Do warnings about "Green fascism" help to understand or solve the property rights issues that underlie development problems?

[This is a cross-post from my blog: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/04/25/food-shortages-ron-bailey-takes-up-the-cry-are-malthus-and-quot-green-fascism-quot-on-the-march.aspx.]

 

"You have been warned: green fascism could soon be on the march." 

So does libertarian Ron Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine, take up the alarm raised by Fred Pearce of New Scientist, who believes that enviros will point to the ongoing wave of food shortages to argue that more starvation in the developing world is on the way unless a renew focus is placed on family planning.  Says Pearce:

"And now food shortages are growing and we will get more. [Paul] Ehrlich, we are bound to be told, was right after all. You have been warned: green fascism could soon be on the march."

Well, although neither Bailey nor Pearce introduces anything in the way of current evidence for fascism among greens (but rather seem to be jumping in order to claim an "I told you so" later), both might very well be right that enviros will claim that food shortages are the result of overpopulation -  but so what?  Does concern about food shortages, or burgeoning populations in other countries and the stresses they place on natural environments and societies, make "fascists" out of "greens"?

But more importantly, why are guys like Ron in such a hurry to brandish an emotional rhetoric that diverts our attention from understanding real issues, rather than shining a spotlight on them?  Granted, the emotional tug of bashing ideological enemies is strong, and Bailey (not without reason) has long been in the enviro-bashing camp (even as he has come around to accepting that climate change is a problem), but this is disappointing.  I mean, even Sean Corrigan was able to see past his detestation of enviros to keep his primary focus on government interference in agricultural markets as the primary factor in his recent post on food supply shortfalls.

I note that I have already addressed elsewhere, both in Corrigan's thread and in another post - Too Many or Too Few People? Does the market provide an answer? - various aspects of the interactions between markets and human population; I post here for readers' information the comments I made to Ron on the thread to his post:

TokyoTom | April 25, 2008, 6:12am

Ron, I'm surprised that you would go to the effort of spreading rather thin hype about "Green fascism" without bothering to explore from a libertarian perspective whether the Green fascists have grounds for concern, what the institutional underpinnings of environmental and "overpopulation" problems might be, or what our own connections to those problems are.

It's rather simple, really: we see both cleaner environments and the demographic shift in relatively wealthy nations that protect property rights, as families and other economic actors are largely forced to bear their own costs, which provide incentives to keep both pollution and families under control.

Where populations are still growing rapidly - and environmental degradation continues apace - are societies that do not protect property rights, so that economic actors do not internalize all costs, and families to a significant degree face a free-for-all over resources that are not effectively owned or protected.

"Development" thus presents many aspects of a "tragedy of the commons", a tragedy that we feed with our own consumer, commercial and industrial demand, which is sourced from assets that are not clearly owned, but are simply up for grabs - whether we are talking about the strip-mining of the oceans, the replacement of the Amazon and SE Asian tropical forests with soybeans and palm oil/biofuel plantations, or industrial and commercial enterprises that don't bear the costs of their pollution (or of the power plants supplying their electricity).

The "Green fascists" see the destruction at the end of the chains of demand that we in the West pull and the destruction resulting from population growth that is unchecked by the pricing signals from effective ownership, and they are rightly concerned. That they fail to understand the institutional underpinnings is of course to be regretted, by it is a failure that can be remedied by a little education.

That you chose not to use your knowledge of the dynamics of "tragedy of the commons" to educate but instead to decry "Green fascists" is a similar failure, and one that I hope you will regret and try to remedy.

As it is, it seems as if you enjoy the emotional rewards of partisan struggle more than really exercising your noggin or making a contribution to directing attention to where solutions to where real problems might lie - in improved property rghts protection and governance in the developing world.

Care to contribute, or just to raise an alarum about the evil greenies?

Regards,

Tom

Just where are the libertarians who actually like to exercise their reason?

Any reactions from those here on the Forum?

 I think the problem is simply in the terms used. "Fascism" invokes visions of Mussolini addressing the people while wearing a black shirt and a fez or soldiers goose-stepping through some Medieval town in Eastern Europe. Not good. The terms "Racism" or "Elitarism" would be much better in my opinion, especially given the tendencies of some people to deny other "coloured" fellows their right to pursue happiness in name of "our future", "Mother Gaia", "Starship Earh" and so on.

I hate to say this but we need to learn from the Gorites to market our ideals better...

It's not like many environmentalists aren't guilty of making ridiculous accusations labelling skeptics Deniers (as in the Holocaust) and Flat Earthers. Is that accurate? No. Is that helpful? No. It's pure political spin. Let's not be one-sided in our criticism on this score. And of course, the fact that they think they have grounds for concern does not excuse their advocating statist policies as a solution.

Tom:

Just where are the libertarians who actually like to exercise their reason?

Any reactions from those here on the Forum?

That sounds rather provocative and likely to trigger some 'hostile' response...

I wonder how's the ethanol scam doing ? Well, the eco-fascists should be proud - they are acomplishing various things : first and foremost they are filling their pockets. Then they are fighting GW - glorious. And last but not least they are helping starve the poor, wich will surely reduce global population and so preserve the enviroment for the enjoyment of the 'progressive' 'citizens' of the 'first world'.

Kakugo, thanks for your comment.  My question really wasn`t so much about WHAT we call the greenies - though that of course deserves some consideration.  Rather, my question was whether we could hope to make any progress on what Austrians would recognize as problems relating to an absence of clear and enforceable property rights and abuse of the state simply with a relentless focus on how stupid and evil some of the people we agree with are.

As for the labelling issue, how about "green statists"?  That gives some idea not only of their agenda but of the methods that we find objectionable.

TokyoTom:

As for the labelling issue, how about "green statists"?  That gives some idea not only of their agenda but of the methods that we find objectionable.

 

Good idea. 

Geoffrey, your calls for balance are of course fair.  But you could start with yourself, by conceding first that no, warnings about "green fascism" are not helpful, either in understanding the real and fundamental problems that underlie the development/population/resources issues that green statists point to or in bullding any kind of shared understanding with the greenies.

If there were more evil enviro fascists on the blog (besides me, that is), I suppose I would spend more time disagreeing with them; as it is, my posts are directed to those who are here. I do post elsewhere from a libertarian viewpoint; if you have suggestions I would be happy to receive them.

And of course, the fact that they think they have grounds for concern does not excuse their advocating statist policies as a solution.

This, of course, is an excellent point and a way forward, as it is a start towards productively engaging the green statists.  Further progress could be made by trying to be sympathetic to their concerns, examining what the real problems and their origins are, explaining how various statist approaches they suggest are likely to be counterproductive, and suggesting approaches that would be more productive.

My point is that Ron Bailey does NONE of these things, but rather by trumpeting that "the green statists are coming" he turns away from a rational analysis of issues and frutiful discussion to partisan battle against ideological foes - as if stopping green statists in the US is the most effective way to address the ways that Western markets, coupled with ineffective property rights and corruption in the developing world, are driving the destructive exploitation of  resources.

 

TokyoTom:

My point is that Ron Bailey does NONE of these things, but rather by trumpeting that "the green statists are coming" he turns away from a rational analysis of issues and frutiful discussion to partisan battle against ideological foes - as if stopping green statists in the US is the most effective way to address the ways that Western markets, coupled with ineffective property rights and corruption in the developing world, are driving the destructive exploitation of  resources.

Ughhh. If ron bailey does not believe that gloabl warming is a problem why would he come up with a solution for it? And what do you mean by "western markets" driving the destuctive exploitation of resources. That sounds like a thinly veiled attack on capitalism from a.... well a.. fascist point of view! Yep I think the moniker eco fascist is just find and it suits you to a tee my friend.

 

 

 

Hi, Juan!  I`m trying to move the board on enviro issues from "Hostile `R Us" to "Thoughtful `R Us".  Will join me?

First item - do you think that Ron Bailey`s piece is constructive, or do you share my view that it doesn`t even begin to scratch the surface of the issues from an Austrian perspective?  It seems that you seem to feel that Bailey is spot on, and the best we to resolve various problems with development in the Third World is to eliminate eco-fascists at home.  Perhaps you can clarify if I`ve got you wrong.

As for the ethanol scam, I agree wholeheartedly that it is a scam.  But unless you are saying that corn farmers, big agrobusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, and ethanol plant investors are "eco-fascists", then I have a hard time following your conclusion that eco-fascists are filling their pockets.  But if that IS what you mean, then it hardly seems that using the term "eco-fascists" is helpful in understanding the purposes of these rent-seekers and how successfully they manipulated the green statists who haven`t earned one thin dime from the ethanl scam.

As for "helping starve the poor, wich will surely reduce global population and so preserve the enviroment for the enjoyment of the 'progressive' 'citizens' of the 'first world'", WHO is doing this and by what mechanism?  The agro-business enviro-fascists?  Or some other enviro-fascists, who twist the arms of elites in developing nations to repress their own agricultural markets and put restrictions on rice exports? 

As for the ethanol scam, I agree wholeheartedly that it is a scam. But unless you are saying that corn farmers, big agrobusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, and ethanol plant investors are "eco-fascists",

That's exactly what I'm saying - that's what they are.

then I have a hard time following your conclusion that eco-fascists are filling their pockets. But if that IS what you mean, then it hardly seems that using the term "eco-fascists" is helpful in understanding the purposes of these rent-seekers

I thought one of the defining characteristics of fascism is the 'partnership' between big bussiness and the state...wich is exactly what's going on here.

and how successfully they manipulated the green statists who haven`t earned one thin dime from the ethanl scam.

The green statists are getting their part of the deal all right - to say that they are being 'manipulated' sounds at best naive...

Here's another article, not as 'hostile' as Bailey's but quite interesting nevertheless.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder-joshua/snyder-joshua14.html

Juan, Joshua Snyder`s piece is great and provides very useful historical background on what Nixon did to contribute the the demise of the family farm and the growth of the nonsensical and counterproductive system that we have today in the US.  (BTW, I note that I have cited the same Michael Polan here.)

However. it seems pretty clear that unless you really, really like the term "eco-fascist" and like to use it for whatever group that happens to be manipulating and benefitting from the largess of government, using it to describe both agro-business and enviros kind of gets in the way of making useful distinctions and identifying motives, etc.

 

 

 The problem Tom is many-folded. To begin with, the whole enviromental problem has become so emotionally charged that many times it's impossible to even start a serious debate. Take solar power, for example. I have absolutely nothing against it but I have a LOT against subsidizing it. I have absolutely nothing against hybrid cars but I have a LOT against subsidizing them. But trying to have people understand that subsidizing anything is basically equal to robbery and immoral, not matter of noble the proclaimed goals are, is like trying to have me beating Michael Jordan at basketball. It's absolutely hopeless. Of course the matter would be completely different if the subsidies were to handed out by a private trust, foundation or whatever, using their own money.

The late Steve Irwin ("Crocodile Hunter") instead of pushing the old mantra "the Government must do something" set up a foundation to buy (using donations) as much land as possible for conservation efforts. He was also a believer in the power of education over cohercion. Confront with the usual methods employed by "green Statists".

The problem ... is many-folded.

Sounds like origami!

the whole enviromental problem has become so emotionally charged that many times it's impossible to even start a serious debate.

Well, that certainly seems true, at least at this site. 

But I think that this is over-stated.  Enviros include Austrian-trained free-market guys to Chicago-schooled economists, and many understand that soft-leverage via publication and consumer activity is a great non-coercive way to influence corporate behavior.  The Nature Conservancy is a group that focusses on buying land and easements, and hunters groups like Duck Unlimited act the same way.  Further, Austrians would acknowledge that reason why environmental issues arise in the first place is because property rights are not working (either they are not clear or are not enforceble) or because of statist interference; so Austrians ought to be sympathetic that enviros might not understand the property rights issues and ought to understand the focus of enviros on battling with corporations over the (mis)use of the state.

I also think that even enviros are starting to appreciate that trying to use the state can go very, very wrong - as in the case of biofuels mandates, for example-  and to understand that the state is just being manipulated by the highest bidder (as has become rather obvious during the Bush administration).  I think people are becoming receptive to arguments against subsidies - in fact, I think that Austrians are being foolish at not aggressively looking to partner with enviro groups on what could be a shared agenda of speeding technological change in the US by further eliminating subsidies and encourgaing competition.

Interesting name, by the way; do you have a conneciton to Japan?

Tom,

Do you think that the way big (or small) bussiness (agricultural or other) collude with government is not fascism ?

Juan, I appreciate the question, but we are drifting away from the purpose of this thread.

All states feature manipulation of rules for the benefit of insiders - does that make all states and all insiders fascist, or simply abusive and corrupt (as well as incompetent and arrogant)?

In my understanding, under fascism the state controls business.  While the US seems to be sliding in some ways towards fascism, I don't think that we are there yet, or that the history of US intereference in agriculture that Snyder pointed out in the article you cited shows that either US government or the agricultural interests that benefit from it are fascist.