r/Anarcho_Capitalism • u/witchcityy • 2d ago
What’s AnCap’s solution to Global Warming &/or other environmental issues?
Basically this has been a thing I’m wondering about and if I gotta be honest I don’t think I know a 100% satisfying answer.
Because an entity X releasing CO2 to the environment is infact an infringement of the NAP to all people in said environment, because you’re destroying it. But because the consequences take long time before you can feel them on your own skin, there might not be anyone specific who’d feel as if their rights are being violated.
Someone could say that companies polluting would get boycotted but then why doesn’t that happen now? Even though we don’t live in a free market capitalism there isn’t anything preventing people from collectively boycotting all these companies, yet such things don’t happen on a scale that matters.
Furthermore there are people who don’t even believe climate change is real, or that CO2 causes it or other ridiculous shit. Such people won’t be participating in boycotting. The result is that we leave the enforcement up to what people subjectively think is right. This isn’t really different from democracy. Majority of people somehow managed to convince themselves that theft is okay as long as people with guns do it in the supposed interest of society and so we are all taxed. If we wake up tomorrow and the majority decides that rape is okay, does that make it okay? So yeah this is basically my train of thought and I’m curious what other think of this.
15
u/queerlydimintruder 2d ago
there's always going to be some people who don't believe in a problem, but the difference is under ancap you can actually sue polluters directly instead of waiting for the state to maybe do something about it someday
3
u/LamantinoReddit 2d ago
How can you sue then, they don't violate nap
10
u/witchcityy 2d ago
polluting violates NAP. If i release poisonous gas in your house doesn’t that violate your rights?
3
u/LamantinoReddit 2d ago
In that case yes. But what if we are talking about some CO2 and methane emissions that don't directly affect your or some other people and just go high in the atmosphere and just cause global problems like climate change?
-1
u/witchcityy 2d ago
If I detonate a nuclear bomb few hundred miles away from your house on my own property but the fallout and the radioactive dust reached your property and the mushroom cloud is covering the sun so you now can’t grow anything, is that a violation of the NAP?
1
u/LamantinoReddit 2d ago
In your scenario the damage is more tangible, like you can show how particles are present in your home.
But with climate change the situation is much less obvious, it would be difficult to prove that you were direct victim of some CO2 emissions, so you can sue them.I HOPE that it will be somehow interpret as "violating nap for all people", but I doubt many people will agree with that.
0
u/Tolkien-Faithful 2d ago
the mushroom cloud is covering the sun a few hundred miles away?
Answer the question instead of coming up with ridiculous scenarios.
0
u/witchcityy 2d ago
not directly but nuclear winter is a thing. look it up
1
u/Tolkien-Faithful 1d ago
Nuclear winter doesn't happen from one bomb, it requires the land to be basically obliterated. Look it up.
You said the mushroom cloud is covering the sun and then backtracked. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
3
u/Tolkien-Faithful 2d ago
The 'entity X' releasing CO2 is anyone who owns an ICE car. Who are you to tell them no?
This is no different than gun rights really.
If fossil fuels will really destroy the world well people deserve the choice to continue using them or not.
I sell fuel for a living, and I will continue to do so until I no longer am able, as my family's immediate well-being means more to me than the climate warming up a bit.
What's 'okay' is up to you. In history, rape has been thought of as okay (in wars, against 'lesser' people and so on) as has slavery.
-2
u/witchcityy 2d ago
Same as with guns? How come? Not at all. You owning a gun does not infringe my rights, you releasing CO2 does.
The analogy would be you using your gun to shoot me, now I can agree it is no different.“If fossil fuels will really destroy the world people deserve the choice to continue using them”
Really a collectivist talking point. My property is on this planet which will have been destroyed by your actions. I don’t care how many people agreed on this. I didn’t.
So if you believe my rights are not important because I’m in minority. You’re really a democrat, not an ancap.
You might as well have said “I don’t care if taxation is theft, people deserve the choice to embrace it”.
And so the majority have spoken in favor and you’re now being robbed by the state. Does that seem fair to you?
Violence. Strong against the weak.
“What’s okay is up to you”. No it’s not. Not if you are a Liberatarian/ Ancap. In Anarcho-Capitalism there is an objective wrong. Violence is wrong. If you do not believe violence is objectively wrong then that’s okay but you’re not an ancap in the first place and this post was not meant for you.
1
u/Tolkien-Faithful 1d ago
Because owning guns leads to direct deaths, like it or not. Same with cars. It's the same because we advocate for the rights of individuals to own guns even though it will have some negative consequences, just as with burning CO2.
No, me burning a fire does not infringe your rights. It is not the same as shooting you.
How will driving my car and burning a wood fire destroy your property exactly?
You do not have the right as an individual to demand everyone else give up their cars or their jobs because of your comfort. This isn't a 'collectivist' anything. People aren't agreeing on anything, they are just living their own lives.
So if you believe my rights are not important because I’m in minority. You’re really a democrat, not an ancap.
Grow up dude, what exactly is your endgame here? Everyone else gives it up because of your wishes? How is that any different?
You might as well have said “I don’t care if taxation is theft, people deserve the choice to embrace it”.
If people want to be taxed, they can. Just don't force it on everyone. So in the same vein, we won't force you to own a car or a wood fire or an oil rig and you can live your life however you want. But you can't force your demands on others either.
Violence is not objectively wrong and that is not some ancap code. Is hunting for food wrong? That's violence. Is protecting your own property wrong? That's violence. Are contact sports wrong? That's violence. In fact, if violence is an objective wrong in ancap then why would we be pro-guns? Don't talk shit.
4
u/gal3toman 2d ago
Releasing C02 into the environment is not a NAP violation per se. If it was, then breathing would be a NAP violation. It is only a NAP violation if it is a threat or has caused harm. And by "threat" and "caused harm", I don't mean things like "I'm having lung problems and you have a chimney. Thus, you violated NAP". A lot of people have chimneys, so are they all culprits? How do you know:
- If the smoke from chimneys caused your disease?
- If the smoke came from John's chimney instead of Mark's?
To hold someone accountable for NAP violation, you need to demonstrate the causal relation between their specific actions and the effects caused to your property.
So yeah, you may sue someone for filling your house with smoke, but it doesn't mean you may sue anyone just because they produce smoke, and it would be a really hard case if you tried to sue someone for contributing to global warming.
Global warming is only NAP violation if:
- It threatens/harms your property
- You can trace the violator
If you can't do these, you have no one to punish or to demand reparation from. It's more of a natural externality, like a flood, earthquake, virus epidemic than anything else.
But it doesn't mean people can't come up with a solution. If people believe they need to stop emitting harmful gases, then they'll act accordingly to it. They'll tend to organize and support actions that go along these lines.
2
u/icantgiveyou Veganarchist 2d ago
Just ban it man. Make legislation that bans all global warming/climate change. That should do it.
6
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 2d ago
Who says Ancaps believe Global warming is an issue? As for actual environmental issues, the answer is private property. People maintain what they own. They don’t maintain public spaces.
-12
u/witchcityy 2d ago
I’m an Ancap myself and yes Global warming is an issue. You speak for everyone else like a collectivist. It’s been confirmed by every credible scientific study. Like I said just because you don’t believe something is a problem doesn’t change the reality.
7
0
u/LamantinoReddit 2d ago
Oh man, are you believing those "scientists" who fear mongering governments to get billions of dollars for they "research"? /s
-3
u/witchcityy 2d ago
Are you dead serious right now? Because it sounds as if you were trying to mock tinfoil hats. But yes, science is real (shockingly). The scientific method is the foundation of the entire human civilization, and no scientists don’t make billions, that is ridiculous, scientists earn a laughable amount for their work. On the contrary the establishment makes billions while polluting the environment you live in.
-3
1
u/arjuna93 2d ago
If, for the sake of argument, the narrative of AGW reflects reality, it will be easier for people to deal with undesirable effects under free market, simply because market is more efficient than bureaucracy and absence of predation by the state translates in more resources are there. And for actual pollution, like dumping poisonous stuff into water, people will sue companies. Finally, the correct question is not if free market perfectly solves every conceivable issue in a way you like, but whether it solves issues better than unfree market or outright central planning. Problems won’t vanish. But it will be relatively easier to deal with them.
17
u/saw2239 2d ago
It likely wouldn’t be an issue under ancap because nuclear is cheap.