Tag: Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals

Free Market Currency

I read that Ron Paul introduced HR 1098, the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011. The bill is straightforward, if passed it would abolish current legal tender laws that are used by the state to enact tight economic control over the populace:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LEGAL TENDER LAWS.

(a) In General- Section 5103 of title 31, United States Code (relating to legal tender), is hereby repealed.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subchapter I of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 5103 and inserting the following new item:
‘5103. [Repealed].’.

SEC. 3. NO TAX ON CERTAIN COINS AND BULLION.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law–

(1) no tax may be imposed on (or with respect to the sale, exchange, or other disposition of) any coin, medal, token, or gold, silver, platinum, palladium, or rhodium bullion, whether issued by a State, the United States, a foreign government, or any other person; and

(2) no State may assess any tax or fee on any currency, or any other monetary instrument, which is used in the transaction of interstate commerce or commerce with a foreign country, and which is subject to the enjoyment of legal tender status under article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution.

(b) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on December 31, 2011, but shall not apply to taxes or fees imposed before such date.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF SUPERFLUOUS SECTIONS.

(a) In General- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking sections 486 (relating to uttering coins of gold, silver, or other metal) and 489 (making or possessing likeness of coins).

(b) Conforming Amendment to Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 25 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the items relating to the sections stricken by subsection (a).

(c) Special Rule Concerning Retroactive Effect- Any prosecution under the sections stricken by subsection (a) shall abate upon the taking effect of this section. Any previous conviction under those sections shall be null and void.

Money, in the true sense of the word, is nothing more than a good that facilitates trade. Barter is a pain in the ass because it’s very difficult to find the exact goods somebody else needs. If you want to buy a box of ammunition and the person selling ammunition needs a dozen eggs, half of a pound of ground beef, and a pair of socks you’re going to have to trade for all of those items first. To overcome this complexity the market eventually began using what we think of as money today.

Historically speaking gold and silver have been chosen as money as both commodities have several traits that are desirable in money. Gold and silver coins are easily divided for the performance of smaller transactions, durable (they won’t rust away on you), and portable. Both metals also have intrinsic value meaning they can actually be used to manufacture stuff if nobody is willing to take them as money anymore.

Most states now legally mandate a currency and that currency is always fait, that is to say it has no intrinsic value. Fiat currencies are the stuff of dreams to governments because it allows them to effectively dictate the value and print whatever quantity they need to pay for whatever exorbitantly expensive project their heart is currently set on. Unfortunately these traits that make fiat currency the cat’s meow to the state also make that very same currency toxic to individuals like you and me. The phenomenon known as inflation is a product of fiat currencies. When the state prints more money to pay off whatever project it deems desirable it decreases the purchasing power of everybody holding that currency.

Unfortunately one needs to hold United States dollars because the state mandates you pay all taxes in dollars and requires individuals to accept dollars as payments for debts:

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

Legal tender laws are downright evil. When the state demands all individuals accept Federal Reserve notes they are really saying, “OK serf listen up, you will trade any good or service you have for this piece of paper with a number and the picture of a dead president printed on it. This piece of paper will also constantly be in a state of devaluation.” The libertarian in me love this bill but the agorist in my doesn’t really see the point.

The only thing you need to do to accept an alternate currency is… accept an alternate currency. Do you want to be pain in silver bullion? Trade your goods or services for silver bullion. Want BitCoins? Only trade your goods and services for BitCoins. In fact one of the keystones of the agorist movement is alternative currencies. Let’s face it, the state derives a great deal of power from forcing people to use their currency. It is both the reason why agorists prefer dealing in alternate currencies and why this bill will never pass.

An Important Thing to Remember About the Virginia Tech Massacre

This year marks the fifth anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre. While many people have been using this anniversary to push a gun control agenda the truth is the amount of people killed by the shooter could have been reduced greatly if only students and faculty were allowed to carry on campus:

Speaking for myself, I would give anything if someone on campus; a professor, one of the trained military or guardsman taking classes or another student could have saved my daughter by shooting Cho before he killed our loved ones. Because professors, staff and students are precluded from protecting themselves on campus, Cho, a student at Virginia Tech himself, was able to simply walk on campus and go on a killing rampage with no worry that anyone would stop him.

What enabled the killer to walk around the campus and murder random individuals wasn’t a lack of gun control laws, it was to presences of them. Serial killers like Cho select gun-free zones for a reason, they can be reasonably sure that they won’t encounter any resistance and therefore hold all of the power. For many of these killers their real desire is power over others and killing unarmed individuals gives a person a feeling of power.

When the state prohibits you from carrying a firearm they are stripping you of your ability to defend yourself. No free society should ever find it acceptable to use the threat of violence (if you carry a gun you will be kidnapped and tossed into a cage) to prevent others from defending themselves. It’s ridiculous. The very fact that nonviolent individuals wanting nothing more than the ability to defend themselves are subjected to the threat of violence by the state should be appalling to everybody.

Although the Virginia Tech massacre couldn’t have been prevented entirely the number killed could have been greatly reduced. Instead society allowed the gun control advocates to get their way and it has cost lives. We should all remember the aftermath of Virginia Tech and vow to fight for individuals’ right to self-defense.

There is No Right, There is No Left

It seems any topic imaginable gets split between the political right (Republicans) and left (Democrats). Laws against abortions are generally considered right, laws allowing for abortions are generally considered left. Laws allowing gays to marry are usually considered left, laws prohibiting gays from marrying are usually considered right. Guns are no different, laws supporting gun ownership are usually seen as right while guns opposing gun ownership are usually seen as left. There is a problem with such thinking though: there is no right and there is no left, just one giant authoritarian party:

Of course, the biggest piece of anti-freedom, anti-gun legislation was the 1968 Gun Control Act, which stopped the unrestricted, ungoverned interstate sale of firearms and gave us the immortal BATFE Form 4473. “HEY, HEY, LBJ, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?” Yeah, old Lyndon put that one through and it sailed through a Democratic House and Senate and was signed by a President I’ve despised all my life.

This is where everybody likes to stand up and say, “See! The Democrats hate our gun rights!” What these same people seldom stand up and say is that Republicans hate our gun rights as well. Let’s not forget what the man who is an symbol of all that is supposedly conservative, good, and holy to the Republican Party did to fuck gun owners over:

Ronnie Reagan is the one who really stuck it to Gun Owners. He signed the legislation that capped the NFA pool at what it is today and stopped the New registration of machine guns. What few on our side of this issue want to talk about is the fact that more than a few prominent machine gun collectors lobbied FOR this law. Dolf Goldsmith being the most prominent one I could find in the testimony in the Congressional Record. Why? Because it made him Rich! It was Greed, pure and simple and Good Ole Ronnie signed it into law.

The cap on licensable machine guns, brought to us courtesy of the Huges Amendment, was not only signed by the “most amazingest conservative president EVAR!” but was also supported by those who owned machine guns. It’s not surprising to see machine gun owners supporting such a bill for the same reason many companies that face additional expenses from regulations public support said regulations: it eliminates competition and therefore makes the good or service you provide more valuable.

When the state gets an idea in their head to regulation some inane process related to a business the large businesses will usually jump in and exclaim their undying support. They do this because they realize their smaller competitors won’t be able to afford complying with the regulation and will therefore go bankrupt.

The very same mentality went through the heads of machine gun owners when the Huges Amendment was introduced. Think about it for a minute, you own a machine gun that is valued at, say, $500.00. The value of your machine gun doesn’t go up because new ones are constantly being produced. Suddenly a politician comes out and says he wants to halt the production of new machine guns, which would mean new ones won’t get produced to compete with the one you own. It’s in your best interest to support the legislation because it will cause the value of your machine gun to increase over time as the pool of available machine guns slowly dries up and no new ones are being produced to refill the pool.

Another example of this are tax cabs, the number of which many cities put a limit on. This is one of the classic examples of state enforce monopolies given by Murray Rothbard and he talks about it extensively in his microeconomics lecture on monopolies. Needless to say, like machine gun owners supporting the Huges Amendment, taxi cab drivers support the cap on the number of taxis that can operate within a city. Let’s move on to more of this left/right paradigm destruction:

After Reagan, Bush the Senior outlawed the importation of ‘assault weapons’ and then Clinton stuck us for 10 years with the ban on over 10 round magazines. Fortunately, that last piece of anti-freedom crap had a sunset provision and died a natural, but none too soon, death and some sanity has been restored. We still wouldn’t have many different ‘assualt rifles’ if the 922(e) provision for American manufactured parts hadn’t been introduced. Otherwise, you would have AR’s, M-1A’s and, Oh Yeah, a whole bunch more AR’s and damn few other options.

Most gun owners remember how Clinton screwed us but few remember how Bush Sr. screwed us (or the fact Geore W. Bush said he would sign a renewal to the “assault” weapon ban if it crossed his desk). So what’s the conclusion? Can’t we just blindly vote for Republicans to defend our gun rights? Nope:

So, if you evaluate Presidents and political parties by what they’ve done and NOT by their soundbites, my feeling is the Republican Presidents have screwed gun owners more than the Democrats have. Only 2 Democratic Presidents have signed anti-gun, anti-freedom national legislation; Johnson and Clinton, while on the Republican side, we have Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush Senior.

There is no right and there is no left, there are no Republican and there are no Democrats. When it comes to issues there are only politicians who will screw you over at the drop of a hat if it means they gain money, power, or a better chance to be reelected so they can get more of the two latter things. Saying Romney will protect our gun rights more than Obama is an argument not backed with any factual information. Romney’s record on guns is horrible. Both Obama and Romney state support for “assault” weapon bans but only one, Romney, has actually signed a ban.

Between the two Romney will be the candidate promising gun owners protection but the rhetoric is irrelevant, whether or not he will deliver is the only important question. Judging by his voting record he won’t support us. Some people are claiming he’ll support us because he needs us to get elected , which is false. Romney doesn’t need to pander to us because he knows our options are either him or Obama and most gun owners hate Obama to such a degree that they’ll vote for anybody else.

When it comes to gun rights there is no lesser evil. I will not support either candidate and I encourage my readers to abstain from supporting either candidate as well. If two candidates who oppose my right of self-defense want to duke it out in a popularity contest they can, I don’t recognize the authority of the state anyways so whichever dictator gets into office is entirely irrelevant to me. Those of you who plan to donate your time and money to Romney know that you’re only helping sow your own destruction. Have fun with that, I’ll be sitting this out. While I may be powerless to stop any destruction of gun rights in this country I certainly will not help the bastards planning that destruction.

Shootout in New Hampshire

I’m not sure if journalism can get much more shoddy than the coverage the shootout that just occurred in Greenland, NH:

The body of a man suspected of killing Greenland’s police chief and wounding four other officers was found dead inside his home early Friday morning, police said.

[…]

Greenland Police Chief Michael Maloney, 48, who was with the department for 12 years, was shot and killed trying to gain entry to the home while serving a drug-related warrant, Delaney said. He was set to retire in one week.

Maloney and four officers from the Attorney General’s drug task force arrived at the home at about 6 p.m. when Mutrie opened fire.

At first I thought this post would be discussion how the war on drugs has needless claimed more victims and caused the police to insert violence into an otherwise non-violent situation (manufacturing, possessing, and selling unapproved drugs is not a violent action). Unfortunately I ran into a bit of a problem since news articles didn’t go into any detail about the drug-related offense. Finally I came across this:

The Portsmouth Herald reported in February 2011 that Cullen Mutrie, 29, was a resident of the home on 517 Post Road and had been arrested and charged with possession of anabolic steroids.

The newspaper reported that the steroids were found in the home when officers went to confiscate guns after Mutrie was arrested on domestic assault charges. According to a police affidavit, the steroids were found in Mutrie’s living room on July 24, 2010, but were not verified by the state crime lab until Jan. 18.

A domestic violence charge lead to a drug charge. Domestic violence is, oftentimes, a violent situation and therefore intervention is justifiable. With that said domestic violence situations are one of the hardest situations to figure out because it is often an emotionally charged he-said-she-said argument. Sometimes a husband beats his wife, other times the wife beats her husband, and in other cases yelling and screaming leads to one party making false accusations against the other. Needless to say I have zero details on what happened and therefore can’t no comment on it.

What is interesting is the fact the police apparently confiscated Mutrie’s firearms yet he still had firearms to shoot the police with when they arrived to arrest him this time around. Apparently confiscation doesn’t actually work, who would have guessed? Likewise it should go without saying that Mutrie surrendered his firearms peacefully otherwise he wouldn’t have been at home when the police came to arrest him for the drug charges. Therein lies the key, this situation would have been unlikely to happen if it wasn’t for the drug charges so ultimately this case still boils down to the fact violence was used to enforce a decree against non-violent action.

The worst part about the war on drugs isn’t the cost, it’s the fact violence is being initiated against non-violent individuals. Manufacturing, selling, and using drugs are nothing more than commerce. People want the drugs so a market develops and that market is fulfilled legally or not. Since the state uses violence to enforce its decree prohibiting some drugs the obvious response to drug manufacturers, sellers, and users is to use violence to defend their business. In this way the war on drugs should really be called the initiation of violence against drug market actors. I realize that’s quite a mouthful but it would be far more accurate.

Volunteer Community Security

Many people seem to believe that the state is the only option for delivering community security. These are usually the same people who believe the state must build the roads, deliver the mail, deliver water, and provider fire services. In truth the state is needed for none of these things and one community has turned to volunteers to provider community security:

Redlands volunteers now outnumber paid officers five to one and, even with a 25 percent reduction to their police force in 2007, their violent crime rates have decreased steadily.

And it doesn’t cost tax payers a dime.

“Our volunteer program is completely self-sustainable,” Martinez says. “They raise their own money, they buy their own cars. None of the money comes out of the general fund.

The program even includes an air support unit, complete with 30 volunteer pilots and a prop plane.

There is a video at the link. Some people will point out that the volunteers are volunteering for the Redland Police Department (RPD) but that’s irrelevant as RPD doesn’t provide any funding to the volunteer organization, they raise their own money and buy their own equipment. If RPD went away the volunteers would still be able to function (except the state wouldn’t allow them to because they wouldn’t be volunteering for the state and therefore would be restricted in what they could do).

Gary Johnson

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that I met Gary Johnson as he was traveling through Minnesota. I also promised that I would do a writeup regarding my throughs on the man that weekend, a promise I entirely broke. They say it’s better to be late than never show up so here are my thoughts on Gary Johnson based on that meeting (if you would like to file a complaint about my tardiness with this article feel free to send me money so I actually get paid for this blog, when I’m getting paid my consideration of what others want goes up).

For those who are in the dark Gary Johnson was running for the Republican presidential nominee but was even more shunned than Ron Paul. He’s now running for nominee of the Libertarian Party, which means he won’t become the president but he’ll be running in the least evil party that currently gets any kind of media attention (sometimes they’re mentioned at the 06:00 news block as a group of kooks who want to destroy the American way of life).

How can I describe Johnson? In short I would describe him as a good man. He is a politician but he’s the least offensive politician I’ve met in ages. Unlike most of his counterparts, Johnson appears to have little interest in controlling others and is actually willing to admit when he’s been wrong. Like Ron Paul, I would say Johnson is a politician for self-defense reasons. That is to say he wants to get into office in order to protect himself against the state by vetoing the attempts by other state agents to increase governmental authority.

Why run as a Libertarian Party candidate? The election system in this country is so rigged that it’s practically impossible for anybody not running as a Republican or Democrat to get into office. When asked about this Johnson stated he wants to spread the message of liberty. His argument was basically this; when you only have one man expressing an idea people will say it’s crazy, but when you have multiple people expressing an idea people will be more apt to listen. At the moment Ron Paul is the only candidate expressing an actual liberty message and Johnson wants to be the second candidate doing so. It makes sense and Johnson has no delusions about getting the presidency, but he wants to get federal campaign money for the Libertarian Party in the hopes of spreading the message further. I’m glad he’s grounded in reality, too often politicians become delusional and begin believing the malarkey they speak.

Where does he stand on the issues? No, not the real issues, the issues the average public actually argue about? Let’s start with the social issues. Johnson supports gay marriage, women’s right to choose, and legalizing marijuana. I don’t feel the first two items need any clarification but I do want to expand on the final item; Johnson was very straightforward about his support for legalizing marijuana but vague on legalizing other drugs. When asked whether or not he would support decriminalizing drugs beyond marijuana he mostly ducked the question by stating drug usage needs to be viewed as a health issues instead of a legal issue and we need to start with marijuana because that’s the drug most people support decriminalizing. I was not impressed by that answer, it’s a convenient way to copout of actually giving a straightforward answer.

What about other issues, issues that actually matter? Johnson stated he would support abolishing the Federal Reserve, wanted to bring all the troops home, and opposes all foreign aid.

Let’s talk about the fun issues, issues that are generally discussed solely in libertarian circles. I asked Johnson if, as president, he would individuals currently imprisoned for victimless crimes. One of my pet peeves is the punishment system currently implemented in the United States as it leads to the imprisonment of individuals who haven’t actually committed any crimes. Failing to meet government regulations; selling, possessing, and using drugs; and avoiding paying taxes are crimes that have no victims (the state can’t be a victim since you can’t steal from a thief). Surprisingly Johnson didn’t attempt to duck this question and very clearly stated he would pardon any person currently in prison for victimless crimes. Beyond that he specifically brought up individuals currently in cages because they failed to comply with government regulations. His statement on this alone put him far ahead of any other candidate besides Ron Paul (he has stated he will do the same thing).

Libertarianism, like any philosophy, has many different branches. Some libertarians are simply advocates of smaller government, some are strict constitutionalists, others are minarchists, and there even individuals who oppose the state in its entirety and openly refer to themselves as anarchists. As a voluntaryist I fall into the last category and firmly believe the ultimate goal of libertarianism should be the complete abolition of the state. Needless to say I was taken by surprise when Johnson, without being prompted by any other questions or statements from the audience, dropped the ‘A’ word. What is the ‘A’ word? Anarchism. In politics anarchism is the dirty word, it’s is the word to always avoided using, it is the thirteenth floor of the political tower.

During his speech Johnson thew political caution to the wind and actually stated that the eventual goal of libertarianism is anarchism. I had to do a double take on that and asked him if I heard correctly, did he actually say he is supportive of the idea of entirely eliminating the state. Although he did hem and haw a bit by saying a stateless society was not possible in our lifetime but eventually stated support of the idea. That takes guts when you’re running for office (although not so much when you’re running as a candidate in the Libertarian Party) and I have to hand it to Johnson for brining up the ‘A’ word during a campaign speech (technically it was more of a conversation than a speech).

So Johnson is a libertarian through and through. But this is a gun blog so the obvious question many readers are likely to ask is if Johnson is pro-gun or not. Yes, Johnson is pro-gun. I asked him if, as president, he would be willing to work on abolishing federal regulations regarding firearm ownership and he flat out said he would. Obviously such a feat can just be done by the waving of a magic wand so I asked him if a piece of legislation were put on his desk legalizing the unrestricted ownership of suppressor would he sign it and he said absolutely. Furthermore he also signed one of my friend’s loaded Springfield XD magazines, which I thought was a nice touch (I started a fad).

As the race appears to be nothing more than Obama vs. Other Obama the only real pro-gun candidate on the ballot is likely to be Johnson. If you support gun rights your only option will likely be to vote Johnson. I know most gun owners will vote for Romney after buying into the bullshit that voting for the “lesser” of two evils will somehow protect gun rights but I can’t help people who are unwilling to learn. If you go to vote and want to vote for gun rights check the box next to Gary Johnson.

The last thing I want to mention is the fact Johnson is actually human. What I mean by that is he admits when he feels slighted and when he’s made mistakes. Another attendee of this meeting asked Johnson if he felt slighted during the Republican debate where the moderator asked who, of the onstage candidates, each candidate would select as vice president. Johnson said Paul was his pick whereas Paul refused to answer the question. Most of us who support Paul felt he slighted Johnson there and it was refreshing to hear Johnson admit he felt slighted as well. It’s rare to hear a politician actually admit to having feelings, perhaps because most of them are cylons. The other thing Johnson expressed regret over was signing several pieces of legislation when he was governor of New Mexico. While the legislation he signed appeared to have good intentions he saw how those laws twisted and fulfill the desires of other politicians. Admitting mistakes is something politicians almost never do, once again it’s likely because they’re cylons.

Overall I admit I really like Johnson, he’s a good man and I would actually have no regrets voting for him. Although it’s unlikely I’ll actually vote in November if I do it’ll be for Johnson (unless Hell freezes over, unicorns becomes a real species, and Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination).

Romney vs. Obama

With Santorum pulling out, Gingrich remaining entirely irrelevant, and the Inner Republican Party members doing everything in their power to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination it appears as through this election will likely boil down to Romney vs. Obama. I’ve already stated my opion about a Romney vs. Obama election but I think it’s time we stop, take a deep breathe, and consider the wisdom of George Carlin:

Libertarianism Outside the United States

Many people often claim that libertarianism is a phenomenon restricted to the United States. This is hogwash. Libertarianism is everywhere people are burdened by the state they live under. Take for example India:


Picture found on Reddit

The list he’s holding is just a sample of the monetary burdens imposed upon him by the Indian state. When you read through it you become aware of just how many different taxes, fines, and fees a business man ends up paying to the state. Everybody who claims some people aren’t paying their “fair share” can shove it because the “fair share,” according to the state, is everything you’ve got.

Capitalism, Property Rights, and the Environment

A common lie I hear parroted by environmentalists time and time again is that capitalism isn’t sustainable. It’s sad that this lie has perpetuated so far and wide because the truth is entirely difference, environmentalism is a side effect of capitalism and absolute property rights.

How can I claim this? Doesn’t capitalism encourage the consumption of resources as fast as possible? I’ve refuted this claim before:

If one has possession of a valuable resource it is in their best interest to manage the extraction and sale of that resource in a way that maximizes profits. Why would somebody extract all the iron ore on their property and sell it immediately? Iron ore, being a non-renewable resource, becomes more valuable over time as it becomes more scarce.

Likewise I explained how the temporary nature of property rights in today’s society lead to the consumption of resources as fast as possible:

Property rights in most countries aren’t absolute and one can never be sure when their property will be seized through eminent domain laws. If you’re only likely to hold a property for a temporary amount of time it then becomes your best interest to extract all the value from it immediately. When you’re not sure if regulations or ore extraction are going to remain stable or change in a manner that makes extraction more expensive it becomes your best interest to extract it all immediately.

We have a situation where resources are extracted and sold as fast as possible because claims over them may be taken away by the state at any moment. Absolute property rights encourage the opposite by rewarding those who conserve their resources for sale at a later date when the prices are higher.

Another benefit of absolute property rights is the fact property owners can sue polluters for damages. Today polluters are granted immunity from damages so long as they emit an amount of pollution below that sanctioned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), unless you’re wealthy enough to buy a permit to pollute more that is. Under a system to respects strict property rights any demonstrable damages to property must be corrected. If I dump one ton of sewage onto your property then I am responsible for paying the entirety of the cleanup and restoration costs as well as any costs incurred by you to get me to cleanup and restore the land (court fees for example).

Walter Block wrote a very interesting paper titled Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights [PDF] that goes over many aspects of free market environmentalism. One of the more interesting exerts comes from his coverage of the history of property rights:

Contrary to Pigou and Samuelson, manufacturers, foundries, railroads, etc., could not act in a vacuum, as if the costs they imposed on others were of no moment. There was a “way to force private polluters to bear the social cost of their operations”: sue them, make them pay for their past transgressions, and get a court order prohibiting them from such invasions in future.

Upholding property rights in this manner had several salutary effects. First of all, there was an incentive to use clean burning, but slightly more expensive anthracite coal rather than the cheaper but dirtier high sulfur content variety; less risk of lawsuits. Second, it paid to install scrubbers, and other techniques for reducing pollution output. Third there was an impetus to engage in research and development of new and better methods for the internalization of externalities: keeping one’s pollutants to oneself. Fourth, there was a movement toward the use better chimneys and other smoke prevention devices. Fifth, an incipient forensic pollution industry was in the process of being developed.16 Sixth, the locational decisions of manufacturing firms was intimately effected. The law implied that it would be more profitable to establish a plant in an area with very few people, or none at all; setting up shop in a residential area, for example, would subject the firm to debilitating lawsuits.17

But then in the 1840s and 1850s a new legal philosophy took hold. No longer were private property rights upheld. Now, there was an even more important consideration: the public good. And of what did the public good consist in this new dispensation? The growth and progress of the U.S. economy. Toward this end it was decided that the jurisprudence of the 1820s and 1830s was a needless indulgence. Accordingly, when an environmental plaintiff came to court under this new system, he was given short shrift. He was told, in effect, that of course his private property rights were being violated; but that this was entirely proper, since there is something even more important that selfish, individualistic property rights. And this was the “public good” of encouraging manufacturing.18

Until the 1840s property rights were held as more of an absolute and property owners could successfully sue polluters. That all changed after the 1840s when the idea of the “public good” began to outweigh the rights of property owners. In effect socialist ideology and interventionism, two ideals commonly held by so-called environmentalists, began superseding property rights and the free market. This granted polluters a license to emit as many undesirable and damaging pollutants as they could get away with under the guise of the “public good.”

Let’s switch gears and talk about the role free market capitalism plays in environmentalism. At its heart free market capitalism is a method of dividing scarce resources. If one person toils to extract and refine a resource they can trade it to somebody who desires it. For example an automobile manufacturer would be more than happy to buy steel from a steel manufacturer who had previously purchased raw iron ore from an ore miner.

Iron ore is a finite resources and as scarcity increases so does the price. When iron ore is abundant the prices is fairly low so more consumption occurs and as more consumption occurs the amount of ore is reduces and the price increases encouraging conservation. A good example to use is water.

Water is abundant in some areas and scarce in others. If you live in a desert water is going to be more valuable to you as it’s harder to come by whereas water has less value to those living in Minnesota. What this means is people living in deserts aren’t going to waste water keeping a lawn green (unless the government subsidizes the cost of water as they do in places like Southern California). Likewise farmers aren’t going to grown crops in deserts that require a great deal of water. The price mechanism of capitalism is also a mechanism that encourages the conservation of scarce resources.

It’s kind of funny that the path of individual liberty is also the path to environmentalism. Really it’s ironic because the most staunch environmentalists usually strongly oppose capitalism and absolute property rights. They want more socialistic controls but fail to know their history, because as pointed out by the Walter Block paper linked above, socialism has a pretty poor track record of environmental friendliness:

If this criticism of the market were true, one would expect that, even if the Soviets couldn’t successfully run an economy, they could at least be trusted as far as the environment is concerned. In actual point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Exhibit “A” is perhaps the disappearance of the Aral and Caspian Seas, due to massive and unchecked pollution, over cutting of trees, and consequent desertification. Then there is Chernobyl, which caused hundreds, if not thousands of deaths.13 For ferry boats in the Volga River, it is forbidden to smoke cigarettes. This is not for intrusive paternalistic health reasons as in the west, but because this river is so polluted with oil and other flammable materials that there is a great fear that if a cigarette is tossed overboard, it will set the entire body of water on fire. Further, under Communism, there was little or no waste treatment of sewage in Poland, the gold roof in Cracow’s Sigismund Chapel dissolved due to acid rain, there was a dark brown haze over much of East Germany, and the sulfur dioxide concentrations in Czechoslovakia were eight times levels common in the U.S. (DiLorenzo, 1990).

I find it quite sad that environmentalists have been so duped. They stand up and decry the destruction of the environment yet support the very ideologies that allow the destruction to occur in the first place. These people generally oppose the only real solution to environmental protection, free markets and absolute property rights.