Talk:Green libertarianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copy-editing

I also like did some grammar stuff and correction. And like really. An observation, since libertarians [at least utilitarians] value human well being above all else, and greens value the environment above human welfare, greenlibertarianism is oxymoronic. Also someone else said that war is incompatible with libertarianism, it could actually be the best way to create common economic space.

I agree that this is crap, i will edit out the parts that would be neither supported by a green or a libertarian [most of the article]. This in reality is a argument [a bad one] for government regulation of the environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.246.8 (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I take a lot of issue with the Issues section of this piece. Who wrote this? A lot of these positions are positions that are held by neither greens nor libertarians, so it would seem quite extraordinary for such positions to be held by supposed "green-libertarians."

Also, this article mentions a "green-libertarian platform." Where is this supposed platform? Nowhere. I googled the quote, and found nothing.

In short, I think this is a bull-shit article, but for now, I will restrain myself to altering the positions. If anybody has a problem with this, the positions can be altered back.

Allixpeeke 71.255.207.140 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There

I think this looks more realistic now. Allixpeeke 71.255.207.140 16:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bogus Article

I agree with Allixpeeke: This is a bull-shit article. The views expressed do not jive with either Libertarianism or Green ideas. No notable advocates of this ideology/movement/idea are given and no sources are cited. This just looks like someone decided to write an article on their own personal ideology. --Dr Mullet 03:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This article needs sources to people who identify themselves as Green Libertarians. Otherwise, it is indeed a BS article. For example, who gets to decide that "Freedom to Bear Arms" (own guns) is part of the ideology? User in Portland, Oregon 30 March 2007

Since nobody has yet demonstrated any reasons why we should keep this article, does anybody know how to officially put this article up for consideration for deletion? Allixpeeke 10:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, this political platform covers more of my personal views than any I've ever seen. A shame it doesn't appear to have any actual organization behind it. Given that no evidence of external support exists, I will initiate Wikipedia:Deletion policy. - Frankie 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I linked to some sources of people who think in the green libertarianism spectrum, fact is this is a different form of libertarian school of thought, and is listed under schools of thought, I think it shouldn't be deleted.

green libertarianism: a party of one

considering that green libertarians sound like a minority within a minority that most people haven't heard of, i geuss this is a more of a manifesto than an article about anything prominent.

libertarians and the environment

on top of all that, why shouldn't a libertarian be an environmentalist? In theory, free market economics potentially could work hand in hand with the environment (save for, a consumerism based economy hell bent on producing an unneccasary amount of physical processed goods which could have a negative impact on the earth.)

for example, liberatarians put great emphasis on personal responsibity and ownership. for example, i shouldn't litter. i should put my garbage either on my property or on the property of a consenting individual (example: a private dump that will take my litter)

another example: if i had a big dog, and it bit someone, assuming the person wasn't tresspassing; i'd have to pay the medical bills, and it is my responsibility to prevent my big dog from attacking randmom folks.

therefore, if i had a chemical factory, i'd be responsible for every ounce of pollution and it's effects. it would be my responsibility to compensate anyone who is ill because i couldn't contain my pollution and it made someone ill. ideally, to avoid all this, i could try and make a more eco-friendly product.

what about global warming? could i sue my neigbor for polluting the air? who owns the air? if air was privatized, does that mean that my neigbors car pollution can't go into my airspace, or vice versa? without gov't intervention, how can collective responsbility for the environemnt be account for? it could be done country by country. Some countries with few cars can declare that they don't want another country's pollution floating in the atmosphere toward their side of the world.....

To whomever wrote this, I will agree with you that there is nothing inherently ungreen or anti-environmentalist about libertarianism (and I consider myself quite the advocate of free-market environmentalism). All the more reason I don't see this new classification as necessary.

You could sue your neighbour for polluting the air is that air drifts onto your property, just as you could sue your neighbour for polluting the stream that runs into your property.

Allixpeeke 71.125.172.76 05:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Green libertarian here, and I know of others! KEEP THE ARTICLE!

I consider myself a green libertarian. I haven't created this article, but I do support it. It's an emerging wing of libertarianism, and as such, it isn't necessarily linked to a political entity (but libertarians are known for being decentralized). The "neolibertarians" are essentially pro-war libertarians (oxymoronic), but are still well-represented online and on Wikipedia. The green libertarians are a fresh batch of "libertarians that believe in human-caused global warming" and deserve to have an article representing them. It can, of course, be revised as time progresses. Essentially, green libertarians believe that some pollution is economically rational, but worthy of regulation. That is, air pollution is a negative externality in the market--its effects are privately beneficial (to the polluter), but causes dispersed harm (to the public, as air is not privatized and thus constitutes a "public good"). Thus, the green libertarian seeks to regulate such pollution for the sake of the environment (since externalities are considered, by some, to be outside the scope of market correction). Also, green libertarians might seek to curb the use of natural resources in use of production (it can have short-term, economic benefits to cut down a forest, but long-term effects remain unforeseen and potentially dangerous).

I, personally, am also eco-libertarian, which is the reason why I came to read this page. I was hoping to find a political organization (or even a single candidate) who matches my views. But the fact is that such entities currently DO NOT EXIST, and therefore this page is wishful thinking which does not merit recognition on Wikipedia. Hopefully someday this will be a commonly held platform, and when it is I would love to see it on Wikipedia again. Frankie 14:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So, until a philosophy can be linked to a person or organization with celebrity, it does not warrant a Wikipedia article? Is that the criterion needed?

I would say yes, exactly so. This article is about a specific term ("Green libertarianism") which purports to hold a specific political platform. Unless there is a significant organized entity actively promoting this exact combination (both the name and the platform), then it should not be here. I know of several personal web sites which espouse similar concepts (including my own), but Wikipedia should not be a soapbox for each of the six billion viewpoints in the world; only those which merit recognition as known and established forces, our own personal desires notwithstanding. Frankie 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am, quite admittedly, not the most familiar with the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikipedia, nor do I claim to know all the rules for what merits an article. I will trust your judgment, but I--personally--do believe green libertarianism is an "established force." :)For instance, I believe only personal websites truly espouse "neolibertarianism" by that name, but they are represented (and I believe fairly) on Wikipedia. But, once again, since you are sympathetic to eco-libertarianism, I can only imagine you attempting to dispassionately evaluate the worth of the green lib article, and I can appreciate your verdict.

Geolibertarianism

I have been involved in the Green movement since 1985. The green libertarians are Georgists within the green movement. Some of us call ourselves geo-libertarians and others geoists. One prominent geoist was one of the founders of the California Green Party. This faction can be documented in John Rensenbrink's book on the Green Movement as he identified it there.

[[1]] Citizens Dividend

[[2]] Green Tax shift

[[3]] Geo-libertarianism in wiki

BeGreener 19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So, are you saying this article should be merged with Geolibertarianism? I think that sounds like a good option. Frankie 03:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, green libertarianism is distinct from geolibertarianism. I'm not even sure how those two could be mixed up. Geolibertarianism is a philosophy specifically focused on the moral ambiguity of land ownership (thereby leading to advocacy of Georgism). Quite frankly, that has nothing to do with environmental issues whatsoever. Where exactly does global warming fit into THAT picture? Green libertarianism is distinct and is in no way synonymous with geolibertarianism (find something to substantiate that wacky claim). Libertarians are minarchists (or anarchists) that support government services like law, police, and courts... but green libertarians endorse cautious capitalism that may need government regulation, as well: public goods like air should be preserved, consumption of finite resources should be prudently judged, and areas that can be privatized should be (privatized areas of the sea have been proven to prevent overfishing).

so let's get a handle on terminology, ok?

a georgist generally believes that the exclusive use of land (the dry surface of the earth) beyond Locke's proviso (via the state granting of privilege) creates a natural economic phenomena called "economic rent" which is a community created value which is not as the result of the labor of the landowner...if the economic rent is collected by the landowner rather than collected for public purposes, then it can only come at the sacrifice of the equal liberty claim (self-ownership) of those the privilege excludes...it is the georgist belief that all taxation on labor and capital must be shifted onto unimproved land values.

a geo-libertarian views "land" in an economic sense as all natural resources (land, waater, air, timber, oil, electro-maagnetic spectrum) that pre-exist human labor.

a geo-anarchists believes that the economic rent must be shared equally and directly between neighbors within a community rather than being spent by the local government.

a geoist believes that all aspects of the natural AND social commons (democracy, currency, scientific knowledge, anti-IP laws, etc) must include an obligation to those being excluded by sharing the economic rent where exclusive use is necessary because of rivalrous goods.

so the way that global warming fits into a geo-libertarian or geoist analysis is similar to their approach with land (the dry surface of the earth)...global warming is nothing more than the use of the sky as a carbon sink beyond it's sustainable yield (Locke's "enough and as good" proviso) - the resulting negative externalities (costs born by a third party) are an expression of economic rent that are forced upon those being excluded from the use of the sky as a carbon sink for our sustenaance...the way to remedy the situation from a geoist perspective (see Peter Barnes' book "Who Owns the Sky?" & his "Sky Trust" concept) is to limit the use of the sky as a carbon sink to the sustainable yield, require annual permits to be purchase on the open market - this now represents the exact amount of negative externalities third parties are being subject to today - for any company who sells a product which liberates carbon into the atmosphere, collect the economic rent and return it to the owners of the sky (all of us equally) in the form of a citizens dividend.

Peter Barnes' "Capitalism 3.0" with an explanation of the "Sky Trust"

[[4]]

BeGreener 15:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But here's my problem: I'm a green libertarian, and I don't agree with that. I endorse ecotaxation (on carbon emission, on the extraction of resources from forests, etc.). And, there is no necessary connection with green libertarianism and the belief that land must be owned collectively (there is no consensus in libertarianism at all about that). I say: stick to geolibertarianism, but don't try to co-opt green libertarianism.

I also want to add that owning "unimproved land" is a common desire among greens (including green libertarianism). That is, one would not necessarily want to "mix labor with" vast expanses of the rain forest or grasslands occupied by animals--should conservation of such land be heavily taxed just because the land has not been improved? It seems the geolibertarian would say yes, whereas a green libertarian may not.

you are confusing common ownership and collective ownership - they are not the same thing. Common ownership is an individual equal right, whereas collective ownership is a joint right that eventually leads to inequality and positive liberty schemes as one moves away from pure consensus decision-making which can only work in small, homogeneous groups.

what is your philosophical basis for ecotaxation that can be put into the context of the fundamental principle of libertarianism - the absolute right to self-ownership?

you complete miss what you are calling "taxation" and what economic rent is...geo-greens believe that the entire material and non-material universe is owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right so long as one doesn't violate the absolute right of any other individual to the same. Geo-greens wouldn't "tax" unimproved lands like rainforests or grasslands unless economic rent was attached to it and that is a direct function of our urban cores being optimized by ending speculation (collect and share the economic rent) and ending direct subsidization of transportation infrastructure.

BeGreener 11:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you would only tax lands that are being rented?

GREENLIBERTARIAN

18:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

you obviously have little understanding of the term "economic rent" and it's implications for the environment and economy...there would only be economic rent (and thus a tax to collect) attached to locations that where in proximity to the labor and services of others. By ending all subsidies to transportation infrastructure and collecting economic rent, people would abandon lands on the margins and optimize their use within the urban core rather than being subjected to speculation.

BeGreener 11:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to get a conceptual handle on something that seems so abitrary. How "close" is "close enough" to labor and services of others, for instance? GREENLIBERTARIAN

that's the beauty of the market - for assessors with enough data points (sales) for all practical purposes you can know what the unimproved land value is which is just an expression of the economic advantage the community provides to those who have exclusive use of something that would be occupied by another member of the community if not occupied by the current occupant...this is a similar objection to Locke's "enough and as good" proviso for the just enclosure of what had previously been owned in common - by definition you have not left "enough and as good in common for others" if economic rent is attached to your enclosure. Why would I pay economic rent to you to occupy your location if you have left enough and as good subjectively determine by me to freely occupy? I wouldn't...

BeGreener 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoever is debating with BeGreener, you need to sign your freaking comments. It is a massive pain to try and read this without knowing who is saying what.

p.s. Regarding your claim that he is trying to co-opt "green libertarianism", no, it is equally plausible that you are. Although I personally agree with about 3/4ths of GL's bullet points, I still see no evidence that the term possesses anything close to a recognized platform or formal definition. Your anonymity is an excellent metaphor of the non-entity that is organized green libertarianism. Frankie 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that they maybe trying to representing "free market environmentalism" as "green libertarianism". When I use the term "green" I am actually representing myself as a distinct faction within the Green Party.

BeGreener 11:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC) 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my main beef: unless every Green is also a geoist of some brand, then why would every green libertarian necessarily be? I'd be willing to open the tent to have geolibertarians be within the umbrella of green libertarianism, but I wouldn't equate the two as identical. Not every Green is a geo-anarchist or Georgist or whatnot, so why would every green libertarian be? GREENLIBERTARIAN

To exemplify what seems so absurd about this article, let me admit that I am an anarcho-capitalist. Let me also admit that I have green values, believing environmentalism to be important. Does this mean I ought to create a page for "green anarcho-capitalism"? And how would such a philosophy be objectively different from "regular" anarcho-capitalism, especially considering that anarcho-capitalism is a wide enough philosophical perspective as to encompass anything that could fall into "green anarcho-capitalism"?

With that said, I do believe the person who brought up neolibertarianism has a point. That's hardly a "philosophy" advocated by any specific think-tank, party, or organisation, and thus there is no objective authority on what the philosophy must entail. It is instead just held by various individuals who fail to recognise the inconsistency of pre-emptive war with Liberty. Yet, it has its own wiki page, where it can bask it all its silliness; so who not let the green libertarian page have the same?

Conflicts with this sort of page will still likely arise, as different persons all viewing themselves to be green libertarians who yet possess various differences will argue about consensus. Must one support taxation to be a green libertarian? Must one support the Kyoto treaty? Must one believe that global warming is being specifically caused by humans? Is it consistent with green libertarianism to view pollution as a violation of natural law, thus punishable even when done solely on one's own property? Assuming that green libertarians support government-mandated regulation specifically for environmental protection, do green libertarians believe this would be handled more efficiently by local governments or federal/national governments? Are all green libertarians necessarily minarchists, or can some be anarchists as well?

Allixpeeke 71.125.172.76 06:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I brought up neolibertarianism. I can agree with all of that, actually. GREENLIBERTARIAN

Bold text

libertarianism and natural law

The roots of libertarianism lay in natural law. Unfortunately, natural law has been narrowly construed to mean only what the old-timers (Aristotle to Smith) had bothered to pursue. In their time - there was no need to define natural law to encompass the law that governs humman and nature. It only encompassed humans. However, in our times - we do have a need to examine our relationship with the ecosystem. Extending natural law seems logical. And if natural law is expanded - libertarian thought seems to be rightful heir to this body of thought. Methinks - instead of splitting hair between geo-this and green-that - we ought to focus on extending core libertarianism; to bring libertarianism out from the industrial age. To coin a new term - post-modern libertarianism - an umbrella term that can cover all these various strands of thought. I suggest that a goal of post-modern libertarianism should be to establish natural laws that can form the basis of sustainable governance, while maintaining consistency with all the existing natural laws (pursuit of life, liberty, happinness; etc..).

For instance, what is our "natural right to pollute"? At the very least - it includes a right to excrete. Should it include any other right? Should we have an unfettered right to import an Elmo from China to the US? The classic libertarian view would say - yes. Governments should not be allowed to impose tariffs (leave alone, ban). But, what is the natural basis for such a right? The only reason we have this freedom is because of scientific discovery and government actions. Nature did not give us this ability. If this right csn be regulated - what natural law can govern the level of onerousness of such a law?

Another question is - what is our "natural right to grow foods"? At the very least - it includes a right to cultivate using natural means. Does it include the right to use any seed - including genetically modified ones? Conferring this right would violate the old natural law that I should give others the same freedom as I have. Since, if I used genetically modified seeds - it may cross-pollinate with my neightbor's field and force him to buy genetically modified seeds next year. Or does this right only allow the use of seeds that do not tamper with others' seeds? Or, how about the use of chemicals? Do I have a right to use pesticides and to dump the run-off into a river? Does the local government have the right to confer on me the right to pollute the river - since another community downstream looses their right to clean rivers? Does the national government have a right to confer on all the local governments the right to pollute the river? Doesn't the national government's right violate another nation who shares the river or is adjoining to the mouth of the river?

Another question is - what is the "natural right to defend oneself"? At the very least - it includes the right to make and keep whatever weapons we can make ourselves and it includes the right to use force when threatened. But, does it confer upon us the right to sell such weapons to others? Does it confer upon the government an obligation to ensure that there is a viable arms market that can allow those of us who do not know how to make weapons to procure a weapon?

Another question is - what is the "natural right to engage in commerce"? Should the government have any authority to ban products? The classical libertarian position would be - No. But, what if the product is a weapon of mass destruction? If WMDs can be banned from personal ownership - then what else can be banned? I would purport - that government has a right to ban commerce of products whose sole purpose is to kill. Such an interpretation does not violate the constitution but does provide a firm basis for evaluating prohibitions on products.

What is the right to free association? Should it include - 128-bit, no escrow private key? The classical libertarian position would be yes. It would be argued from more general grounds like "government should not ban anything". But, this is a rather shasky ground to stand on - since we probably cannot support such a narrow view of government's powers. Governments will ban (if nothing else - WMDs). My thought is that we should build the defence of complete privacy on the firmer grounds of free association. It is our natural right to communicate in private. And, even though nature did not give us the capability to do this over long distances - this is one case in which we should expand the natural rights of humans. But, on what general principle should such an exception be made?

I would like to believe that there are others who have explored libertarianism in this manner. I would love to hear from them; or to get any pointers to them.

Rdesai19 (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree in general, I think most of what libertarism is today is to built off of what has been. It may need to go back and examine its roots, aka redefine its natural laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.111.147 (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What criteria should be used to define what qualifies as a WMD, and who gets to say so? Also, it could be argued that any weapon whose immediately obvious purpose is "to kill" also necessarily has the potential use "to threaten", defensively as well as offensively -- e.g., "you'd better not nuke us or we'll nuke you back ten times over" -- in hopes of completely avoiding any killing at all. If we somehow reject that, we would then either need to ban a whole range of items (including, for example, hunting rifles, which are made "to kill", even though they're used almost exclusively to kill only non-humans, and the rare cases in which they are used against people are comparable to the use of any other implement that is not designed but can be used for that purpose, such as a hammer) or set an arbitrary delineation such as "to kill PEOPLE" (which is problematic in at least two ways: firstly, because anything even explicitly designed "to kill PEOPLE" could instead be used for any number of other non-lethal purposes, and only when something is actually used to kill a person does it potentially become a "murder weapon"; and secondly, and perhaps more abstractly, what constitutes a "person" is certainly open to debate, and increasingly so as time goes by.) I've been around these particular philosophical mulberry bushes far too many times, and I become increasingly convinced that there are no right answers in any sense at all. There is only you and what you do at any moment in your own interactions with the world. We are all living in anarchy at all times -- a debatable statement, of course, depending how we want to define our terms, but it's worthy of consideration, if only to search for a better way of expressing the idea for oneself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.238.26 (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed History section

I have removed the "History" section, it did not cite any sources and, frankly, it read like an essay (which, given the edit summary [5], I believe it was). Adding history and background should be accompanied by reliable sources, particularly when the article is already flagged for its factual accuracy. Thank you (and no offense intended), -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The section has since been restored. While the wording is improved, the entire addition still lacks references (for example, there's no cite for the assertion that "Ralph Nader ... is both libertarian and Green"). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Who added this tag? What do you consider an "organized political entity"? I think that adding some more sources fixed this. There is proof that the subject is notable, and there are multiple reliable sources. Therefore, I don't see what in the article is not factual. Just about everything is sourced. I'm removing the tag on these principles. Please discuss if there are further issues. hmwithτ 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

What makes green libertarians green? Following recent edits to the "Balance of ecology and economics" section, I'm a bit confused by the text. What I walk away with is a description of libertarians, not green libertarians (nor anything else leaning toward green). The description also contradicts an assertion in the previous section, that Ralph Nader is an example of a green libertarian (but I've pointed that out previously on this talk page). The article implies that Ralph Nader and the Cato Institute share the same green libertarian ideology. Is this really the case? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is now less of an issue than it had been, following another editor's removal of one paragraph due to WP:V / WP:COATRACK. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

The second sentence in the lede reads, "Based upon a mixture of political third party values, such as the environmental platform from the Green Party and the civil liberties platform of the Libertarian Party, the green libertarian philosophy attempts to consolidate socially progressive values with economic liberalism." The way I read this is, "given their emphasis on civil liberties, green libertarians espouse economic liberalism," but I don't see how this follows. Also, the sentence itself cites a self-published source, in which the author explains "[the Green-Libertarian Movement] came into official being about 30 minutes ago (25 Jul 96), when I decided it did." (I had previously ignored it as flippant, and it probably still is, but see the comment at #green libertarianism: a party of one earlier on this page.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why was this removed?

Ralph Nader, who ran for President in 1996 and 2000 with the Green Party, is probably the leading contemporary example of an activist-theoretician who is both libertarian and Green.

99.190.85.111 (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't sourced. Please also see my earlier comments on this talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The entire section isn't sourced. That's just the only part which talks about a specific living person, per WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)