An Open Manifesto

I wonder if there isn’t something very libertarian about the ecological impulse. Sure, much of what is driving the environmentalist movement is anything but libertarian. One of the founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has attested to the anti-capitalist agenda of much of the environmental movement. But there are also plenty of people supporting green organizations who are simply driven to “care” about the environment. Do they want to give up their driving or the miracle of industrial plastics? Of course not. But all things being equal, they want as little harm done to the environment as possible.

This is a legitimate concern. Indeed, the biggest mistake the right has made, rhetorically speaking, has been to dismiss it.

The libertarian connection may be the underlying impulse. A major assumption beneath this care for the environment is that “nature” has a “natural” way about it and that our activity interferes with it. That is, if mankind were not here, the earth would be a different place. It’s not that it would be a better place, necessarily, just a natural one.

It is interesting that these same people don’t seem to believe the same about human society. They don’t believe humans have a “natural” way of being. Human society to many environmentalists is, it seems, completely malleable, shapeless awaiting some divinity to bestow itself.

But the libertarian (not all of course) sees peaceful human interaction as “natural.” Government, beyond it’s limited functions, does for society what mankind does to nature. It abuses it. Government’s nature is to serve itself with little concern for the fulfillment of mankind’s “naturalness.”

Government sees human society as something to control and the ends at which that control is aimed are not those of society as a whole. The ends of control are necessarily those of the government itself. Indeed that government may take many forms, democracy being the most fair and equitable. But even in democracies, the use of power is still an adulteration of human naturalness; it’s merely the will of a majority. And majorities can be wrong.

To be clear, I’m not saying that human nature is a static and predictable thing. I’m not asserting man is naturally greedy or even that man is naturally good. Only that what man is, is only for men to discover, not governments. (I’m using “man” in the all inclusive sense here). To interfere too much is to act with the arrogance that one man, or group of men, or elected men, can say conclusively of what man is or is not capable.

This is not to say there should be no government at all. Just as mankind has no choice but to eat the fruits of the earth in order to survive, so he must have some governing systems to maintain the freedom that enables civil interaction. But if our approach to the physical environment should be a cautious one that aims at minimizing our impact on the natural environment, our approach to governance should be similarly minimal seeking to have as little impact on the governed as possible.

So is there a libertarian impulse buried somewhere in environmentalism? God, let’s hope so.