Thinking Like a Libertarian

Libertarianism and Environment

I was thinking how the “invisible hand” of the marketplace could lead environmentalists to realize their ideal but in a way they might not have realized. If “freedom” is the most important right in human society, especially economic freedom, then many goods, both economic and ethical, flow from it. Consider environmentalism.

In the past wealth accrued to the few from the enslavement of the many, and the harnessing of their labor. Those between the supreme ruler and the lowest unit of production were rewarded for their loyalty and efficiency with a larger share of the goods produced, and perhaps the pick of the females (in most instances wealth was “earned” by the male members of families). We’ve seen the development of various stages of economic thought with the end result of the flowering of capitalism.

Capitalism was brought under “control” by such men as Theodore Roosevelt. It was channeled, and “regulated”. Libertarianism says this is wrong. We are now following a different and “purer” path for the accumulation of wealth. Many professionals have regulated their “professions” so that certain “standards” are met, and the public has the short-hand of having professionals meeting a certain “standard”, and, therefore, securing a certain “customary” fee for their services.

The recent Republican administrations have tried to “free” the accumulation of capital, and this has resulted in an accumulation of wealth in the topmost 1-2% of our society. This could also lead to an environmental ideal.

Consider the following: in the past wealth arose from providing the means of mass consumption. That is one way to accumulate wealth. But that isn’t the only way. With the accumulation of wealth through mass consumption there is a whole panoply of mechanisms for securing that wealth. Among them are trying to secure “market share”, “monopoly”, and other –opolies. This doesn’t have to be so.

With the rise of robotization, and "just-in-time" production goods can be targeted almost to the individual. If one wishes to accumulate wealth he can provide goods to individuals with almost microscopic precision aimed at his “target” audience. No need to produce thousands of units of expensive items that may or may not be consumed. The mass-produced items such as razor blades can be produced in third world countries more cheaply than in high wage countries in the West. But now we may begin to see a shift in methods for higher priced items such as cars. If an individual (or group of individuals) wishes he can decide how much wealth he needs to accumulate, and act accordingly. This is how the good to the environment can come. I (as a wealthy manufacturer of cars, say) decide that I can comfortably live on $30,000,000 a year. I figure out the highest price point that I can get away with, and produce just that number of cars. Maybe I add some kind of cachet to my cars, making people believe it is the new heir to the Rolls Royce. Instead of trying to increase consumption, I try to decrease it while at the same time generating wealth for myself. I have lower costs in materials, labor, advertising, etc. And I help the environment. Maybe I pioneer a method of pre-ordering my product so that I know what I need in the way of materials and labor to produce the goods each year. In this case, I have pioneered a way to accumulate wealth that relies less on mass production (and consumption), and more on “targeting” the population that will “consume” my eventual output.

This is why the accumulation of wealth with the upper 1-2% may be a very good thing for the environment. This 1-2% of the population can only buy so many of the mass consumables that we need for everyday use. Most of us only use one razor blade a day (or, for myself, one a week). Most of us can only eat so many pounds of steak in a week, or tomatoes a week. So the wealthy won’t add to the consumption there. What will they consume? High-end items are likely. They will want bigger houses for their wives and girlfriends, more cars, bigger cars, and more land to have peace and quiet in. We are told they will want to invest so that we will have things to consume. But we may not have the wealth (that they have accumulated) to consume them. Some of them will decide to consume more high-ticket items (which will be few in number, and more artfully constructed). This will require more time per item to construct to exacting specifications, but less items. This should cut down on the drain to the environment. Those of us who provide the goods and services to this 1-2% of the population will have the pleasure of constructing almost industrial works of art, and will go home to our homes at night drained but content in a job well done.

So on the one hand the “freedom” to accumulate wealth is championed, and on the other the environment is less impacted in the future.