Welcome to Gaia! ::

My stance on the environment might strike some as interventionist, but it's really not out of line with Libertarian ideals at all. The core of Libertarianism is that the government's only jobs stem from ensuring Locke's three natural rights, rights embedded in the U.S. Constitution in the following order:

1. Life (protection from physical harm and/or being killed)
2. Liberty (protection from government intervention, this includes privacy)
3. "Pursuit of happiness," more appropriately interpreted as meaning property

The common scream from business is that environmental regulation interferes with their right to property. This right, however, will always be trumped by item 1, the right to life (and protection from physical harm from another human being).

It's the same argument against smoking in public places: A person's right not to be killed/infected with cancer supercedes my right to blow smoke where they breathe. Elements of industry which create environmental harm capable of causing physical harm to another individual have no right to exist in their harmful form.

The problem with America's current political approach is a lack of recognition that we ourselves are part of the environment. Thus, poisoning (for example) waterways is quite legitimately poisoning other individuals, just as it would be if one were to slip cyanide pills in a group of people's coffees.

It's a touchy subject, and gets hard as hell to play with in the courts, though. Regardless, the environment must be cared for. Human beings (at this point in time) cannot exist should it fall apart.

Right. My only (solid) points on environmentalism concern the safety, health, and subsequent physical protection of human beings. Granted, there's much interpretation to be drawn from that statement. But it needs to be done.

(And "Shem," thanks.)

mhm mhm good. Cunkier than Campells. lol

Bad Libertarians. No eating endangered species. Bad, bad.

Well, I'd like to believe that, but some of the enviromental problems are irreversible or have long lasting detrimental effects for the whole Earth. For a worst-case scenario: if you have zero enviromental regulation and a nuclear power plant starts dumping in a populated area (downtown new york/in a water supply/across from an orphange) then sure you could sue the company, but the damage can be exponential. In this example, the radiation would hurt the health of generations of thousands or millions of people to come.

It can be argueably cheaper for everyone if we regulate ourselves enviromentally now. And sometimes (like with many air pollution examples), we simply can't clean up after ourselves later.

The philosophy of non-regulation doesn't mean we can't take preventitive action. Of course, we have to analyze the effectiveness of every program that we pass and try to eliminate every ineffective element we can.

Then there's the tragedy of the commons:
Like with national forests- if you sliced up the national forest into districts and gave them to the private sector, and I'm talkin about each logging company getting their share, then alot more logging will go on, but the business will regulate themselves there. If you cut all the trees you own, you'll go out of business unless you plant more.
Buffalo were rampant before cowboys shot them all down. Why? Cause no one owned the buffalo. This gives you more incentive to shoot more and more "while the getting's good". And if you let a government just criminalize and control a resource, then there's no benefit for anyone, and we have to pay more taxes.
If I hadn't made this point to you yet, there's a delightful little flash game that illustrates all this: Tragedy of the Bunnies.
But basically; sometimes enviromentalism can be compatible with libertarian ideals, but other times, I think we have to bite the bullet a little, it'd be nice to have a complete minarchy, but we need a habitable planet for it to work (unless the cockroaches start forming governments....).

My environment stances aren't really strong one way or the other. BUT I find cutting federal pollution a first priority. Having a government that's not accountable for it's own pollution is a very bad idea. As to private pollution, the governments contol of that should be reformed. Cause now all polluting companies have to do is pay off the right people in government to get exempt from any charges.

spotted owl, like the meat of other predatory birds, is to greasy, and a bit gamey. they eat to much red meat, their to muscular, and they have huge portions of nothing but fat on their chest(if they run into things, it makes them bounce, hence why you dont see flat spotted owls), completely ruining the breast.
anyhow, pollution should be treated like waving a gun. if you kill somebody with it, it's murder. You knew pollution was dangerous,, you polluted anyway, 2nd degree murder. someone gets sick? assault with a deadly weapon. it's pretty simple, it doesn't use any laws not already in place, just make people accountable.