Some thoughts about Ecology and Free Market.
As I have expressed on several occasions, I am not a fan of regulating the market, in fact, it is totally the opposite, I believe that markets should be as free as possible, without tariffs, without value added taxes, without income taxes, without practically labor legislation, without legislation that conditions the production of goods and services, without intellectual property laws, that is, a market that is almost totally free; however, like everything, this has its exception.
As I move forward in my analysis of the possibilities of developing a true free market, I realize that although in theory this brilliant proposal intrinsically could not bring more than benefits, there are two main problems, which sadly, I have only found the solution through state control.
The first of them I have already discussed in a previous publication: Can economic protectionism be a protector of the free market?. In which I argue that local or national markets would be highly affected by legislation external to them, and that therefore, the free market would be destroyed from abroad and not from within the system, so that protectionism is considered as the only viable solution to face foreign laws and sustain a free market.
Now, while my analysis of the situation is progressing, I have noticed an even more worrisome problem for society, a specific problem that has been the source for the creation of multiple institutions and political parties especially focused on that same problem, which is basically the ecological issue.
First of all, I want to make clear that I am what would be considered a skeptic on the issue that human industrial behavior is the fundamental reason why climate change, global warming, or as you prefer to call it, is being carried out. However, I think it is inevitable to realize the damages that our consumption habits are having on the environment, that is, the level of environmental pollution, rather than climate change, is really a problem that affects billions of people, and that will inevitably lead, in one way or another, to the destruction of life on the planet.
Given this circumstance, we have two options; or we can sit idly by while waiting for a solution to be created spontaneously, while continuing with alternative ecological projects; or we take the bull by the horns, and face this problem as directly as possible.
I am one of those who believe that currently the free market can't provide a direct solution to this problem. Mainly because people's consumption habits don't seem to be changing at the expected speed, very few people actually opt for ecological products and services, in such a way that the free market, despite being probably much more environmentally friendly than current market, could lead to a huge ecological problem, because in the free market, the power to lead society, falls entirely into the hands of consumers of goods and services, who ultimately decide what should occur, where it must be produced, where it must be sold, in what quantity it must be made, and in what quality it must be designed, for what it is they, through an impersonal mechanism, who decide if the market should design more or less ecological products.
Under these circumstances, there are some questions that must be asked, would people freely take the greener option before the contamination? Would they greatly compromise their lifestyle in exchange for safeguarding the social future?
The answer to that unfortunately I don't have it, so trying to guess what would be the response of billions of people, would be an absurdity for me.
But in the event that these questions were answered in a negative way, there would still be a dilemma to face in order to carry out an intervention, in favor of ecology, in the market, and it would be basically the following one; is it morally acceptable for the State to intervene in our consumption habits to safeguard ecological well-being?
Well, allow me to paraphrase Bolivar: "No matter how great the wisdom contained in codes, systems and statutes, they are a dead letter having but little influence in society; virtuous men, patriotic men, learned men make the republic."
In this way, my response to this dilemma varies depending on a circumstance, because although I believe that the State is intrinsically authorized to intervene to safeguard the ecological well-being, since this same welfare derives the fact that the rights can be guaranteed natural of man, life, freedom and property, then what could the individual do without everything that naturally surrounds him; Could he live? Would he be free? What would he own? But I also consider that, if the individuals who govern are not virtuous, something difficult to find in the politicians, then they will not represent more than a threat, not only to ecology, but also to natural rights, so give them that power about us, it would only bring negative consequences.
Thus, as the solution to this problem can't fall on the State, but rather falls on the public conscience, the problem of the environment can only be solved if there is a moral commitment of the inhabitants to the planet, for safeguard collective welfare, not through coercion, but rather on the basis of free choice, and the practice of virtue.
Very worthy topic of discussion; the big problem we have are the unseen subsidies government allows the culture of corporate consumerism.
These subsidies manifest in agriculture, big pharma, petro-dollar and the military.
The subsidies vary from country to country, but are largely modeled after USA corporate enterprises, US government aid to developing countries, and USA global war on drugs. These programs all do significant harm.
Little by little, the "people" are seeing USA global consumerism for what it is, a massive fraud.
People need to be taught about responsible resource management, instead of watching 'Hollywood' crap promoting finding happiness driving the newest Ford/Toyota/Chevy or eating steak grown on grain from cleared/chopped down rain-forest.
So it isn't so much about interfering with the free market, but stopping local support for USA consumerism and bullshit US law making.
Much US lawmaking goes directly against laws of nature and the environment, ie. criminalizing native plants and medicine.
Yes, I agree with you, only that I would add to other countries as well, not only the United States.
Hmm, this is a very complex issue, but in a nutshell you're touching upon a hypothetical system, that I'm calling "green capitalism" as in merging of free market and ecological mindset.
But we have to be aware that these things rarely go together. For example, if you turn up in a cigar club full of oil executives trying to convince them about going green, they'll send you back to the woodwork, which is where the line is drawn.
On the other hand if you try to convince a solar energy provider, that sustainable living paves the way for the future of capitalism, it's gonna be a piece of cake.
And the only difference is how these people make money, cause both groups make money and they both believe in liberty to keep making money.
So can capitalism be green and sustainable? Absolutely, but you need to get people behind the idea that the bright future of business lies in keeping the house clean and in long term profit for everybody as opposed to quick buck and massive exploitation of natural environment.
And I'm also all for abolishing the government in the process, but it'll never happen. We can try to minimise it, limit it, trim it or whatever. We could try to push it that or the other way, but politics and power are here to stay and for a very simple reason, MOST OF THE PEOPLE PREFER SECURITY OVER FREEDOM and they would never be able to survive in an anarchistic non-state... which would be quickly torn apart with brutal power struggles anyway.
Just look at a perfectly decentralised system at hand... STEEMIT :D
Totally agree with you. Yes, what I propose is that the choice to have a "green" capitalism, in a hypothetical free market, depends on the consumers, and on their responsibility to the environment. And I think that modern society is not sufficiently aware about it, I doubt very much that people compromise their lifestyle to benefit the environment.
Yes, but people don't have any responsibility WHATSOEVER! That's the main problem! Most of the people are idiots unable to reflect on ANYTHING! And if they can't reflect fully on their lifestyle, then they can't reflect on the consequences of it either... I'm quite pessimistic about it to be honest, cause intelligence is rare and stupidity is 0.001 steem a piece and there's no way to change it.
Anyway there's a neat theory called social dominance theory, that explains how power struggles over hierarchy are waged and why we can't really drop it here and now! It should nicely fit into your ramblings I believe, so I'm leaving this link here
You have kept the right topic on your post. I agree that the market should not spread the propaganda of any such thing which has severely damaged our environment. Very dangerous and harmful to the environment and it is chemical and poisonous, which is very harmful to our environment. It should not be removed or even brought in the market. Today, in our lives, a very important product of plastic is made, which we can not do away with, even if we do not want to be packing everything in the market and By the time of delivery, plastic bags and air tight containers are also plastic too, we have caused our environment very much damage. It will take thousands of years to bring it in a bad shape. We have spoiled many futility in order to harm the environment, so that our environment has harmed us, we will have to maintain it ourselves. We have to save our environment from the environment and creatures in a huge amount of creatures, so that our creatures become extinct We have come to the verge of having to use our carbonate and chemical substances to make our environment very healthy and limited, so that our environment will not be able to recover from carbon again after thousands of years. We will have to protect ourselves from damage to the environment, and we will have to drive this campaign together. Change as you can change the environment.
I thought about this myself alot. I don't like states, but I do like nature and sustainable economy. You could argue that harming the ecosystem is an act of aggression; if all people would feel like this, then they would more careful themselves and boycott / destroy entities as Monsanto...
Oh yeah, Monsanto is a corporation that has very dishonest market tactics, especially in countries like India. And yes, I believe that damaging the environment is an aggression against individual rights.
You received a 10.0% upvote since you are not yet a member of geopolis and wrote in the category of "ecology".
To read more about us and what we do, click here.
https://steemit.com/geopolis/@geopolis/geopolis-the-community-for-global-sciences-update-4
Oh, Thanks!
Interesting points you raise.
The problem with 'man made' fixes of ecological issue - is they we are not that clever or clairvoyant.
Rockefeller saved more whales than any greepeace warrior ever did - with oil, for example.
In hindsight we can see this, but imagine if green peace were the ecological warriors at the time...? who knows, right.
I use this as just one example of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions. (and human hubris)
Education, education education, and let the free market run with intelligent people deciding what they purchase, armed with this education.
(not marxist diatribe, obviously).
Right, I believe that the free market should be allowed to work, but at the same time, I also hope that we have enough conscience to make the right decisions.
Thanks for sharing this post.