flat earth libertarianism
Ryan Avent has an entirely valid criticism of libertarianism. He claims libertarians poo-poo climate change science because we don't like the policy implications.
"This is a serious problem for libertarians. Climate science has followed a path very similar to many other sciences over the past few decades. An interesting hypothesis touched off a great deal of research which led to a growing consensus on the validity of the hypothesis - that in fact, it was consistent with the available data. But scientific progress in other fields didn’t, by and large, generate some rather significant policy implications (the minimalist one of which, for climate change, is that something should be done, even if that something is simply preparing for the effects of warming). And so libertarian think tanks haven’t devoted themselves to trying to undermine the science in those fields, while libertarians have gone to war against the field of climate science. They made this choice not because they dislike the process of scientific inquiry, but because they dislike the policy implications of a specific scientific conclusion."
A libertarian I used to know called this flat-earth libertarianism. I think this is really just a case of ideological blinders. No one likes learning evidence that calls her worldview into question. I have to admit I couldn't think of an example where liberals flagrantly dismiss evidence from the physical or biological sciences. They shut their eyes and hum lullabies at empirical economic evidence all the time, but I suppose that's not as bad. So yes, libertarians should take care not to sacrifice their credibility on global warming.
Of course not all libertarians take the easy way out by denying the facts. But I think even among good, wholesome round-earth libertarians skepticism remains about addressing global warming. I think this breed of libertarian is generally comfortable with a simple carbon tax, but there's nothing simple about the mechanisms that will actually be employed to counteract global warming. The libertarian, while unfortunately slow to accept the reality of global warming, is much quicker than the liberal to realize what a clusterfuck of rent-seeking any cap'n'trade system will be that emerges from Congress.
I think libertarians are further wary of any doomsaying from the environmental Left because environmentalists are pussies. I personally have a hard time listening to the exhortations of environmentalists because I am deeply hostile to my impression of their end goals. Maybe this is a remnant from my Objectivist brainwashing in high school, but I have this notion that environmentalists think nature has some inherent value, and that humans somehow spoil it. My impression is that environmentalists are opposed to technological progress, that they cling to the myth of the noble savage.
"This is a serious problem for libertarians. Climate science has followed a path very similar to many other sciences over the past few decades. An interesting hypothesis touched off a great deal of research which led to a growing consensus on the validity of the hypothesis - that in fact, it was consistent with the available data. But scientific progress in other fields didn’t, by and large, generate some rather significant policy implications (the minimalist one of which, for climate change, is that something should be done, even if that something is simply preparing for the effects of warming). And so libertarian think tanks haven’t devoted themselves to trying to undermine the science in those fields, while libertarians have gone to war against the field of climate science. They made this choice not because they dislike the process of scientific inquiry, but because they dislike the policy implications of a specific scientific conclusion."
A libertarian I used to know called this flat-earth libertarianism. I think this is really just a case of ideological blinders. No one likes learning evidence that calls her worldview into question. I have to admit I couldn't think of an example where liberals flagrantly dismiss evidence from the physical or biological sciences. They shut their eyes and hum lullabies at empirical economic evidence all the time, but I suppose that's not as bad. So yes, libertarians should take care not to sacrifice their credibility on global warming.
Of course not all libertarians take the easy way out by denying the facts. But I think even among good, wholesome round-earth libertarians skepticism remains about addressing global warming. I think this breed of libertarian is generally comfortable with a simple carbon tax, but there's nothing simple about the mechanisms that will actually be employed to counteract global warming. The libertarian, while unfortunately slow to accept the reality of global warming, is much quicker than the liberal to realize what a clusterfuck of rent-seeking any cap'n'trade system will be that emerges from Congress.
I think libertarians are further wary of any doomsaying from the environmental Left because environmentalists are pussies. I personally have a hard time listening to the exhortations of environmentalists because I am deeply hostile to my impression of their end goals. Maybe this is a remnant from my Objectivist brainwashing in high school, but I have this notion that environmentalists think nature has some inherent value, and that humans somehow spoil it. My impression is that environmentalists are opposed to technological progress, that they cling to the myth of the noble savage.