Green libertarianism Is a more modern synthesis of green politics with libertarianism. As such I find the political philosophy very enchanting to say the least. I do not however know how such a political stance could radiate out giving Americas modern cultural environment.

"A green libertarian would be an individual who adheres to libertarian political philosophy as well as to green ideology. While these are not traditionally seen going hand-in-hand, the two are not necessarily incompatible. For example, free market economics and environmentalism are combined in the concept of free market environmentalism. And there has recently been an interest in" "how to bring green sensibilities into line with the free-market agenda of libertarians."[2]

So political activity and cultural behavior do seem to be occurring within the domain of this philosophy giving the reality the title and reports exist on the topic.

"Pollution creates health hazards. Individuals have to pay themselves to maintain their health. Therefore, pollution is stealing.
Destabilization of the biosphere is initiation of force. Allow that the minimal state is justified.
The minimal state must prevent and punish violations of the nonaggression principle.
Therefore, environmental regulation in a minimal state is justified."

*In the link such are enumerated with numeral bulleting.

I find this idea also somewhat compelling. The reality at hand I think is found with Gore winning along with the U.N panel of a Nobel peace prize.

Green ideology in its current form outside of spiritual issues is also somewhat new thus probably scary to most. Its desire to incorporate environmental understanding though I think escapes simply the term. That requires large scale understanding in some areas I think such would have to be realized as a natural facet to public education which of course is growing currently resulting from Global Climate change brought on by people. So with that in hand such a philosophy would most likely start to have more and more a grassroots emphasis in public growing.

Here is the link followed by debate questions.

The source


1: Could you see such a philosophy ever coming to dominate the third party platform?

2: If such a philosophy did come to own the third party platform could further progression of man made GW boost the political parties ability to obtain votes?

3: Do you agree with such an ideology, and to what extent to you agree or disagree with it?

4: In a stance on foreign relations or domestic what do you think such a philosophy would entail if in power?

5: Lastly who would you find being a likely candidate for president under such a political philosophy?

1: Could you see such a philosophy ever coming to dominate the third party platform?

The biggest obstacle I see to such an alliance would be a disagreement between the libertarian philosophy and the green philosophy as to how important protection of the environment might be in the future. To put it simply, will it be important enough to justify government action?

However, if libertarians can accept that environmental damage harms individuals, and will sometimes require government intervention, and if greens can accept that environmentally beneficial policies on the part of private enterpreise can be both helpful and profitable, they may come to some sort of agreement.

2: If such a philosophy did come to own the third party platform could further progression of man made GW boost the political parties ability to obtain votes?

Clearly, if any major environmental crisis becomes obvious to all, green philosophies will become more attractive to all parties. Thus, I think it would be more likely for voters to remain with Green Democrats or Green Republicans rather than Green Libertarians. I don't see any realistic way to keep the two major parties out of power.

3: Do you agree with such an ideology, and to what extent to you agree or disagree with it?

I find it attractive, since I am socially an extreme leftist, and economically a centrist. I might quibble with someone over which regulations of business are necessary, but at least we would agree that some form of regulated capitalism would be the best way to go.

4: In a stance on foreign relations or domestic what do you think such a philosophy would entail if in power?

As far as foreign relations go, I imagine that a Green Libertarian might be a dove or a hawk. The dove might focus on co-operation with other nations, through free market systems, to make the planet a better place to live. The hawk might focus on making sure the USA is safe from the environmental degradations caused by other nations, through means such as economic sanctions.

Domestically, I imagine that a Green Libertarian would tend to be in favor of feminism, gay rights, separation of church and state, drug law liberalization, reproductive rights, and so on. There might be some disagreement within the ranks about these issues.

5: Lastly who would you find being a likely candidate for president under such a political philosophy?

Beats me.

1: Could you see such a philosophy ever coming to dominate the third party platform?

I'm not sure any third parties in the near future stand a chance against our two party system, green-libertarians or otherwise.

2: If such a philosophy did come to own the third party platform could further progression of man made GW boost the political parties ability to obtain votes?

I hate to answer this until I get some clarification, I keep reading this over and over and it sounds like you're asking if the world keeps getting hotter, will it help green-libertarians get elected?

3: Do you agree with such an ideology, and to what extent to you agree or disagree with it?

This is a hard one for me to answer because I'm not a true libertarian as I do not believe in making heroin legal. I'm also not a true green, because while I sympathize with environmental concerns, I also lean more to the fiscal conservative side that tells me that treaties like Kyoto are wildly expensive for little to no return. I believe research into alternative fuels to make them more cost efficient is a better way to go.

I brought my car into a brake shop the other day for an alignment and to have the brakes checked out. Out of curiosity, I asked how different is it to do brake jobs on hybrid cars vs. a car like mine. Apparently they have to dissipate the entire car of electricity before they can even work on it, which takes about an hour and a half, after that it's pretty much the same. He said that's one of the things they never tell you when you buy a hybrid, not only are you paying 10K more per car for a hybrid, but you'll have to pay for all that extra labor when doing simple things such as a brake inspection. I certainly can't afford to buy a hybrid, nor would I be able to pay for the maintenance. It just seems like the more environmentally safe we get, the more expensive it becomes, and that defeats the whole purpose if no one can afford to be environmentally friendly. We have to find something that's cheaper than oil, period.

4: In a stance on foreign relations or domestic what do you think such a philosophy would entail if in power?


That's a difficult question, since I've never been able to get a real firm definition of Libertarian's views on foreign affairs. Some are radically isolationistic, while others are all for global domination of corporations and the like. You're hard pressed to find a spread to that extent within the Democratic or Republican parties.

5: Lastly who would you find being a likely candidate for president under such a political philosophy?

Possibly Ron Paul? I don't know. It seems much harder to see a green like Ralph Nader embrace a Libertarian philosophy than it does a Libertarian'ish guy like Ron Paul to embrace a green philosophy.

1: Could you see such a philosophy ever coming to dominate the third party platform?

I can imagine it. Don't think it's likely because Green hits the radical side of eco-terrorism and Libertarian hits the radical side of shrinking defense down to Swiss levels, legalizing everything (which is too scary here), permitting everything (goes against distrust of the private sector), and a whole lot of other things that keeps the party small. But I can imagine a green libertarian movement, and I'm seeing this happening.

As energy costs go up, business naturally tries to find ways to save money. On the green side economic incentives could be introduced, such as a tax on carbon emissions. This can be done at the state level rather than national or global, and it can become like a commodity market. It's being tried right now.

Boeing has developed a lighter airliner which saves fuel. It's a hot item, so the company is doing better. This is on the libertarian side of economics and environmentalism.

Here's a link to my favorite site because Lovins nearly single-handedly started this stuff rolling back in the 1970s. The guy's a visionary but also aware of why companies resist change unless that change makes sense. Cycling waste in one company to raw material for another company has taken hold. Using lighter materials for manufacturing in the transportation industry has taken hold. We're already back to the 1970s thing of gas mileage being of more importance than horsepower.

It's probably too late to roll back global warming. Oh well, get used to it, huh? We might end up with ocean-front property at 8,500 feet above sea level. I've already figured on two jugs of gas for the snowblower per season. We blew it in the 1960s and blew it again in the 1970s, then forgot about it all until recently.

Bottom line is that industry will listen if it makes sense to industry.

2: If such a philosophy did come to own the third party platform could further progression of man made GW boost the political parties ability to obtain votes?

I'm giving Gore credit for taking the concepts mainstream. His dog-n-pony show either gets people thinking or angry, and either way the ears open up. Of course nature bringing us the predicted natural disasters helps too.

What was learned over the past decades is that political solutions do not work. Look at what happened to the EPA, once a bi-partisan answer to burning rivers. Resentment of government oversight brought in Reagan, then the two Bushes, and there you go. The bi-partisan notion became a quaint little memory. The oil barons took over.

Guess that had to happen. A third party might pick up the ball and run with it again, but more is happening away from the media and our election process. If an overall solution is found, it won't be through politics. My take is what corporation will be the first to discover the riches to be made in alternative energy development?

3: Do you agree with such an ideology, and to what extent to you agree or disagree with it?

Seems I've already answered this. It's not an ideology but practical nuts&bolts, dollars&sense thinking. I'm sorry that the human race is so slow to get things, but nobody can change that group-think situation.

4: In a stance on foreign relations or domestic what do you think such a philosophy would entail if in power?

I hate to think about it. It would probably lead to a coup or revolution, or is that the same thing? Probably.

5: Lastly who would you find being a likely candidate for president under such a political philosophy?

Che' Guevara? Nope, he's dead. Putin? Somebody with strong arms and iron fists.

But that's not going to happen. You know, even China is interested in saving money on energy. We just need to figure out how. Then this tired old Earth can cool down, the rich can get richer and the poor might find employment.

Heh, LED Christmas lights have hit the shelves. First time I ever saw an LED was in the 1960s on the early calculators. Took that long to dump the incandescent electricity eaters for the better idea. But there they are, using something like a tenth of the wattage. Multiply that by a few hundred million households from Thanksgiving to New Years.