- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is a "green" society possible in a free enterprise society?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 12:30 am
Posted on 9/2/14 at 12:30 am
By green, I mean environmentally healthy and sustainable.
12
Posted on 9/2/14 at 12:37 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Only if the green stuff is cheap, available enough for the masses like walmart is to obtain, easy and convenient to use and is cost/risk effective.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 12:44 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
RMI
These folks are leaders in free market solutions to environmental issues.
There are other groups and varying philosophies (Green Libertariansim) but some of the approaches seem less than free market.
Free market environmentalism...
I'm pretty sensitive to environmental concerns, but find myself at odds with many environmentalists. Not that I think their goals are bad, but I don't care for their methods.
These folks are leaders in free market solutions to environmental issues.
There are other groups and varying philosophies (Green Libertariansim) but some of the approaches seem less than free market.
Free market environmentalism...
quote:LINK
Free-market environmentalists therefore argue that the best way to protect the environment is to use tort and contract laws governing and protecting property rights and tort claims to protect the environment.
I'm pretty sensitive to environmental concerns, but find myself at odds with many environmentalists. Not that I think their goals are bad, but I don't care for their methods.
This post was edited on 9/2/14 at 12:52 am
Posted on 9/2/14 at 12:49 am to RogerTheShrubber
nm, got fixed
This post was edited on 9/2/14 at 12:51 am
Posted on 9/2/14 at 8:29 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Yes because if there is pushback from the community to fix environmental problems then someone will come up with a solution that satisfies that demand and make money off of it
Posted on 9/2/14 at 8:39 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
In a free enterprise society, maybe. In an infinite growth economic model, no.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 2:37 pm to Bunk Moreland
So I can expect the free market to protect my right to air?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 2:41 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
By green, I mean environmentally healthy and sustainable.
Uh, this would be called the Status Quo. We are living in an environmentally healthy and sustainable society.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 2:47 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
no.
The market will not solve use & abuse of free resources. It is the problem of the commons.
The sea would be fished empty.
The rivers solid with shite.
The air unbreathable
The market will not solve use & abuse of free resources. It is the problem of the commons.
The sea would be fished empty.
The rivers solid with shite.
The air unbreathable
Posted on 9/2/14 at 2:49 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Who will sue you to make you use a catalytic converter? These people remind me of Trotsky-ites arguing about making communism work.
Free-market environmentalists therefore argue that the best way to protect the environment is to use tort and contract laws governing and protecting property rights and tort claims to protect the environment.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 2:53 pm to Tigah in the ATL
Hey, ATL, this reminds me of the extinction issue. Do you remember the old 'keystone species' argument? Why is extinction bad? Do you really want dinosaurs roaming around in your yard?
I have always advocated for the extinction of snakes. They serve no purpose. They bite dogs roaming in the country side. Ireland has no snakes. Ireland is doing just fine.
I have always advocated for the extinction of snakes. They serve no purpose. They bite dogs roaming in the country side. Ireland has no snakes. Ireland is doing just fine.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 3:05 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:Actually, the commons tragedy is a problem in places where the market does not exist, for commons is the opposite of property rights.
The market will not solve use & abuse of free resources. It is the problem of the commons.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 3:19 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
Who will sue you to make you use a catalytic converter? These people remind me of Trotsky-ites arguing about making communism work.
Actually carbon credits and such are supported by these folks.
quote:
But I believe some real-life Green Wavers are genuinely fascinated by strange new ideas that could encourage economic growth and sustainable development. These are people who are talking about carbon credits, emissions trading, and various financial incentives for entrepreneurs who limit their environmental impact, recycle, use alternative energy sources, or encourage their employees to carpool.
LINK
quote:
If green libertarianism prevails, I'm guessing the future will look nothing like ecotopia and nothing like capitalist Utopia either. Business will behave more like government, limiting its growth for the sake of sustainability. And ecology as we know it will probably be a lot more engineered and synthetic than ever before because communities will carefully plan their ecosystems to remain healthy and whole alongside cities and corporations. We will reach a stage in our technological development when we have to manage our natural environments as well as our economic ones. Perhaps one day the capitalism that results from green libertarianism will know itself to be only one piece of a healthy social ecology.
This is a piece written by a marxist btw.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 3:55 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
I love how leftists use the tragedy of the commons in environmental arguments, when "common areas" are often OWNED by government.
Look at the Ohio river during the 60s, for example.
quote:
If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is utilized without any regard to the disadvantages resulting. Those who are in a position to appropriate to themselves the returns — lumber and game of the forests, fish of the water areas, and mineral deposits of the subsoil — do not bother about the later effects of their mode of exploitation. For them the erosion of the soil, the depletion of the exhaustible resources and other impairments of the future utilization are external costs not entering into their calculation of input and output. They cut down the trees without any regard for fresh shoots or reforestation. In hunting and fishing they do not shrink from methods preventing the repopulation of the hunting and fishing grounds.
Look at the Ohio river during the 60s, for example.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:04 pm to Zach
quote:I'm not very worried about extinction at all, certainly not compared to helping humans.
extinction
Altho there often seems to be the law of unintended consequences. (would we be over-run with rats if the snakes were gone?)
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:05 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:exactly. No one owns the air or the ocean or rivers. so you can't have private ownership of natural resources like that.
for commons is the opposite of property rights.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:05 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:Snakes are less dangerous than rats if you take into account diseases.
Altho there often seems to be the law of unintended consequences. (would we be over-run with rats if the snakes were gone?)
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:06 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:And I think that regulations that use markets like this are likely to be the most efficient, versus random subsidies for things like solar power.
Actually carbon credits and such are supported by these folks.
But using torts for pollution control would only help lawyers
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:08 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:I love how you don't understand the argument.
I love how leftists use the tragedy of the commons in environmental arguments, when "common areas" are often OWNED by government.
Your quoted text made my point.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 4:09 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
exactly. No one owns the air or the ocean or rivers.
as usual, you're dead arse wrong.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News