to stake claims to ocean resources, whether that be the water itself, a resource like oil or magnesium, or various ocean creatures. If someone owns, for instance, the rights to all the wildlife in a particular sector of the ocean, they’ll have incentive to maintain and even increase that life. Maybe they profit by selling the tuna and shark they catch there, so they come up with ways to make sure those two species remain there and multiply, both for current profit and resale value of that piece of ocean (or bundle of rights). They might receive payments from a private wildlife charity to protect species not necessarily valuable to consumers, like the aforementioned sea birds. There are all kinds of possible arrangements that people could come up with that would protect ocean quality and life in the absence of government restrictions. We’ve just got to unleash the power of the market.

4. An oil driller admitted to dumping waste in the Gulf of Mexico. The government proceeded to fine the company millions of dollars and forced it to take other actions like adding an environmental division to its corporate structure. This is another case of the tragedy of the commons that results when property rights are absent. If someone had had an economic interest in the water quality in the area where the dumping occurred, the oil driller would have been liable for damages just as if they came and dumped that waste in your back yard. The solution is for governments to immediately get rid of any and all restrictions on owning any resource–oceans, lakes, rivers, forests, fish, birds, the sea floor, air, etc. When these things can be privately owned and traded, their quality will skyrocket.

Well, that’s enough government-bashing for the moment. Okay, you can never have enough government-bashing, but I really need to go mow my lawn (you know, it being my private property that I like to take care of and all).

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

You may have noticed the Blog Action Day graphic in my sidebar. This coming Monday, October 15, is Blog Action Day. Thousands of bloggers are all going to post an entry relating to environmental issues. As you can imagine, most of these will be posts favoring statist, coercive actions to correct perceived environmental problems. As you can also imagine, mine will not. See you Monday!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!