Pharyngula

They even have their own Discovery Institute called the Competitive Energy Institute. Instead of being funded by Howard Ahmanson, it's funded by Exxon. And I'm sure there are more of the same out there. Peddling bogus science in aid of selling oil, cars, land development, etc. is more profitable than selling theology, if no less dishonest.

Posted by: John Pieret | June 10, 2006 7:01 AM

Is the sock named Ayn Rand, by any chance?

Posted by: XavierGNZ | June 10, 2006 7:46 AM

I don't think libertarianism is necessarily conservative as much as it is simply avoidant behavior. Life is too complicated and frustrating, having to manage things is confusing and unsatisfying, so it's easier and feels better to just take an impossibly simplistic view of things and step aside. It's just a way of placing yourself above the fray so you don't have to actually do anything while you criticize those actually doing the work.

Posted by: CCC | June 10, 2006 8:06 AM

What's the problem? They all three can continue their drive in heaven, which is a better place than this one: free gas and everyone gets a Hummer!

Posted by: Whimsical Monkey | June 10, 2006 8:31 AM

I wish I could find libertarian health advocacy groups. As much as they want the public to improve themselves individually, they don't seem to be very much involved in advocacy. I could be mistaken though.

Posted by: daenku32 | June 10, 2006 8:37 AM

I read the thread that you linked, and the frat-boy debating-society quality of the arguments is blatant. It starts with clever tricks and ends with insults.

Economics does not have variables representing existing physical reality -- neither the environment nor human beings. Nothing exists in economics until it has a price put on it, either as labor or as a raw material, and nothing has a price put on it unless it is offered on a market. It's not surprising that economists are blindsided by environmental events -- they have bracketed the the environment out of their equations.

I had a long argument with an cornucopian once about fish farming. Wild fish actually add to the human food supply, but fish-farming just converts low-price food that is fed to the fish into high-price food -- in terms of calories or protein, fish-farming is a net loss. We went back and forth 3-4 times, and the end he was still talking about food markets and prices. I could NOT get him to talk about the physical food supply of calories and protein.

Substitutability as prices increase is the cornucopian solution to resource shortages. This may work for minerals, but I don't see substitutes for topsoil, clean air, or clean fresh water, and with energy sources there are many difficulties. (No, hydroponics only works for the herb cornucopians smoke before they do their thinking. We're not going to be growing our wheat and corn in vats under grow-lights.)

Posted by: John Emerson | June 10, 2006 9:25 AM

I'm no libertarian, and I do think that (by virtue of their status as a minor party) they attract a certain wacko factor.

But I do think that it makes sense to look at the areas where we do agree. Libertarians (real ones) tend also to be civil libertarians. There is a deep pool of self-identified conservatives who are deeply upset by the wiretaps, by the gay marriage attacks, and similar government intrusions into the daily lives of ordinary people.

In other words, I'd take an economically conservative socially liberal libertarian anyday over the so called conservatives we have now, who want nothing more than to spy on us and control our bedrooms, in addition to raping the planet and forcing millions into poverty.

Posted by: Evan Murdock | June 10, 2006 9:56 AM

The extremist libertarians whose comments Prof Myers is now reacting to, judging by the link he provides, ranted their rants in February of 2004 in response to a posting about politics in academia of that date.

The skit provided today is a tasty little satire about one faction of environmental-disaster denialists, but it stands well enough on its own: what's the point of resurrecting a minor spurt of irrationalist rhetoric from over two years ago?

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 10, 2006 10:41 AM

I'd never heard of libertarians until I kept seeing the same argument trotted out again and again on USENET. This was that everybody should be able to own the most powerful weapons available without restriction and that all drugs should be legalised. Somehow, these two things are connected and would lead to a perfect world.

I therefore think that libertarians are basically a bit nutty because: a) they take various extreme positions from left-wing and right-wing politics and expect them to just work somehow, and b) I first heard these ideas espoused by the famous Ted Holden, and everything that Ted says is wrong.

The latter, in particular, is pretty damning.

Posted by: Hinschelwood | June 10, 2006 12:33 PM

Hi cserpent,

"Sheesh, I think PZ was deliberately caricaturing a narrow group of Libertarian extremist hypocrites that were commenting on his blog, rather than making a sweeping generalization."

Considering that the exchange took place more than two years ago and that those particular "Libertarian extremist hypocrites" are not arguing in the comments any more, that would be an odd reason to re-run the post.

Also, the post clearly contains elements that indicates that it's relevant to libertarianism at large. For example, the part about the sock puppet is obviously a riff on the old "libertarian think tanks are all funded by big greedy corporations" schtick.

Posted by: Krauze | June 10, 2006 1:07 PM

Hi PZ,

"Here's a good reason to re-run this: it sure seems to strike a nerve in the deranged libertarian subset of readers."

And what "deranged libertarian subset" would that be, pray tell?

Posted by: Krauze | June 10, 2006 1:33 PM

BTW, what's an "anti-environmentalist"? Someone who's against the environment?

An environmentalist is a religious person whose deity is nature. That's nature without people. People are evil in this religion. Libertarians are against Environmentalist for the same reason PZ is against religion. They let their religion get in the way of rational thought.

Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | June 10, 2006 2:45 PM

If I thought that people who care about the individual (libertarian) and money (republican) more than anything else could protect our environment, I would vote for them. They can't and I won't.

Posted by: George | June 10, 2006 3:07 PM

Krauze: OK, the word can be divided into three parts, "anti", "environmental", and "ist. These all have meanings known to people literate in English.

"Environmental" is the adjective form of "environment". "Environment" has several meanings, but standing alone in political discussions it means the natural biological environment, considered from a political point of view (endangered species, pollution, etc.)

An "environmentalist" is someone involved in political disputes who favors preserving the environment by government regulation, etc. So an "anti-environmentalist" would be someone opposed to environmentalists.

Someone opposed the the environment itself would probably be an "anti-environmentist". I don't know of any of these.

I actually doubt that you were looking for an answer. I suspect your question was frat-boy debating society snark, like your other rhetorical question below. But I pretended that I thought you were serious and worth bothering with.

If you're really having this much trouble with vocabulary, perhaps you should study up for a bit and then get back to us.

Posted by: John Emerson | June 10, 2006 3:29 PM

Hi John,

Sure, it would be nice if one could ascertain what people meant simply by looking at the etymology of the words they used. But some labels become so politically charged that accuracy gets left by the wayside.

Take the other part of Myers' headline, anti-evolutionists. Judging from its etymology, I would guess that this described people who rejected evolution, that is, the common descent of all life on earth from one or a few ancestors. But I've had people tell me that even common descent-accepting ID-supporters like Michael Behe qualify as "anti-evolutionists", and even the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne got accused of anti-evolutionism when he criticized an evo-psych argument for the origin of rape.

Similar doubts linger around the term anti-environmentalist. Take Free Market Environmentalism, the basis of which is the claim that government regulation has failed, and that the environment is best protected through free-market forces, such as private property and "polluter pays" policies. But according to your definition, which emphasizes government regulation, we'd have to label it anti-environmentalism.

Posted by: Krauze | June 10, 2006 4:01 PM

This is quibbly debating-society stuff, Krauze, like I said. Philosophy 101 isn't usually applicable to actual reality.

"Polluter pays" is a form of regulation. If the free market environmentalists are legit and not astroturf, I would not call them anti-environmentalists.

Basically it's better to make substantive arguments rather than to ask rhetorical questions about definitions.

Posted by: John Emerson | June 10, 2006 4:59 PM

Wonderful timing: the first two things I read today were this and http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19417715-7583,00.html

To summarise the argument contained in the second one: some rather hysterical people claim that global warming is already flooding island nations. Since this is not true, there is no global warming.

Who cares about the vast body of evidence? There are a few folk in the environmental movement who are fond of hyperbole, so clearly global warming can't happen. Cower in the face of my mighty logic!

...and thanks to idiots like this, anyone who wants to do nothing can feel justified.

Posted by: SmellyTerror | June 10, 2006 5:41 PM

I like the show very much - especially Mr. Socky - and would very much support the notion that this is worth a re-run.

Having quite a solid stomach i reread the large opinion-pieces of Mr. Feser and the "Reply to the Critics", just to see if i was not mistaken in a -at first glance - minor point where IMHO PZ Myers is almost as much in error as this "conservative" hack.

I'm referring to the phrase from his first post: "and a restoration of the university's pre-Enlightenment role as a promulgator of dogma".
If this is meant as shorthand for ecclesiastical censure i won't argue (evil atheist that i am, too) but taken literally this discounts the memory of those medieval academics, not only pre-Enlightenment but even pre-Renaissance which were in their days the very equivalent of those "poison-mixers" Mr. Feser wants to expose and of them he obviously doesn't know enough to write anything sensible about.

Contrary to popular knowledge the medieval (european) unversity life was - clerical overlordship and even membership of every teacher notwithstanding - a time of intense dispute, filled up with radicals and sparsely costumed unbelievers. William Ockham, Marsilius of Padua, John Wycliff, Jan Hus - to those who know (or want to know) these hints should be enough, and professors and clerics they were all.
Even Mr. Fesers big statue of a righteous teacher, Thomas of Aquin was very much debated and attacked in his lifetime and - a few centuries later - Martin Luther was not only an augustine monk but at the same time professor at the Wittenberg university.

Posted by: Red Dog | June 10, 2006 7:29 PM

Karl Hess once told me that he thought Ayn Rand stole all her best ideas from Max Stirner. I disagreed; I didn't think she was that well-read.

Any intellectually honest libertarian would soon realize that any action that creates a change to someone else's property without their permission is unethical, and therefore, said libertarian would have to adopt a zero-emissions environmental policy. Instead, they immediately turn to various legalisms like "proveable harm" (as if you need to prove that someone is harming you by walking through your house uninvited).

The one group that I'm positive has been wrong more often than environmental doomsayers is they group that predicts the horrible economic consequences of environmental regulations.

Posted by: James Killus | June 10, 2006 11:05 PM

I guess now wouldn't be a good time to post this link:

Daily Kos: The Libertarian Dem

Posted by: Krauze | June 11, 2006 2:59 AM

The problem libertarians have with environmentalists is the same problem that you have with Christianists. Enviros believe that they are privy to a great Truth that gives them the right to control everyone's behavior. That Truth isn't scientific; they are happy to wave around the science when it conforms to their prejudices, but just as happy to dismiss it otherwise. They're against nuclear power and genetic engineering and modification, for example. Libertarians don't like to be told how to behave in the name of mystic Truth, and they resist claims of global warming because those claims fit so neatly into the enviros' existing prejudices that it's hard to believe they weren't made up. If the science holds up, they'll come around.

Posted by: hymie | June 11, 2006 5:49 AM

Hi Rob,

I posted that link to Daily Kos because with all this libertarian-bashing going I thought it was funny that other liberals were trying to find points of similarity. So if you think that the author of that article sounds like a democratic socialist, that's because that's what he is.

If you're interested in getting libertarians to play on the liberal team, here's some suggestions from the evil libertarian sock puppets over at the Cato Institute:

- The left generally supported the Supreme Court's decision in Raich (the five most liberal justices plus Scalia formed the majority in that case). There were a few exceptions. But by and large, the left approved. (Moulitsas himself took a more middling position). The reasoning I read from leftist pundits was that opposing it would have opened the door just a hair more for the short-lived Rehnquist federalism revolution. In other words, a ruling for Angel Raich would have put the slightest of curbs on federal power. And that was too much. In this case, the left couldn't even bring itself to support a decision allowing sick people to get access to the medication they needed, because it might have hampered the ability of the federal government to enforce hiring quotas, or the EPA's ability to save endangered, cave-dwelling toads in Texas (the latter argument was actually made by the Washington Post editorial board). It's hard to take in the left's reaction to Raich and believe modern American liberalism stands for much of anything anymore, save for raw, unfettered government power.
- Same goes for the Kelo decision (again decided largely by the Court's left). Some on the left at the time seemed to sympathize with the fifth-generation homeowner who loses his house to, say, Wal-Mart or General Motors, yet still couldn't get too worked up over a decision that, after all, (1) struck a blow to demon "property rights" advocates, and (2) once again, gave more power to government.
- How about the broader drug war? It's true that a few of Kos's diarists have been eloquent opponents of drug prohibition. Bully to them. But nationally, Democrats won't touch legalization. Off the top of my head, I can name far more high-office politicans and pundits who've publicly come out for legalizing drugs from the right than I can from the left.
The thing is, if libertarians and liberals were to form an alliance, these issues really shouldn't even be in the "compromise pile." The left likes to think of itself as the champion of the little guy -- the left behind, the powerless, and the disposessed. Seems to me the cancer or AIDS patient who needs medical marijuana to keep the meds down, the modest homeowner about to be evicted so a Sam's Club (or to make it a bit more difficult for our Kos friends, a CostCo) can move in, or the paraplegic arrested and tossed in prison for 25 years for daring to treat his own pain would be exactly the kind of people for whom the left should be advocating. Yet the modern left's lust for overarching government power makes them antagonists of the little guy in all three cases.

Posted by: Krauze | June 11, 2006 8:31 AM

I debated a libertarian economist about these issues a few years ago. I tried to get him to consciously acknowledge that he was so ideologically opposed to government that he believed it should / could never be used to solve an environmental problem--whereas I, an environmentalist, wanted to use *the best solution* to the problem and would be willing to hear whether that solution would be from government or the private sector.

Posted by: TTT | June 11, 2006 11:41 AM

PZ, I assume you've seen this brilliant Tom Tomorrow effort.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | June 11, 2006 5:11 PM

Hymie said: Libertarians don't like to be told how to behave in the name of mystic Truth, and they resist claims of global warming because those claims fit so neatly into the enviros' existing prejudices that it's hard to believe they weren't made up. If the science holds up, they'll come around.

This is quite wrong Hymie. Libertarians need not be convinced that global warming is happening (few seriously reject that now), they need to be convinced that responses involving central planning and various degrees of coercion are not worse than the problem they are trying to solve. IMHO, the credibility of the environmental movement is damaged by its failure to consider this issue.

Posted by: Matt B | June 12, 2006 12:06 AM

In the original post PZ was clearly talking about a fringe of the libertarian movement, not all of them. It's a pretty significant fraction, though.

The credibility of libertarians is damaged by their placing conditions on their willingness to acknowledge global warming, and their unwillingness to accept governmental regulation as part of the solution. (And as I said, pollution credits and taxes are forms of government regulation.)

Cherry-picking the stupidest things any environmentalist ever said and using them to smear the whole movement is right-wing politics-as-usual. No environmentalist has to agree with everyone else who calls themself an environementalist. As a group, libertarians (even the good ones) have a very weak record onenvironemtnal issues.

I think that the free-marketer affection for pollution credits as opposed to other forms of government intervention lies in the fact that pollution credits are so wonky that they confuse people. As a result, they'd be easy to sabotage behind the scenes by amendment, with the result that they'd probably end up providing windfalls for certain industries without actually reducing pollution. That's the way our government often works.

Posted by: John Emerson | June 12, 2006 9:55 AM

I think that the free-marketer affection for pollution credits as opposed to other forms of government intervention lies in the fact that pollution credits are so wonky that they confuse people. As a result, they'd be easy to sabotage behind the scenes by amendment, with the result that they'd probably end up providing windfalls for certain industries without actually reducing pollution. That's the way our government often works.

This is a very strong libertarian argument overall. When you grant a government power, it creates an inviting atmosphere for influence over legislators. If the government was reduced to those powers explicitly authorized by the Constitution, there would be little need for such issues as "campaign reform" and most ethics issues would go the way of the dodo, because a government without power is a government unable to grant favors. A government without power and unable to leverage interest groups is one of little interest to those who would corrupt.

Posted by: myrddin | June 12, 2006 10:45 AM

"In the original post PZ was clearly talking about a fringe of the libertarian movement, not all of them. It's a pretty significant fraction, though."

Got any data to back up that assertion?

"The credibility of libertarians is damaged by their placing conditions on their willingness to acknowledge global warming, and their unwillingness to accept governmental regulation as part of the solution."

For one who doesn't like "cherry-picking the stupidest things" said by a particular group, you sure do make some sweeping generalizations. Which "conditions" do libertarians place on their willingness to acknowledge global warming? And how many libertarians actually fit this characterization? I consider myself a libertarian, and I don't deny global warming. Ed Brayton and Timothy Sandefeur, two libertarians who co-blog with Myers at The Panda's Thumb, don't either.

As for accepting governmental regulation as part of the solution, shouldn't this be contingent on governmental regulation actually being the best solution? Surely you don't want people to support governmental regulation solely on principle?

A libertarian approach to the environment, such as Free Market Environmentalism, is based on the principle that the ones best equipped to protect a piece of land are the ones who depend on it for their profit. Therefore, free market environmentalists will support such measures as giving Zimbabweans the right to sell photo and hunting safaris on their land, thereby giving them an incentive to prevent poaching. to name but one example.

Your criticism of "pollution credits" is odd, given that neither I nor anyone else in this thread suggested this measure. I specifically advocated a "polluter pays" policy, which is just an extension of private property rights. (If you vandalize your own property, you're an idiot. If you vandalize my property, you're going to have to clean it up. It doesn't matter whether the vandalizing is done with a spray can or a sewer pipe.)

Also, your comments about pollution credits being favored because they're "easy to sabotage behind the scenes by amendment" indicates a profound misunderstanding of what libertarianism is about. Libertarians are opposed to corporations abusing the power of the government, whether to squash competition, award themselves government welfare, or pollute someone else's property. In fact, libertarians are so opposed to this that they want to reduce the power of the government, thereby decreasing the attractiveness of lobbying and forcing corporations to compete on the free market.

Posted by: Krauze