Hello to everybody!
I am Evgeniy from Ukraine, and I am interested in Libertarian philosophy.
Recently I have read an article which describes that In Germany historical city of Marburg will be a Law which will pursuade every new building or any renovated one to install photovoltaic panels.
My question is: what would be the view to such kind of law which in generally points to the great cause of lessening environment footprint, but is it correct way? And what would be correct way from the Libertarian point of view.
Thank you in advance
Evgeniy,
Ukraine
Such a law would redirect capital from where it would be used most efficiently.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
The root of the problem is government subsidies of energy companies in all its forms, that serve as an impediment for the environmental costs of producing energy to be bear by the users, and so the government steps up with these great demonstrations of fascism.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
The environment(link has f-word) has no intrinsic value, its only value is in human use.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
ChaseCola: The environment has no intrinsic value, its only value is in human use.
The environment has no intrinsic value, its only value is in human use.
That website is really mature... And nothing has intrinsic value of course: value is subjective to the beholder. Sometimes the price structure doesn't reflect the value people place in that land as a reserve. This is because government interference that passes carte blanche to some well placed companies to pollute people's bodies and properties at will. Besides they expropriate people from their property to make place for these plants, they make it hard and actually prohibit more eco-friendly competiton like nuclear, and sometimes actually outright make taxpayers subsidize these projects.
Yes it is mature
I guess the point I am trying to make is that the environment has no rights. You cannot ethically stop someone from logging the rainforests for example because as long as nobody owns it, It is up for grabs.
The problem with pollution is a lack of respect for property rights. First of all, public lands shouldn't exist, and thus it would be the duty of the land owner to protect his land from polluters. Second, the law should recognize that nobody has a right to pollute on somebody else's property, as it is akin to tresspassing. Third, if one wants to pollute one the land that they homestead/own, then nobody else has a right to interfere.
I'm all for helping the environment. I don't believe in man-made global warming but I do think we should do more to pollute less. The biggest problem we face is that governments are the ones attempting to stem the tide of massive pollution. The government, it has been proven, only makes things worse. Take the United States as an example of how governments make a bad problem worse. In 2007 the US Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That act did a number of bad things but one of the worse was the ban of incandescent bulbs which are to be replaced with compact fluorescent lamps (CFL). While the incandescent bulb might not be the most efficient means of lighting your house it is a hell of a lot better than CFL's. Why? Because CFL's contain the heavy metal mercury. It is recomended that if you should ever break one of those you should leave your room for "at least" 15 minutes. Actually you should have a HAZMAT team come in and clean up the area. While CFL's are more efficient the mercury they contain makes them a bad choice. Ok, so now we've reduced the amount of power the average household uses every year. Great! But what is going to happen to the environment when millions upon millions of these bulbs are thrown away into landfills and all of that mercury begins to leak into our water supply or gets washed into our farms and gardens?
The point is that the government doesn't know the best way to clean up the environment only the free market can do that. People will naturally want clean air, better gas mileage, less energy consumption, etc., as all of these things start impacting their pocket books. People don't want trash on their property, toxic waste in their water or carcinogens in their air filling their lungs every time they take a breath. It is respect for private property and the enforcement of property rights that will clean up the earth, not government mandate. If I live in a community 10 miles downstream from a factory that is pouring millions of gallons of toxic waste into our water supply damaging our property, our bodies, etc. we could, as a community, come together and take that factory to court. The court, whose soul job is to judge and rule on property rights, would rule in our favor and order the factory to clean up its act. If people had died because of this toxic waste and the people in charge knew this would happen then they could be (and should be) brought up on murder charges and executed themselves. If the factory failed to clean up its act it could be shut down until it complied since it cannot continue to violate the property rights of those living downstream.
It is respect for private property and free market forces that will clean up the environment not government mandate. All this law in Germany is going to do is make it more expensive and nearly impossible for new buildings to be built or older ones remodeled which will lead to housing shortages, commercial office and industrial shortages, etc. I believe that it will have more of a negative impact on the economy of that city than it will positive impact on the environment.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
Evgeniy Martynov:My question is: what would be the view to such kind of law which in generally points to the great cause of lessening environment footprint, but is it correct way? And what would be correct way from the Libertarian point of view
Socialism causes pollution. Strict adherence to property rights prevents it.
This government policy is just as likely to increase pollution as it is to reduce it. The government is not capable of weighing the costs and benefits any such policy, they are nothing more than guesses. And it will definately squander resources,human and natural, making the german people poorer.
Peace
Thank you everybody for you valuable opinion, it is realy helpfull your thoughts,. Every time I hear about such news or moves I become curious, and the hesitation of the first good intentions which always are presented on the visible surface really have hidden unintended consequences.
thanks