Leveraging Activism

March 17, 2008

Tonight I was visited by an environmentalist pampleteer. He was promoting the Great Lakes, probably Michigan’s greatest natural resource: their beauty, their economics, their ecosystem, etc. I cut him short because I was preparing dinner at the time, and told him I wasn’t interested in signing anything, but it got me thinking about some of the other more “mainstream” brands of activism, and how they are or could be brothers-in-arms to anarchists…

The problem with most of these people is not what they want to accomplish, but rather, how they think it needs to be accomplished. They see that government sometimes passes laws in favor of (or in opposition to) certain groups. They see that governments, in some instances, takes land and gives it to greedy corporations, and think: we should convince the government to give some land to us! They believe, in short, that Government is the proper instrument through which to preserve the environment. Like many others, they stopped thinking about what government really is: violence.

I love “the environment.” Whether it’s snowboarding in Wyoming, mountain climbing in Maine, whitewater rafting in Washington, or mountain-biking locally in Michigan. I love the National Parks as much as the next guy, or more, but I’m vehemently opposed to how they’re created and/or maintained, and I believe that government shouldn’t be stealing land from anyone, to dole it out to anyone else.

There are no shortages of pencils, apples, rice, or automobiles. And although the “markets” for these commodities and wares are heavily distorted, they are markets nonetheless. There are no shortage of cows, of chickens, or of pigs. But there are often shortgages of deer (I judge by the relative demand and supply of hunting permits for sale). If there is a “shortage” of preserved land in this country (or any other, for that matter), it has more to do with government’s intrusion in the markets than it does with the market’s alleged “failure” to protect the environment.

In brief, government is the largest impediment to the preservation of nature. Surely there are many reasons I could give in support of this thesis, but several come to mind immediatetly and without much effort on my part:

  1. Outright expropriation of title to land and/or resources such as mineral/oil rights, (e.g., Kelo, or any socialist regime). Sometimes the interference in title or land is more discrete, and is effected through statutorily usurping the common law property rights of some people in favor of others. A recent decision was the first conviction of California citizens under the Solar Shade Act of 1978, which is alleged to “[Protect] individuals who have invested a lot of money in solar power.“  The law “protects” ex post, investments that wouldn’t be protected under the riparian rights doctrine of common law.  This is a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences, where a law designed to be environmentally friendly may actually contribute to the de-beautification of our cities.
  2. Meddling in the financial markets through inflationary credit expansion, which coupled with the prior expropriation of land (below) raises the price of credit far in excess of what it would otherwise be, making available land costlier to acquire.  Another fine example of government interference as the root cause of the problem for which people seek a government solution!
  3. Prior expropriation of all open, (generally) unowned land. A government generally claims dominion over all land within the geographical bounds of its arbitrarily established and violently maintained borders.  When the government takes title, it is expropriating an unowned resource.  I say “expropriate” instead of “appropriate,” because when government takes title in this manner, it effectively destroys the libertarian principle of homesteading, whereby unowned land can be acquired by any individual willing to mix his labor with it, to transform it from a state of nature.  This expropriation also severely distorts the market for land; since government land is generally not “on the market,” the land available for sale by private parties is made artificially scarce, and hence more expensive.

Governments continue to do all of these things. Yet the activists still believe that government is the way to preserve the environment! Clearly, it is not.

Activists of this sort are strongly devoted to their cause, and it is this devotion that should be leveraged when dealing with them, especially if you aim to convert. I love all of nature’s grandeur and beauty. But I don’t love any of it enough to point a gun at someone in order to preserve it. Show them the gun in the room, and chances are, they’ll be appalled. If these activists can be convinced that government is evil, they won’t stop loving the environment, they’ll start looking for other means by which they can preserve it, and the market is the means.


Comments

2 Comments so far

  1. Market Anarchist Carnival: March edition « Democracy Sucks March 29, 2008 9:18 pm

    […] Leveraging Activism by Dave from No Third Solution […]

  2. …no third solution » Blog Archive » Saving the Turtles April 8, 2008 9:24 pm

    […] In any event, if you’re wondering “Who will protect the environment?” if not Government, A Taste of Thai is just one of many solutions. If you’re concerned about the environment, be it the Thai Turtles or a local park, you need to understand that government is the largest impediment to the preservation of nature. […]

Leave a Comment

If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Comments

Archives

Categories