There is good reason Right Libs say little about the current environmental crisis. Many of their most cherished concepts fall apart in the throes of spilt oil. by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Barely a peep has come from the Libertarian Right since the beginning of the worst environmental disaster this country has experienced, the oil gusher buried a mile deep in the Gulf, began over a month ago. There is good reason for this. The problem of an uncontrolled oil well spewing its contents randomly into the ocean waters brings to light the extreme weaknesses in many of the Libertarian Right arguments.
The paramount issue is that of private property. Every drop of oil that enters and mixes with the ocean currents dilutes the already weak notions of private property that Right Libertarians possess.
Certainly use of the deep waters of the seas to extract oil can be categorized under the "mixing labor with the land" theory of property ownership. Yet, few libertarians have brought up the obvious violation of this principle when resource companies get all the benefits of land ownership yet few of the costs that property title mandates. Shouldn't large corporations that "use" but do not "pay" for private property be questioned?
But that is not the crux of the property problem. If we can determine who owns the well itself, it is infinitely more difficult to determine who owns and who is harmed by the waters that are being polluted and possibly impacted indefinitely by the rampant release of hydrocarbons into the gulf and the inevitable mixing of these chemicals with vast regions of our oceans.
The old right libertarian clich that pollution is not harm until it directly affects private property owned by others is in deep jeopardy here. Who owns these adjacent waters? And, where exactly do these "adjacent" properties begin and end?
It would seem by libertarian principles no one does. So, even though owners of coastal property should be compensated for damage, any oil lost at sea is of no concern. The widespread use of dispersants by BP seem to fall right in line with these libertarian views, mix it up, spread it around, keep "visible" evidence off of shore if at all possible and "no harm, no foul". Pesky scientists finding evidence of huge swaths of subsurface hydrocarbon solutions running with the currents are obviously of no help!
Even a child, even a president or CEO oilman's child, can see the fallacy in this argument. Like air, water can not be separated from itself. The natural cycles do not lend themselves to strict Right Libertarian interpretations of the physical universe and property. Sorry, but it is all connected. We have no idea where millions of gallons of oil will end up: in whose waters, in the tissues of whose fish dinner, in the foreclosure of which fisherman's house?
Many Right Libertarians see no problem with state chartered incorporation. Again, it is obvious why they are so silent during this environmental crisis. Incorporation was initially granted by the monarchs for just this situation: an enterprise that was deemed too risky and beyond the liability of those attempting the endeavor. The state monarchs stepped in and allowed private corporations, such as shipping companies, to proceed with the risky endeavor and dismiss them from resulting liabilities that "might" occur.
Besides the fact that this is obvious "socialism" and the old "private profit, public cost" syndrome, many Right Libs, including the majority of those found on the Mises website, see no contradiction in their belief in a "free" economy and a limited state and the socialization of risk due to state granted limited liability.
John Mansville Corporation was able to use "incorporation" and limited liability to great effect with the asbestos legal case. They continued to use and produce asbestos related products while their lawyers spent decades in courts fighting the mountains of evidence proving the grievous harm caused by the tiny fibers lodging in workers and consumers lungs. When they realized the sky was falling, they began to disburse the assets of the corporation and gleefully turned over a worthless company to the shareholders. Many of the key players simply started new corporations and went about their business.
Is not this current situation ripe for the same bit of treatment? Like the Exxon Valdez, any court procedures will take years, probably decades, plenty of time for BP to "test the waters". If the seas get too rough, what prevents them from getting out when the getting is good and leaving a few crumbs for the claimants? What good is any idealized libertarian notion of harm and injury and proper compensation, if incorporation provides an easy escape route in dire situations such as the present one caused by BP? It easy to see why proponents of state chartered incorporation are not saying much.
The weakness of Right Libertarian environmental principles concur with weak property concepts. According to Right Libertarian ideals, common property is the cause of environmental degradation. If only all property were private, the environment would take care of itself.
To be fair, applying this concept to this BP debacle has its merits. But only because the seas in this case are being treated as "collective property" rather than private property. Through the myriad collection of incentives, subsidies, breaks and "crony" capitalism programs provided by the state, resource companies are allowed to "exploit" the resource without "owning" either the property or their actions. So, we can hardly refer to oil exploration as a valid expression of private property rights, but rather more a socialist economic program.
But, how often have you heard this from the right side of the freedom movement? So fearful to step on the toes of what they falsely perceive as the workings of the "free" market, many right libs fall closer to the camp of the neo-con than anything else on the environmental issue. Environmental harm is a valid as any other form of harm. Let's call a pig a pig and get on with concepts that actually make sense, rather than emanate from deep within some fairy tale.
Still, the primary weakness of the Right Libs view on the environment goes back to the murky waters that surround the Deepwater Horizon. Contrary to Lib concepts, any damage to the environment is harm and injury. Again, it is all connected and we have to deal with that reality rather than human constructs and imagination.
This terrible tragedy is a great opportunity for Libs to clear the air and get their, well, their stuff together. With the obvious silence from the ranks of the Right Libs, it doesn't appear like they want to confront the large gaps in their philosophy. Well, another natural law is that nature abhors a vacuum. I am sure someone or some group will fill in for them.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gene DeNardo only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gene DeNardo is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: June 3, 2010 08:49:03 AM
Hi Gene,
There's a libertarian right? Awww, the nuance is killing me. ;-)
I suspect the root of the mess will never be revealed because taking sides on the passion of the disaster is more immediately rewarding.
Personally, I'd be looking at regulations that skew the risk/reward analysis resulting in increased probability of poor business decisions being made.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Such as the 1995 "Deepwater Relief Act", which basically says, hey no need to pay royalties for that deepwater oil, we'll collect for the land wells [at least the guys that don't contribute to our campaign chests!].
