Give me liberty, or give me strangling regulation!
The self-contradictions in economic libertarianism are acknowledged even by libertarians. Ron Paul himself has accepted that some constraints on pollution are necessary, to prevent polluters in one geographical area from inflicting harm on people in other geographical areas—acid rain, where smokestack emissions in one place inflict damage downwind, being a simple case in point. Water pollution operates under a similar principle. Unregulated, uncontained pollution represents an “externalized cost”—there’s a cost paid not by the polluter but by the victims. In general the victims—people, plants, animals—are indirectly injured, and each individual only by a tiny amount at any one time in any one place. The damage is cumulative—little noticed in the moment, but with large consequences over long spans of time.
You’d think that externalized costs of many kinds would present difficulties in principle for most libertarians—coal plants release mercury into the atmosphere, causing damage to health outside the coal plant, for which coal plants should be held responsible.* It’s part of libertarianism that everyone should be free to do what they want, as long as it doesn’t hurt others. Ergo, to be consistent, individuals (to include corporations, whom the Supreme Court has deemed to have the rights of individual citizens), should be no freer to spew toxic contaminants at the public, than to rob them at gunpoint.
The problem for libertarians—set aside the pragmatic issue of risking donations from polluting donors—is that once you start talking about widespread and diffuse externalized costs from giant industries, it’s hard to draw lines where on one side is fair play, and on the other side are fouls.
We might call this the boundary problem of free-market economics.
The boundary problem: where to draw lines?
Take, for a crude analogy, the game of American football. Who disputes that the instant replay has lent much credence to officiating at games—was the receiver’s foot outside the foul line at the instant of reception? That can usually be resolved by the inarguable witness of the camera.
Whether a referee or a camera decides, however, the principle remains—there exists a line between fair play and foul.
The efforts of libertarians are devoted to pushing the foul lines as far apart as possible. If the lines were to encompass the benches of the rival teams, would that be so contrary to the spirit of the game? Is that no more than just widening the field of battle? A football game is analogous to war—else where’s the fun? All’s fair in love and war—right?
To be against regulation in principle is where most libertarians and hard right Republicans stand, despite lip service to “responsible legislation.” Although such relatively wise libertarians as Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul have acknowledged there has to some control over pollutants that spread damage far beyond their point of origin, most of their followers do not. Those followers are so committed to the free-market ideology they refuse to accept even the most moderate, common-sense regulation—Don’t Tread on Me! I very much doubt that the Clean Air Act could get passed in the national legislature today. (Climate Change denial is bound up in this mindset: to admit to Anthropogenic Climate Change would be to admit that regulation makes sense. That’s where the deniers get much of their energy.)
There’s a parallel with pro-gun fervor—and in both cases, there’s big money pushing outward on the foul lines, across the team benches and into the stands. When a wide receiver and his tackler crash into the stands, breaking spectator bones—that’s an externalized cost.
Moreover, there’s a deep anger toward what are seen as financially comfortable liberal elites imposing “job-killing regulation” without regard to whom it hurts. Ideology + anger + polluters’ big money -> anti-regulation fanaticism on the Right.
Communication on externalized costs needed
The concept of externalized costs has been slowly creeping into the public consciousness, and it needs a boost. To accept the concept is to accept the necessity for foul lines that separate irresponsible practices from responsible practices. The anti-regulation fanatics are not stupid, but they’ve bought into a simplistic narrative which ultimately hurts all but the very rich. I don’t know how to achieve this boost, but at least we can start prioritizing it. It may not move middle-aged and old fanatics, but it may move the agile-minded young, once they are made more fully aware of it. Somebody get Facebook and Twitter on the case.
Last Word: Carbon Tax
A carbon tax, with proceeds given back to the taxpayers, is an end run around the anti-regulation stand, which is why some Republicans are getting on board with it. Have a few more droughts, floods, lethal heat waves, killer tornadoes and big hurricanes hitting the U.S., it could get more traction.
It may be the ONLY measure regulating Greenhouse Gases that Republicans would ever accept.
=============== footnotes follow ==============
* At least there’s little argument about the damage to health from mercury pollution. How much mercury pollution is really bad may be a matter of argument, but—unlike the fictional “controversy” about CO2 and climate change—there’s little disagreement that some damage exists. But where to draw the lines?