Libertarianism and the Environment
I was driving down from Scottsdale this morning, when I heard a Baptist minister talking about the environment. The NPR interview is here. Not surprisingly, libertarians were fingered as the villains opposing protecting the environment. I dashed off a quick email explaining why this is just not so.
Dear Dr. Moore:
I heard your interview on NPR radio this morning (as I was driving to church). I was disappointed to hear you misuse words like "laissez faire" and libertarian.
Libertarians believe in rights, but also responsibility. So, from a libertarian perspective, you have a right to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, but you're also responsible for the safety of those around you as you do so. So, the fishermen, beach-front property owners, and all others affected by the BP spill are entitled to compensation. Yet, our decidedly non-libertarian government decided to cap damages related to oil spills at $75 million back in 1990. The bipartisan bill was proposed by a Democratic representative and signed into law by a Republican president.
The theme of responsibility vs. irresponsibility pops up again and again in regard to the environment. Herds of African elephants that are protected by government mandates tend to dwindle, but African elephants that are privately owned thrive. Why? Because with property rights, people have an incentive to be responsible. Rights lead to responsibilities and responsible behavior. On the other hand, when you have government mandates protecting those same elephants, nobody has an incentive to be responsible. Rather than being capitalist, it is Marxist in the sense that we all, collectively own the elephants. The stronger incentive structure rewards poaching the elephants illegally. That temptation would exist with property rights in "libertopia," but it would be counter-balanced by the much greater incentive to foster the herd in perpetuity.
Regulation tends to have the opposite effect. When you regulate an industry, you may mandate inspections, safety practices, etc. This creates the illusion of safety, and diminishes responsibility of people and corporations like BP. After all, if you follow the book and things still go wrong, who can blame you? We've seen the same problem with banks and health care, to name just two important industries. Both of these industries are highly regulated, and yet both are in crisis. Regulation didn't bring order -- it caused chaos as market forces were perverted for political reasons. For instance, our leaders decided that home-ownership is good, so armies of regulators set out to entice bankers and others to do "their part" to increase home-ownership. The result of the "affordable housing" movement was a run-up in house prices, followed by economic collapse and bailouts.
The term "laissez faire" is misleading. It means "hands off," yet it depends on a government protecting people's rights and enforcing their responsibilities. It implies a limited set of functions for government, but those functions are essential. When government is side-tracked from its mission to keep order by a desire to micro-manage, we all suffer. The same goes for our environment.
Peter Mains