I have immense respect for Karl Popper as a philosopher of science, but I still see the appropriate debate — on March 16, 2008 — over the climate problem as btw greenies and ANARCHISTS, not greenies and libertarians.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/quotes.html

“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve. ”
Karl Popper

There are two problems with your very clear statement. The minor problem with the “communitas” approach, if I may use that word for brevity’s sake, is the James Jones-Charlie Manson problem. Even if a lot of the leaders of communities are women, a good number of the leaders will inevitably be highly manipulative, sociopathic and probably violent, interpersonally highly effective, males. And these sicko communities could spread like a virus.

The major problem is still: how do we get from April 13, 2008, in the United States to a nationwide collection of communities like you describe? Without nuclear holocaust or interminable wars? Which relates to the first problem because to end the empire’s foreign wars will require bringing back to the United States many if not all of the combat forces and contractors who define themselves in terms of violence. The effect of which will be even more extreme that this country’s attracting like a money-magnet the most right-wing (and industrious) elements from foreign countries which have moved leftward, for lo these many decades.

And as a subscript to this: what, and who, will be passing “tax codes” on the way from today-in-2008 to a nation of communities?

Please note well, Ashley. I agree with the desireability. and sustainability — the James Jones-Charlie Manson problem notwithstanding — of your description of communitas. But.

Rhapsody doesn’t get it done.

How to effect this practically speaking? Simple: revise the tax codes in all industrialized nations so that the current pyramid is inverted back to its natural position with the large base being where most of the money goes and ALSO being close to the ground. In other words, rather than having nearly ALL the tax receipts of huge multi–million populations going to a central government whose resources become beholden to elites who compete to siphon off the most of this national treasure as possible, simply have about 70% of all taxes stay within the local community, 20% to the regional/provicial and 10% maximum to the central/federal. This simple change would fix, in short order, a huge number of systemic problems we find all over, including corporatism, rampant over-development, under-humanization and all the rest of it.

Lastly, the best system of governance is not rule of law via constitutions and such like. This is concept-based, i.e. ideological. And as someone said above, arguments between partisan ideologues simply go on forever. The only true system of leadership is that which involves actual person-to-person leadership. So not only does this tie back into the localism idea, but also hints, in its developed form, to the original roles of monarchs, tribal leaders and suchlike. Ultimately, they have to lead a culture not a territory, which the inhabitants themselves govern directly since they are there on that particular territory, and leading culture is an affair of heart and mind, not books and concepts.

In short, the developed world has substituted abstract thought for immediate reality, thought for direct perception and experience, concept over experience. This has been developing slowly in the West since the Middle Ages but I suspect is now reaching a climax of sorts.

But neither scientists - and the gatekeeper point above was very well made and apropos - nor libertarians have much to offer at this point unless, with the latter, it is the sort of specific, locally-based initiatives mentioned above in Florida as an example.

We all need to take back our sense of living in a particular place and time, being particular individuals who are part of particular communities.

Ultimately, this is what any real environmentalism has to come down to: being in touch with the immediate environment in a direct, non-concept-driven fashion.

i’ll probnably shut up now. i don’t have an infinite tolerance for being ignored.

And apparently the only way to get this point into peoples’ brains AT ALL, is to point out that — if only people weren’t so…so, so people — a little change like mandating a different USE for a tiny proportion of the profits being made, might address and resolve everything concerning economics which radicals bitch about, WHILE LEAVING the fucking capitalist system intact.

In Florida our local Libertarian Club is working to organize a community summit to set voluntary greening goals locally, target local rules that subtly encourage pollution, and seek to remove sales taxes on green products. Previously, a community forum we organized developed moment um in getting the government to aim at stopping local pollution from its own buildings and adopting greening policies, for which it has recently received an award. We’ve been active in developing a trail system with considerable private funding that is being viewed as a national model.

Our experience is that often ‘free market’ pollution involves a systematic policy that allows a corporation to be immune from liability, often for purported environmental or conservation reasons. In Florida we are fighting caps on the pollution damages awarded by juries that were created by the sort of legislative ‘environmental’ regulation the author unwittingly defends by giving the legislature this power to create special social exemptions. Are we wrong?

While many are skeptical of globall warming claims as stalking horses for more backfiring policies, what the author misses is that they’re irrelevant in the Libertarian approach. By insisting on contractual arrangements and putting a passport via property boundaries on pollution, Libertarians aim at bringing about near zero pollution as far as technology allows through the jury system. This avoids the fickle regulatory laws that are the actual enabler of officially allowed environmental damage. In the US, the Congressional GAO responding to Libertarian queries discovered that most pollution in the US was attributable to either direct pollution by legally immune government agencies or exemptions to common law protections by laws often created to ‘protect’ the environment.

Libertarians have led the charge since 1971 in restoring the right in the US and elsewhere of the individual to sue for environmental damage on his property and thus hold polluters accountable, or get restraining orders against threatening environmental sitiuations. Besides encouraging Voluntary Green methods and working to make them tax exempt, presently the Libertarian International Organization is advising low-income farmers on creating pollution and pesticide free zones through contract in Bangladesh. In Florida, the Seminole Soil and Water commission, dominated by Libertarians, was praised by the Sierra Club and other groups for encouraging mass volunteer efforts at no taxpayer expense and questioning arrangements between business interests in search of a handout via allegedly ‘Green’ policies.

In the US, where the Green party often has no presence, local Libertarians are the lead people in community summits for change. A balanced assessment of Libertarianism should look at how Libertarians have actually applied the principles, not speculations based on misunderstandings of them.

It’s like a feel-good religion to mask the fact that you’re a racist — that, when it comes down to it, you really do feel/believe that other people’s lives are worth less, and/or that exploitation is just some ‘Stalinist lie,’ and you deserve your privileges, etc.

Free market policies like all economic policies are normative and value-based, not scientific.

What makes “(negative) externalities” a matter which pure market economics says may be disregarded is precisely the assumption that they affect everyone equally including future generations. As long as that assumption holds, free market price mechanisms are not unduly distorted by them.

And as a matter of fact, no one (but idiots?) really believes climate change is affecting everyone equally, or ever will. Right?

Free market economics like all economics is subjective and not science. And this was true before any one suspected climate change is upon us.