I have been reading Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, and Capitalism-The unknown ideal. I am 18 and have always thought of myself as a Libertarian, because I think government is too big, and is hurting the capitalistic spirit. One of the things that I am for, is environmental controls, and a government organization to keep corporations from harming the workers by not focusing on safety. This creates a paradox for me, because I want less government, yet, I want them to make sure corporations, do not abuse their power. Also, another thing that I am for is Environmental Protection. I think what Bush wants to do in Alaska is horrible, and despise SUV’s and other gas guzzlers. I think that alternative energy really needs to be looked at and not brushed aside. It is confusing because my ideals seem to be contradicting each other, yet, I feel strongly about all of them. What are your thoughts?
Ben
Ben, speaking from an older POV, I’d say that environmental controls are needed in a capitalist system, because no individual entrepreneur is rewarded for protecting the commonly owned air, water, etc. (I leave the specific question of drilling in ANWR to those who know more than I do about the potential benefits vs. environmental damage.)
I know a lot about worker safety, having spent many years in the Workers’ Compensation industry. In principle, worker safety is very much in the interest of the employer. Injuries to workers cost the employer money in WC benefits, sick benefits, re-training, hiring of new workers, etc.
In my experience, voluntary safety efforts made by employers (often in cooperation with the WC insurer’s safety experts) have been far more effective than OSHA, and at a fraction of the cost. OSHA’s approach is to write innumerable standards applying to all employers. The more effective safety experts look for the actual problems at each individual work site and fix them.
Ayn Rand would probably say that the workers should deal with their own safety themselves. They can do this (in principle) by not taking jobs in unsafe work environments or demanding more pay for doing so.
My thoughts? Stay on this board. Your feelings aren’t as contradictory as you may think, or as they superficially appear to be.
Capitalism: TUI is an excellent book, IMO, and does deal with several sticky issues in a consistent manner.
I suggest reading The Illuminatus Trilogy next. 
Oh, and almost no one here likes Ayn Rand. For your own mental peace of mind, never mention that name again 
Sure they can coexist. In moderation.
Take any of those philosophies to the extreme end of the spectrum, and you (and society at large) could seriously lose out.
First off, as to the horrible things Bush wants to do to Alaska, check this out.
Second, as to protections for workers and the environment, it is all too easy to fall into the assumption that if the government doesn’t do it, no one else can or will. After, say, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, people were horrified, and turned to the government to Do Something, to make sure that something that horrible would never happen again. And the government responded.
Should we assume, if it hadn’t, that conditions for workers would be just as bad today as then? I personally don’t think so; I think people would have found other ways to bring pressure to bear on businesses to improve worker safety. Businesses need customers, after all.
Would this have been as quick and easy* as having the state mandate higher standards by legislative fiat? Certainly not. But I think things may well have turned out for the better in the long run. Who knows, without the easing of people’s consciences that comes from the knowledge that “the government is taking care of it”, perhaps we would have higher standards in place today.
Finally, as to SUVs and gas guzzlers, they are of course part of the larger “automobile culture” present in the US today, which was enabled, in large measure, by guess who?Yes, the government, primarily by going on a massive taxpayer financed road building spree after WWII, and also at the same time by subsidizing home loans so that people could afford to move en masse to the suburbs made accessible by those roads, in which people are naturally dependent on the automobile.
Of course, the same government, with its other hand, is trying to make up for this by subsidizing mass transit systems that nobody actually wants to use, or at least not enough people to offset the operating costs. Rarely has the “rolleyes” icon :rolleyes: been more appropriate.
*“No, the Dark Side is not more powerful. But it is quicker, easier, more seductive…”
Yoda
(When I wrote the phrase “quicker and easier” this got stuck in my head, and I just had to work it in somehow ;).)
A lot of people, mostly guys, read Ayn Rand in their late teens and become influenced by her. I’ve read that Atlas Shrugged was once rated as the most influential book after the Bible. Certainly affected my thinking, although I never considered myself an objectivist. There are a couple people on the board who do consider themselves objectivists, and erislover used to have the screen name aynrandlover, although perhaps he changed it due to threats of violence.
Anyways, the Cato Institute is a think tank with a libertarian viewpoint. Primarily, they advocate free market capitalsim, not more radical forms of libertarianism. Their website contains many articles on free market approaches to various problems, including the environment.
http://www.capitalism.org offers more of an objectivist viewpoint, with far less information, but some interesting material.
The “Libertarian Portal to the Internet” is http://www.free-market.org, which contains links to any other significant libertarian websites. Also, they have links to news stories and commentary divided by subject, including the environment.
In looking for information on objectivism, keep in mind that you will find a lot of debate between “canonical” objectivists, such as Leonard Peikoff, and those whose views are more in line with Barbara an Nathaniel Branden. To make a long story short, Nathaniel Branden was Rand’s lover and frequent collaborator for years, when they split ways, with Rand and her followers becoming more extreme and cult-like (I have heard that one follower suggested that Branden should be killed for hurting Rand).
Especially after this great divide, Rand’s followers increasingly raised her views on esthetic matters to moral imperatives. People whose taste in music differed from Rand’s might be considered evil (objevectivists are know for their broad use of the term “evil”). Part of the reason for this is said to be Rand’s almost non-existant understanding of psychology, which was Branden’s specialty. Without any understanding of how the human mind works, Rand and her followers simply judged morality by absolute standards that became increasingly arbitrary.
Sadly, the fallout from this rift seems often to displace any real attempt to further the philosophy.
Rand herself was highly critical of libertarianism, but seems to have had little understanding of it. Her arguments against libertarianism seem primarily to be arguments against anarchism. Branden was more tolerant to libertarian ideas, and I believe his wife still is active in various libertarian organizations.
{fixed bold. --Gaudere}
[Edited by Gaudere on 08-03-2001 at 12:52 PM]
Aren’t we overdue for another of my Anti-Rand Rants?™
We haven’t heard much from Rugbyman since my last one.
**renigademaster **,
An interesting question. Most of the people who have responded so far seem to be taking a crack at it from the libertarian/conservative direction, so I figure it is my job to provide balance here by coming at it from the other side.
First, I am happy that you recognize that government is not the only powerful force in people’s lives. In fact, I don’t even think it is the predominent powerful force in people’s lives. I believe that overall, the whole corporate, market-driven, materialistic culture is a more powerful force. In fact, economic power is probably the most powerful sort of power there is in modern society.
One purpose of government, in my view, is to provide a counterbalance to these other powerful forces and powers. Now, admittedly that is a hard thing to accomplish because these powers will try to capture government and use it to further their own ends! That’s why issues like money in politics become so important. However, the collective voice of the people through a democratically elected government still seems to be the most effective (of the many admittedly fairly ineffective ways) that we have come up with to offset economic power. [Of course, government can also help to protect you from other abuses of power…such as physical power or military power.]
From this point of view, the libertarian viewpoint becomes much less attractive. In order to believe that Libertaria will really result in a better society than what we have now, you have to believe that government is really the predominent force restricting your freedom now and furthermore that in the absence of such a strong government, other forces would not rise up in its stead.
On a more down-to-earth level, the sort of issues that you talk about…environmental, SUVs, lack of alternative energy…all arise because of market failures. Some people seem to believe that the market is magical and whatever it wills is what is correct. However, in certain situations, the market is known to fail. One of those situations (as december pointed out) is when people aren’t paying the true costs associated with the manufacture or use of a product…e.g., when those SUV drivers are not paying for all the added pollution and CO2 they are contributing to the atmosphere. There are many others, many of which call for some sort of government intervention.
Finally, I’ll ask you a question: What makes you feel that “government is too big and is hurting the capitalistic spirit”? There are a lot of claims thrown around to this effect but not much evidence. And a lot of the people making those claims have a vested interested in smaller government that may not be aligned with the larger public interest. I am not denying that the government, as any large bureaucracy (including a large corporation!!!), will tend to come up with some pretty stifling rules. But, it seems to me that capitalism is alive and well in this country. And, in fact, if you go to a nation like Sweden which is far more toward the socialist end of the spectrum than here, you will see that the market economy there seems to be doing quite fine, thank you.
This capitalistic spirit you speak of isn’t necessarily in the public interest in the first place. If you examine the internal political structure of corporations you will find them to have more in common with totalitarian regimes than with modern democratic republics. Asking for perfect harmony between the government and the corporations is like asking the U.S. to offer it’s full backing to the government of mainland China. Not only is it not going to happen, but it’s a good thing that its not going to happen. If the government cedes too much power to the capitalists we may as well all be living in China for all the freedom our corporate lives would offer us.
Of course it would be a different story if all the capitalist leaders were as good and wise and far-seeing as some would have us believe 
Just so you guys don’t get the wrong impression, I also have read Kent, Plato, and Killgard (Sorry, I forget how to spell his name) I find that Ayn Rand makes a good point, but I don’t regaurd her as a god.
Ben
Gaaah… Pretend my last post wasn’t all bolded like that.
I have to take issue with this statement:
That would mean the market always fails. There are effects of the production and use of everything that are not passed on to the consumers. Often, however, they are outweighed by the benefits.
I would say that it’s not a market failure, so much as a failure of the way rights are currently defined. We have no right to be free of dangerous levels of CO[sub]2[/sub]. In many pollution cases, by redefining the rights involved, I believe market approaches could work. With others, such as global warming, the only right that could be conferred would be to the world at large, which would require some sort of intermediary to enforce.
Of course, the argument that government is essential for the environment could be attacked by showing that the government generally contributes more to harming the environment than helping it. For example, the government of the US spends a shit ton of money building and maintaining roads for people to drive on, while working to force passenger rail to be entirely self-sufficient. Basically, the government subsidizes and encourages pollution-intensive forms of transportation over others.
Thus, we see one of the logical flaws in common arguments against libertarianism (not to accuse jshore of making this mistake): that the alternative offered up for contrast is not any actual government, but some hypothetical government that does only good things.
Mike Huben has a fairly oft-linked (in libertarianism debates) website criticising libertarianism. David Friedman (who considers himself an anarcho-capitalist, or a radical libertarian) has a response to a number of these criticisms. Both should show several of the common arguments that often crop up in debates on libertarianism, though we do (IMHO) have a higher quality on this message board.
Capitalism is not about ceding power to corporations. It is about protecting the property rights of all. The biggest shield corporations have against the public interest is limited liability law. This has its good effects, for example, if I buy stock in a company and it goes belly-up, my own assets cannot be siezed to repay the company’s debts. However, it allows the individuals who run corporations to be largely immune from personal responsibility for the actions the company makes.
Limited liabity is not a tenet of capitalism, but a legal expediency supported by powerful corporate interests. Just because big business is a fan of capitalism in general does not make capitalism the same as corporate interests.
The first point raised by waterj is a valid one and lays at the crux of Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons and the environmental philosophy of the Free Market Greens.
I’m not sure how many folks here are familiar with Hardin’s work, so I’ll just offer a brief definition of this tragedy. A tragedy of the commons occurs when the benefits provided by common-pool resources are realized by one or a few, while the costs of diminished resources are borne by everyone. The oft-weilded example is when a group of cattle farmers all graze their stocks on the same plot of land. In Hardin’s view, it makes sense for any one farmer to increase his/her herd because only he will realize the benefit of a larger herd (more money at market), while everyone who has an interest in the grazing area shares the cost of depleted forage.
Hardin suggests that this is not a technical problem (e.g., figure out a better way to maximize resource use), but rather it is one of human values. As such, Hardin proposes that people must be encouraged to change their values. Of course Hardin also has a fairly dim view of humanity (read some of his stuff on population control), and therefore suggests a policy of “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of people affected.” His low-level Kohlbergian morality would be sufficient to enforce an ethic of maintaining common-pool resources.
A more market-driven approach to dealing with the problem of diminished common-pool resources is suggested by a group of environmentalists called Free-Market Greens. Their take is to have all goods produced reflect environmental costs as well as costs of production, marketing, and transportation, etc. So, the price of a widget must include the cost of lower air quality and/or increased heavy metals in the water and/or disturbance to wildlife, etc. Of course the trick will always be to determine in dollars and cents just exactly how much each of those things, and others, cost.
The Free Market Greens come close to waterj’s second point that clean air is not recognized as a right. However, they suggest that it is practically a given of life and thus, should be treated with the same deferrence as other more well-established rights. Terry Anderson and Don Leal are probably the best known of these Free Market Greens and they also seem to express a decidedly libertarian perspective.
And…
Whew… so in answer to the OP (finally), Capitalism, Libertarianism, and Environmentalism need not be mutually exclusive nor even at odds. I’ve got my own problems with the Free Market Greens and Garrett Hardin, but some of their takes show opportunities to resolve some apparent conflicts.
Gee, and then I can say things like “Asking liberals to stay out of my pocketbooks is like asking the U.S. to offer it’s full backing to the government of mainland China.”
Oh, I completely agree. With my modified version, of course.
You know, it is possible to discuss the downfall of capitalism without comparing corporations to fascist states. And it is possible to do that intelligently. But who know, maybe you’re right? Can you explain how you went from “corporations == fascism” to “if we all listened to the corporations, we’d be living like China”?
jshore: “Some people seem to believe that the market is magical and whatever it wills is what is correct.” Ha, yep. And some people believe that the balance of powers is magical and it doesn’t create NSAs, CIAs, property confiscation rules, and so on. Isn’t that a hoot?
I love discussions on ideals.
erislover, Huh ? Where’d you come up with all this nonsense about fascists ?
There is a difference between non democratic and fascist, and oddly enough not all non democratic organizations are poorly conceived or inefficient. It might be interesting to see how long a democratically run corporation would last, but I sure wouldn’t want the company to be one I was involved with. You’re welcome to deny the existence of a fundamental conflict between democratic principals and authoritarian institutions but that will likely send you down the path to black and white “company good, government bad” extremism.
So why doesn’t the market correct this and lead us all closer to libertarian paradise ? Surely the system is robust enough to allow it to recover from small perturbations like laws that limit corporate liability? If not, what sort of painful convolutions will the economy have to go through in order to make it fit the ideology ?
For the same reason that the market doesn’t correct the non-capitalist laws in any other country. Laws are enforced by the government, which has the power to forcibly arrest and imprison those who disobey them. The US market is far from being absolutely free of coercion. If the US economy was truly laissez-faire, the government would be unable to protect corporations the way it does now.
Libertarianism and capitalism are not based on the ideal of protecting corporate interests. The limited liability of corporations is an example of the government using coercion to protect the people who run corporations. Government coercion is what libertarianism seeks to eliminate (while still protecting the people from other coercion as well).
Why doesn’t the market correct un-capitalistic laws such as rent control? Because the government uses coercion to interfere with the market. The power of the US government and the state governments is not a small perturbation.
That would be the point at which the wicket gets sticky. Look at how brutally the old U.S.S.R. had to work to repress the capitalist urges of its populace. They certainly dug themselves into a big deep hole pursuing that particular economic theory !
There doesn’t seem to be any workable way that a government can be made strong enough to protect people from coercion, threats etc., while still being too weak to be coercive itself. Perhaps something could be made to work if everyone were a dyed in the wool libertarian, but since that’s not going to happen a libertarian regime would have to oppress the people or groups that disagreed with it’s tenets; paradise lost.
Environmentalism in a libertarian context is simple, and it all comes down to property rights. You have the right to dump toxic waste, as long as none of YOUR toxic waste gets on MY property. Your car is free to emit pollution, as long as none of YOUR pollution gets into MY air. And since it is very difficult to keep your waste products from diffusing over your property line, the practical effect would be that you can’t afford to pollute, since you’ll be sued every time your smog drifts over to my land.
But this doesn’t really work, since the benefits of emission are concentrated, while the harms are diffused. Thousands of people are harmed by teeny tiny amounts by the smoke from one fire. Each of them would have to sue the emitter for a few pennies. Most people aren’t going to bother, which means that you can dump anything except the most lethal poisons into the atmosphere and hydrosphere.
So the alternative is for many people to hire specialists who monitor pollution and assess damages against emitters and distribute the penalties among their subscribers. But at this point you might just as well run the whole thing from the government.
The problem is that air and water don’t really work very well under traditional property law. Yes, people can “own” water, but typically they just use it once and then dump it somewhere else. When there’s lots of water and very few people who want to use it, no problem, we can ignore water use. But when too many people want to use too much water then suddenly we find that our traditional methods of water use don’t work any more.
Same thing with air. Plants and animals both use and change the composition of air. We don’t worry about who owns which air molecules. Air is free, right? But what happens when someone wants to dump a bunch of crap into the air? Or what if he wants to grow plants that will absorb CO2 and emit O2, he’s taking the public’s air! Or maybe he wants to cut down plants that are absorbing CO2 and emitting O2, then he’s altering the public air. And of course, as animals we can’t help but to use the O2 in the air. So obviously, very strict laws about air pollution mean that no one is allowed to breathe.
So how does this work under a free market? Well it doesn’t. If humans mostly lived in space habitats then it would make sense to have private ownership of volatiles, but here on this planet we are pretty much compelled by the laws of physics to share them. Which means some sort of public ownership, which means some form of government control. However, we can arrange that control to do the smallest amount of violence to the principles of property rights as possible.
Which means some form of publicly traded emmision credits. The amount of emmisions allowed must be a political decision, since the citizens must decide how much use to allow of the publicly owned atmo/hydrosphere. Too many credits means that we have too much pollution, too little and we choke off industry, and of course if we get too strict then we can’t allow agriculture or human life. Since the ability to cut off a person’s air and water allows totalitarian government then we need to establish that every citizen is entitled to a certain amount of emmisions by right. If you use more than that then you must buy that right from the public. But the public will have already sold those rights, and so you will be buying rights from other people on the commodities markets.
If we decide too much pollution is occuring, then the government will have to buy back licenses for the particular offending emmisions. If those emmisions are critical for industry, then the public will have to pay more for them. If cheap substitutes are available then emmiters will gladly sell their licenses back to the public and switch.
Emmissions trading allows the information feedback of markets to increase the amount of information available when making decisions, both for the public and for the emitters. It leaves emission levels up to the public while avoiding complex regulations, although public inspection and monitoring is still required.
I’m still here, although I haven’t spent much time in GD lately…mostly trying to boost my post count in IMHO threads! I’m honored that when you think of Objectivism, you think of me
** eris **: I wondered what the hell happened to you! Long time no see, my friend
To answer the OP, there are free-market enviromentalists (an example at http://environmental.networkroom.com), but since that isn’t an area of interest for me and wouldn’t have enough facts and statistics to make a defensible case, I’ll make no comment otherwise.
Hey rugby, I too thought you had vanished. Heh, the name change threw people off a bit, but well…its more appropriate anyway.
Geez, I’m all excited… is this going to turn into a Rand thread?