Neutral mention · rule
I think it's antithetical to individual liberty to destroy our shared life support system. It's about as antithetical to liberty as you can get. What we're currently doing is externalization of costs on a gargantuan scale. We're dumping humongous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and are ignoring the problems that causes for the whole ecosystem. I fail to see how you can try to defend our current climate regime from a libertarian perspective. A libertarian should be outraged by this appropriation of the common good, an infraction on the freedom of us all. And the damage done to our biological life support system is devastating! We've wiped out 60% percents of…
Read the full comment
mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since the 1970 (https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwfassets/downloads/lpr2018_summary...). We've killed about 30% of the insect population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations Phytoplankton has been reduced by 50% since the 1950s https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09268 . You know, that's the stuff that produces our oxygen (https://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-...). An increase in temperature of about 5°C and more will probably kill off most phytoplankton. Damages like these are infractions on our freedom to live healthily, they even encroach on our most basic right; the right to reproduce, endowed to us by our nature as biological organisms. I don't think inaction on the climate crisis is supported by a libertarian worldview.