A Capitalist Considers Climate Change
As I write this, it's a warm afternoon in late October. Leaves are falling outside, and I'm wondering if I should do any homework before dinner. It seems like an idyllic day during Indian Summer--or is it something more? The scientific evidence would seem to suggest so.
The considerable resistance to this notion is, I believe, a product of how the issue is framed. Generally, those on the left will say you have two options. One the one hand you can be conservative Christian who wants to cut down the rainforest and enslave puppies, damn the consequences! On the other, you can be a progressive environmentalist who loves pansies, rainbows, and Mother Earth.
This post is not going to be a discussion of whether climate change is a real thing. No, today we're talking about how to face it.
Polarization of not-inherently-partisan matters is a feature of our political system, and the climate change debate is just another example. Either you deny global warming, or think anthropogenic climate change is the worst thing since unsliced bread. Saying otherwise invites criticism from both left and right. Being a libertarian, I'm already used to that. What's one more issue?
As with so many things, the climate change debate is a false dichotomy. Leftists believe that Gaia must be obeyed, and the right believes Terra is ours to do with as we will.
But nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
Rationality and Leaving People Alone
Libertarians, and Objectivists in particular, have this supposition that if everyone behaved rationally (or their perception of "rationally;" I'm realizing more and more that rationality is a very, very complex mode of thinking) no one would violate one another's person or property. I think this is accurate, but it's not really very intuitive. Some very intelligent people, like Jerry Pournelle, are completely confused by it. Discussing his Political Axes:
On the anti-statist end of the scale we can see the same tendency: extreme anti-rationalism ends with the Bakunin type of anarchist, who blows things up and destroys for the sake of destruction; the utterly rationalist anti-statist, on the other hand, persuades himself that somehow there are natural rights which everyone ought to recognize, and if only the state would get out of the way we'd all live in harmony...
The problem, I think, is a misunderstanding about egoism. I've been meaning to rectify this for some time.
Egoism is a recognition of your nature as a self-interested being. In the context of a rationalist philosophy such as Objectivism, it also implies the fact that other individuals are self-interested, too.
Towards Single Transferable Vote
For those who don't know what Single Transferable Vote is, the YouTuber CGP Grey has an excellent series of videos about voting systems called Politics in the Animal Kingdom. I've included the video on STV at the bottom of this post.
Nearly everyone you meet says they think our elections are unfair and would like to see a third party enter the political arena. Nevertheless, Libertarians and Greens remain by the sidelines for a very simple reason: the spoiler effect. Minor parties usually attract more voters from one of the major parties than the other, leading to a win for the major party they least prefer. Consequently, disaffected citizens continue voting for one of the major parties, simply to prevent the other from gaining a majority.
How can we escape this trap? I'm glad you asked. Enter: the Single Transferable Vote.
I won't attempt explaining STV.
Egoism is a recognition of your nature as a self-interested being. In the context of a rationalist philosophy such as Objectivism, it also implies the fact that other individuals are self-interested, too.
Towards Single Transferable Vote
Nearly everyone you meet says they think our elections are unfair and would like to see a third party enter the political arena. Nevertheless, Libertarians and Greens remain by the sidelines for a very simple reason: the spoiler effect. Minor parties usually attract more voters from one of the major parties than the other, leading to a win for the major party they least prefer. Consequently, disaffected citizens continue voting for one of the major parties, simply to prevent the other from gaining a majority.
How can we escape this trap? I'm glad you asked. Enter: the Single Transferable Vote.
I won't attempt explaining STV.
[There was originally a video in here]
Be sure to view the footnotes
