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

Tue Jan 10 20:01:37 PST 2012

Caroline,

This is an excellent article.  I am reminded of a Native American argument that I heard recently: Native Americans assume responsibility for taking care of the Earth, rather than assert that they have rights.  Something to add to my MTA argument.  Maybe we need an amendment that asserts that people as well as corps have responsibilities.  That would make the CEO's who always seem to testify "I don't recall" squirm a bit more.  Thanks.

Sincerely,

John Thielking

From: Caroline Yacoub <carolineyacoub at att.net>
To: sosfbay-discuss <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org> 
Cc: shantidreams at yahoo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:37 PM
Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Climate change, libertarians, & property rights (George Monbiot)

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

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20120110/02e3b33c/attachment.html>