[GPSCC-chat] Fw: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot)

[Caroline Yacoub]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the last person still worrying about climate 
change. I think this is an exceptional argument to use against climate change 
deniers.
Caroline



----- Forwarded Message ----
From: shane que hee <squehee at ucla.edu>
Sent: Tue, January 10, 2012 7:30:49 PM
Subject: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot)


>Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:10:46 -0800
>Subject: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot)
>From: Thomas Scott Tucker <scott at tstucker.com>
>
>
>
>Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot)
>
>As soon as it encounters environmental issues, the ideology of the new right
>becomes ensnared in its own contradictions.
>
>By George Monbiot
>
>The Guardian, 6th January 2012
>http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climate-change/
>
>Over the Christmas break I read what I believe is the most important
>environmental essay of the past 12 months. Though it begins with a mildly
>unfair criticism of a column of mine, I won¹t hold it against the author.
>
>In a simple and very short tract, Matt Bruenig presents a devastating
>challenge to those who call themselves libertarians, and explains why they
>have no choice but to deny climate change and other environmental problems.
>
>Bruenig explains what is now the core argument used by conservatives and
>libertarians: the procedural justice account of property rights. Briefly
>stated, this means that if the process by which property was acquired was
>just, then those who have acquired it should be free to use it as they wish,
>without social restraints or obligations to other people.
>
>Their property rights are absolute and cannot be intruded upon by the state
>or by anyone else. Any interference with or damage to the value of their
>property without their consent ­ even by taxation ­ is an unwarranted
>infringement. This, with local variations, is the basic philosophy of the
>Republican candidates, the Tea Party movement, the lobby groups which call
>themselves ³free market thinktanks² and much of the new right in the UK.
>
>It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates
>the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess
>the most property end up with great power over others. Dressed up as
>freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to
>address inequality, hardship or social exclusion. A transparently
>self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of
>those with wealth and power. But for the sake of argument, Bruenig says, let
>us accept it.
>
>Let us accept the idea that damage to the value of property without the
>owner¹s consent is an unwarranted intrusion upon the owner¹s freedoms. What
>this means is that as soon as libertarians encounter environmental issues,
>they¹re stuffed.
>
>Climate change, industrial pollution, ozone depletion, damage to the
>physical beauty of the area surrounding people¹s homes (and therefore their
>value), all these, if the libertarians did not possess a shocking set of
>double standards, would be denounced by them as infringements on other
>people¹s property.
>
>The owners of coal-burning power stations in the UK have not obtained the
>consent of everyone who owns a lake or a forest in Sweden to deposit acid
>rain there. So their emissions, in the libertarian worldview, should be
>regarded as a form of trespass on the property of Swedish landowners. Nor
>have they received the consent of the people of this country to allow
>mercury and other heavy metals to enter our bloodstreams, which means that
>they are intruding upon our property in the form of our bodies.
>
>Nor have they ­ or airports, oil companies or car manufacturers ­ obtained
>the consent of all those it will affect to release carbon dioxide into the
>atmosphere, altering global temperatures and ­ through rising sea levels,
>droughts, storms and other impacts ­ damaging the property of many people.
>
>As Bruenig says, ³Almost all uses of land will entail some infringement on
>some other piece of land that is owned by someone else. So how can that ever
>be permitted? No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify
>the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels because those things affect
>the freedom and property rights of others. Those actions ultimately cause
>damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from
>those affected. They are the ethical equivalent ­ for honest libertarians ­
>of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else¹s window.²
>
>So here we have a simple and coherent explanation of why libertarianism is
>so often associated with climate change denial and the playing down or
>dismissal of other environmental issues. It would be impossible for the
>owner of a power station, steel plant, quarry, farm or any large enterprise
>to obtain consent for all the trespasses he commits against other people¹s
>property ­ including their bodies.
>
>This is the point at which libertarianism smacks into the wall of gritty
>reality and crumples like a Coke can. Any honest and thorough application of
>this philosophy would run counter to its aim: which is to allow the owners
>of capital to expand their interests without taxation, regulation or
>recognition of the rights of other people. Libertarianism becomes
>self-defeating as soon as it recognises the existence of environmental
>issues. So they must be denied.
>
>www.monbiot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20120110/415b4c43/attachment.html>