|
I will try to answer you question on the environment. I am not well-educated in libertarian theory, but I certainly understand the relationship between property rights, choice and the environment.
Property rights aid in the protection of the environment. I removes the problem that is the tragedy of the commons. Where a person or organization owns a piece of property, they have a vested interest in the health and protection of that asset. Some will be more interested than others but overall, persons will not want their property damaged by pollution.
In forestry (my field) the current debate in British Columbia is over selling Crown land to the forest product companies. Currently, taxpayers simply charge stumpage and pay for road building, while companies are responsible for complying with regulations and reforesting. The system prevents the forest companies from gaining economic return for managing for other resources suchs as mining, hunting, fishing or ecotourism. If these companies owned the land they harvest they would also control the access of the other resources, which are not insignificant. Hunting, fishing and ecotourism all require healthy and robust ecosystems, which are certainly possible when forestry is conducted properly.
Climate change is a more difficult solution. Certainly within one area (region or country), air pollution litigation is certainly a solution (especially with in the USA). Where a country has a truly free market, the people will speak with their wallets. They will buy products that produce less GHGs, or invest in less GHG intensive industries and companies. Or they will simply believe the evidence is incomplete, and should not be forced by their fellow citizens to change their lifestyle.
__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.
|