Thursday, 7 December 2006

The Environmental Movement; what it means to me

We have all heard of the Environmental Movement. It means different things to everyone; to someone it may mean the simple protection of the environment; to others, it may mean the burning of SUVs and condos.

So, here and now, I'm discussing about what the Environmental Movement means to me.

Environmentalism has been in full-flight for at least three decades now. What have we seen? Rather than a better environment, we have seen the polar opposite from the "Environmentalists"; we have seen man's environment deteriorate.

Indeed, before the environmental movement started, Russians were seeing the terrible effects of "collective ownership" in the USSR. Many Russians had to regularly endure terrible pollution from factories built well below the standards of the average American factory.

The pollution in the USSR was a result of two things, the lack of property rights (thus no incentive to make the land clean and tidy) and the lack of the incentive to produce cleaner factories (competition didn't exist, so nobody cared about environmentally friendly products like we do in the West).

So, I suppose we have to thank the USSR for showing us that Communism is the solution. The removal of competition and property rights only has a negative effect on the environment.

However, many so-called "Environmentalists" pay very little attention to this. Instead, they pay attention to the far cleaner products of the Capitalist world.
Another strange thing about the "Environmentalists" is that, in the 1970s, many of them were saying that the world was cooling down, and that the Earth could be facing an Ice-Age. It seems that they have changed their story, probably because they were proven wrong in their attempt to end Capitalism.

Although, on a more worrying basis, they seem to want us extinct:

"I would wish to return as a killer virus to lower human population levels" (Prince Philip of England, World Wildlife Fund leader, speaking before the United Nations on March 30, 1990, Ibid.).

"Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along" (David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service, The Christian News, June 15, 1992).

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." --Univ. of Calif. professor Kenneth Watt (Cited by Gary Benoit, "The Greatest Sham on Earth," The New American, Mar. 26, 1990).

"The smallest form of life, even an ant or a clam, is equal to a human being." --Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; quoted by Charles Oliver, "Liberation Zoology," Reason, June 1990).

"There really is no rational reason for saying a human being has special rights. ... A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder, Reader's Digest, June 1990).

"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight."
—David Foreman, Earth First!

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

A bit worrying, isn't it? Those weren't made up; they're completely real.

So, by now you should've realised that the environmental movement, to me and hopefully to you, is more than a move to protect the environment, it is a move to rid man of the world. It is a man-hating move, one that sees men as the same as lice.

To that end, I propose a solution for the environment: the restoration of property rights coupled with free-market competition. As of now, we see many regulations on businesses, which restrict their limits to provide clean technology. It is self evident that there is a market for environmentally friendly products, so deregulating the market so that that market and the businesses competing within it will flourish, and therefore the enviornment will as well.

Property rights will help protect valuable land because it is exactly that. Valuable, pristine land is worth far more than non-valuable land, so therefore it would be in the interests of the propietor to keep it that way, so he/she can make big profits come selling time. The same works for water as well.

Animals would flourish as well. To, once again, make big profits come selling time, the propietor would breed the animal so there's more of it, meaning animals could come out of near extinction.

Anyway, that's my rant on the Environmental movement, I hope you've got a few more ideas about it now.


Kane Bunce said...

Well said. I agree with everything you said. if only more people thought the same as us.

Oh, and by the way, I added a link to this post to the Important Posts page element of my blog.

Steve said...

It is senseless to attack environmentalists for something they are not. You quote some environmentalists who see humans as a blight on the earth - and you are correct, some do.

You say that: "So, by now you should've realised that the environmental movement, to me and hopefully to you, is more than a move to protect the environment, it is a move to rid man of the world."

That is completely untrue. Of course there are extremist forms within environmentalism. There are extremists within libertarianism - such as market anarchists. You would not be happy if I quoted market-anarchists who describe themselves as libertarians, and taint you with their ideas. Most mainstream environmentalists think they're doing man good by trying to get environmental controls.

I, personally, am a libertarian, but this kind of post seems to do more harm to our cause than good.

You say the solution is 'property rights', and I think that that's probably the best solution - but at least concede it has problems. One problem is that transaction costs are high, whereas property rights solutions are based on there being no transaction costs - take a look at the Coase Theorem. Moreover, there are huge public good problems with alotting property rights and hoping victims will sue to get economic outcomes.

Rick said...

I think you're giving up on environmentalism the same way the word 'liberal' was given up.

It's a noble and worthy discipline which should not be surrendered to the faction of idiots who have siezed control of this science.

Which sciences will libertarians cut loose next? If idiot-physics continues will we surrender that? If political science becomes dominated by lefties over the next howevermany years will we withdraw from this also? Start calling 'politics' an evil misanthropic subject?

Or would we be better off reclaiming it?

Anonymous said...

Unlimited Earnings Potential -

Our company is rapidly growing and offers you an extraordinary income helping others succeed. The primary requirement is to follow up on client inquiries and point them in the right direction. It is stress free, rewarding and straightforward work.

For complete details:

(Please feel free to delete this post if you don't want it on your blog. Thanks for the informative blog and opportunity to post.)