Cafe Hayek: The Market, Not Nature, Is Bountiful

« The Strange World of Harold Meyerson | Main | Green Is As Green Does» Don Boudreaux

April 11, 2008

The Market, Not Nature, Is Bountiful

Don Boudreaux

Robert Kennedy, Jr., recently wrote this letter to the editor of the New York Times expressing his opposition to building hydroelectric dams in Chile. I sent my own letter in response to Mr. Kennedy's missive:

Robert Kennedy, Jr., might be correct that electricity is best provided in Chile by means other than hydroelectric dams (Letters, April 8). His presumption, however, about the source of prosperity casts doubt on the quality of his argument.

Mr. Kennedy opposes dams because he wants to protect "nature's bounty." But nature is not bountiful. If it were, human history would be one of prosperity and long, healthy lives rather than one of oppressive poverty and short, miserable lives. Nature is miserly. The bounty that Mr. Kennedy presumes comes from nature is, in fact, the relatively recent product of human creativity and industry unleashed by free markets - and now threatened by the mindless worship of nature.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Complexity and Emergence, Environment, Myths and Fallacies, The Economy | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e551dfdc988834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Market, Not Nature, Is Bountiful:

Comments

Bobby K. Jr. is a nutjob who swears a lot when confronted by facts contrary to his very limited perception, so we can’t be sure if he was using the term “dam” or “damn.”

As we have seen before (Jayson Blair), the Times is not exactly a credible paper…

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Apr 11, 2008 8:36:10 PM

Indeed, sometimes it seems like my religion, nominally Christian, has been overtaken by the eco-freaks.

Posted by: Russ Nelson | Apr 11, 2008 8:57:58 PM

True words. If I may proffer a generic:

Nature is not "bountiful." Human history is not one of prosperity and long, healthy lives rather one of oppressive poverty and short, miserable lives. Nature does not know mercy nor recognize gratitude. The "bounty" from nature is merely the product of human creativity and industry unleashed by free markets. The mindless worship of nature threatens all.

Bravo.

Posted by: Rob Dawg | Apr 11, 2008 9:03:15 PM

What, haven't you ever filled your children's stomachs and kept the house warm with beautiful scenery?

Posted by: Justin Ross | Apr 11, 2008 10:04:01 PM

It also takes a lot of energy to prosper. Prosperity is created by use of energy, if not for an abundant source of energy, human beings will be toiling hard for their daily bread. Free markets and creativity creates an environment where energy is put to use in the most efficient manner.

Posted by: Kook | Apr 11, 2008 10:25:22 PM

What, haven't you ever filled your children's stomachs and kept the house warm with beautiful scenery?

Yeah...we ate all the berries off the trees and then burned them in the fireplace for warmth. It was cozy.

Posted by: Methinks | Apr 11, 2008 11:12:44 PM

There is a science fiction story by Cyril M. Kornbluth.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Apr 12, 2008 12:50:24 AM

I understand Don's point here, but this is not mindless nature worshiping. Building or not building a big dam often has nothing to do with free markets whatsoever. All the ones I know about are all government run (planned, constructed, operated) and so are not subject to the free market, and in fact are usually examples of rent seeking and favoritism in its worst form. Many provide benefits to a concentrated few at the expense of many others. Often, locals near the waterways suffer to provide electricity to aluminum smelting plants and water to distant irrigation projects. It is hard to study these dams without concluding that some costs are always ignored while benefits are almost always overestimated (read a history of Tellico Dam in TN, or about the current problems with 3 Gorges in China).
Furthermore, rights to water and to the environment are not well defined (to put it mildly) and therefore, you must be blind to expect a subsidized government project to correctly take into account all the costs and benefits.

The NRDC may have its faults, and may protect the bad with the good, but to blindly assert this is a good project ignores history and ignores the many hidden costs of these large water projects.

Posted by: Damian | Apr 12, 2008 12:51:27 AM

It's interesting how the most demented political philosophies begin with some version of a lost Eden. If we can simply shed everything that we got from the Tree of Knowledge (as muirgeo seems to have already done), then we would magically be provided for by God or Gaia or some other benevolent parent figure. Like Al Gore.

Posted by: M. Hodak | Apr 12, 2008 12:53:39 AM

Don's post was not about dams, he was commenting on the quality of Kennedy's argument based on his presumption about the source of prosperity.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Apr 12, 2008 1:08:10 AM

I don't suppose that Robert Kennedy, Junior's BioGem of a home has drainage Corrugatation lines under its lawn or a guttering system to redirect rainwater. #^$@ing phony-ass naturalist. If Mary Jo still had a say so, no Kennedy would be allowed to discuss any issue related to water.

Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Apr 12, 2008 1:43:18 AM

So is D.B. & co saying that humans should occupy every possible corner of the globe? Destroy every single thing that could be called 'nature'? Perhaps there should be something said against people who'd try to form private property ownership over the 'wilderness' by saying this is unnatural and only the private owners would be those who destroy the wilderness in favour of constructing of more industries?

Posted by: Gil | Apr 12, 2008 2:02:54 AM

Matey,

Are you saying Don wishes to occupy extra fishing spots on Chesapeake Bay?

Dumb argument there….

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Apr 12, 2008 2:12:39 AM

"The bounty that Mr. Kennedy presumes comes from nature is, in fact, the relatively recent product of human creativity and industry unleashed by free markets - and now threatened by the mindless worship of nature."

This is a tautologically flawed statement. Man and his creativity are but one small product of nature. So for some of us awe and respect for nature are the closest thing we can find to respecting our creator. That we are ultimately cousins with all life forms on the planet is an amazing thing. That we are a product of the universe that has evolved consciousness and become self aware is an amazing thing. That we can look back at our origin, nature, in reverence is something to be grateful for and is in no way mindless. That we have evolved mentally, culturally and socially to consider trade-offs between nature and short term gain is something to be cheered. That we can actually plan and choose between different paths to prosperity recognizing the up and down sides of each is something to be happy about not to throw on a heap pile with truly mindless and destructive ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ynhCldtd6A

Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 12, 2008 2:14:25 AM

Shut up idiot.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Apr 12, 2008 2:22:30 AM

Good luck:

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/service/fishinfo.asp

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Apr 12, 2008 2:23:04 AM

“So for some of us awe and respect for nature are the closest thing we can find to respecting our creator.”
Posted by: muirgeo>

Awe, ain’t that cute? Oh, wait, didn’t you accuse me of being “creationist,” you fool?

OK, fine. How about their/they’re, affect/effect, and other misusage of the language you so readily abused today? To/ too? Know that one?

Oh yeah, I’m a fucking doctor (bullshit).

Dude, you couldn’t spell acute myocardial infarction if you were on Jeopardy, you fucking fraud.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Apr 12, 2008 2:52:46 AM

Go the fuck away.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Apr 12, 2008 2:54:15 AM

Sorry in advance, Don & Russ…

Had to be said.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Apr 12, 2008 2:59:19 AM

"The Marching Muirdiots"! I think we've all written a chapter or two of that book. How do we split the profits when it's published? :p

Posted by: brotio | Apr 12, 2008 3:11:27 AM

Isn’t a “tautologically-flawed” statement a non-sequitur?

Apparently, they don't teach that in med skool...

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Apr 12, 2008 3:31:17 AM

What, haven't you ever filled your children's stomachs and kept the house warm with beautiful scenery?
Posted by: Justin Ross

Abso-definitely: I went to the starving artists' show in Apache Junction last weekend…..

Not really.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Apr 12, 2008 4:26:22 AM

Sam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

I am intrigued by your theory, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[hilarious!]

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Apr 12, 2008 4:28:23 AM

Professors Roberts and Boudreaux,

Thanks for allowing me to participate. You've been patient, interesting and fair. Not a single Republican blog would have allowed me to participate to such a degree before cutting me off. The Republican position is a horrific hybrid of inconstancies and self contradiction while the classic liberal position is consistent and ideologically pure. I'm obviously not convinced of all your positions but you give honor and dignity to those positions. I've learned a lot and will continue to challenge my own positions by reading more of the classic liberal literature. I hope I've done more good then harm in participating. I love spirited debate but I think I've hit a wall here and with respect to your blog I should be off.

Thanks again and best wishes, George Balella MD (muirgeo)

Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 12, 2008 4:30:12 AM

"This is a tautologically flawed statement. Man and his creativity are but one small product of nature. So for some of us awe and respect for nature are the closest thing we can find to respecting our creator. That we are ultimately cousins with all life forms on the planet is an amazing thing. That we are a product of the universe that has evolved consciousness and become self aware is an amazing thing. That we can look back at our origin, nature, in reverence is something to be grateful for and is in no way mindless."
-- Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 12, 2008 2:14:25 AM

The statement you quote is not tautologically flawed. In fact, the very Theory of Evolution you elude to is based, in part, on Darwin's observation of just how miserly nature is. He has a whole chapter dedicated to it in On the Origins of Species titled Struggle for Existence where he applies Malthus' argument that many more are born than can possibly survive.

It is, in fact, our innovation that enables us to create prosperity. Innovation, being a product of the human mind, is more bountiful when more minds are in a position to innovate. Nothing unleashes the minds of men to innovate like the market.

Without those minds, there is no innovation and without innovation we're animals doomed to be impoverished and miserable struggling to exist.

I hate to see you go muirgeo, I enjoy debating ideas with you. I can't say that I blame you though. You've not been very respectfully treated, from what I've seen.

Posted by: Marcus | Apr 12, 2008 9:21:02 AM

Without those minds, there is no innovation and without innovation we're animals doomed to be impoverished and miserable struggling to exist.

I hate to see you go muirgeo, I enjoy debating ideas with you. I can't say that I blame you though. You've not been very respectfully treated, from what I've seen.

Posted by: Marcus | Apr 12, 2008 9:21:03 AM

“I understand Don's point here, but this is not mindless nature worshiping.”

Just what dams are favored by environmentalists?

“Often, locals near the waterways suffer to provide electricity to aluminum smelting plants and water to distant irrigation projects.”

Therefore no or this damn should not be built? Isn’t the purpose of many damns is to provide power for industry? Is your criteria that water for irrigation bad? Got a problem with providing food for the population?

“It is hard to study these dams without concluding that some costs are always ignored while benefits are almost always overestimated (read a history of Tellico Dam in TN, or about the current problems with 3 Gorges in China).

Now days we can count on an endless enumeration of possible consequences of any dam from environmental organizations. That aside, because of two dams, one in the US and another in China, a dam in Chile should not be built?

“..blindly assert this is a good project ignores history and ignores the many hidden costs of these large water projects.”

Reread Don’s letter, please. I believe he asserted nothing of the sort. You seem to be the one “asserting” all kinds of things. Hint, look at the title.

As far as “you must be blind to expect a subsidized government project to correctly take into account all the costs and benefits,” is concerned sometimes you just have to buid a dam with the government you got because nature isn’t very bountiful.

Posted by: macquechoux | Apr 12, 2008 10:04:14 AM

IT is our technology and market based economy that has allowed us to revert farmland back to nature.

Imagine what would be left of nature without our productive efficiency.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Apr 12, 2008 10:33:59 AM

Mesa, muirgeo provoked a lot of thinking on my part in attempting to communicate across his ideological boundary. Not that he benefitted much from my efforts, but others may. He made an excellent devil's advocate.

It didn't have to be said.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Apr 12, 2008 10:42:08 AM

while the classic liberal position is consistent and ideologically pure. I'm obviously not convinced of all your positions but you give honor and dignity to those positions. I've learned a lot and will continue to challenge my own positions by reading more of the classic liberal literature. I hope I've done more good then harm in participating. I love spirited debate but I think I've hit a wall here and with respect to your blog I should be off.

Ah yes, the blogging opus. Some advice for the next time you troll (probably even here under a different name and e-mail).

If non-trolls that you typically do not agree with make an excellent point, then offer a concession on that point.
Goes along with the first; don't be thickheaded.

Answer direct questions and have integrity (e.g. do not lie about things that you supposedly read from Milton Friedman).

Ask yourself, before you post, "Am I resorting to my favorite standbys of class envy, people with economic leverage are greedy, and all things environmental?" And is this an appropriate time to insert my favorite yet tired old standby in this discussion?

Hyperbole has lost its cachet. Use of qualifiers in strong statements are USUALLY much more well-received.

Bye.

Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Apr 12, 2008 10:51:08 AM

I've only been participating in the comment section for a short period, but I'm going to miss muirgeo.

He was always respectful towards me and I find it enjoyable to have a respectful debate with people of different perspectives.

I learned a lot from the response to to some of his comments.

Posted by: Deryl G | Apr 12, 2008 11:02:38 AM

Aww, “Doctor” is taking his toys and leaving. Boo hoo.

Do not for 1 second think that this bastard is gone; he’ll return in some form in the near future, if not sooner.

Finally, we can get back to asking insightful questions of each other, rather than having to recite the basic tenets of comparative advantage every 5 minutes, or explaining how “we’re still the leader in producing things, and stuff.”

What a despicable intellectual troglodyte, hypocrite, and person.

Good riddance, George, if only for a short while. Fraud.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Apr 12, 2008 11:28:25 AM

Sorry, Sam. Had to be said. I stand by that.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Apr 12, 2008 11:32:43 AM

Deryl,
I don't know that I would call what muirgeo did "honest debate." I love honest debate and discussion when I can find it. Muirgeo neither offered debate or honesty. Is default position was that if something bad happened in the economy it was because of fraud. That's myopic and stupid.

Of course, I've been commenting on this blog for a little over a week. I could be wrong.

Posted by: mnm | Apr 12, 2008 11:46:04 AM

I won't miss Muirgeo. His sign-off was a little disingenuous, in that it suggested he had been part of a dialogue, and that he was genuinely interested in the conversation. But he showed all the classic features of trolling. He never acknowledged others' points. He never responded to what others said by developing his own arguments. He threw the same bombs into the discussion every time. And the ultimate litmus test - he made the discussion more boring. There are plenty of lefties and socialists out there that I can have an interesting dialogue with. My entire family, for instance. But we listen to each other, and the argument develops. Muirgeo just provoked frustrated utterances from the others on this list, and they were the same utterances every time, because he never acknowledged or responded to people's previous comments to him. That's not discussion, that's just taunting and trolling. I felt for a long time that people should stop feeding the troll.

With all that said, not feeding him would have been sufficient, I didn't enjoy Mesa's posts.

Posted by: Paris | Apr 12, 2008 11:54:05 AM

I agree that muirgeo had faults. However, he was always respectful towards me. That's really all I expect from a comment section of a blog. Maybe my standards are too low.

Also, I have a difficult time finding people who want have an intelligent discussion about politics or economics, so maybe I'm also a little starved for it.

Posted by: Deryl G | Apr 12, 2008 12:07:05 PM

"You've not been very respectfully treated, from what I've seen." - Marcus

Marcus, I urge you to go back through the archives of this blog - you can probably start around May or June of 2007 and see the progression of frustration among those who comment on Murthaduck's posts. Of the people who've consistently engaged the little Duck in all that time, only Sam has had the intestinal fortitude to remain polite and/or civil. If you take time to browse the archives, you will notice endless ducking-of-questions, answering questions with a question, and hypocrisy. You'll also notice that Murthaduck slings plenty of disrespect himself, and you only have to have paid attention for a week to see his thinly-veiled disgust of Methinks because of what she does for a living, and especially that it appears that she does it well.

I tried to stay polite, but after being called childish because I insisted that he answer a challenge to one of his assertions before I'd let the dialog move on (I won't call it debate because he's incapable of that), then all bets were off.

Just like His Holiness The Divine Prophet Algore I, Murthaduck likes to pontificate on things he knows absolutely nothing about, and brooks no disagreement with his Holy Scriptures.

The only thing I'll miss about Murthaduck (if he really signs off) is some hilarious replies to his muirdiocy from Vidyohs, LCJ, Methinks, Mesa, and others. But the cool thing about the Left is that Murthaducks are common critters, so one will be by to take its place soon.

Posted by: brotio | Apr 12, 2008 3:36:18 PM

"Also, I have a difficult time finding people who want have an intelligent discussion about politics or economics, so maybe I'm also a little starved for it." - Deryl G

Deryl,

I suspect that you and I agree on much more than we disagree, so there probably will be little debate between us. I'll be presumptuous and speak for the others in noting that there is very little intelligent discussion out of Murthaduck. His pathological aversion to conceding that someone to the right of him (and most people are to the right of him) might be correct about something and the refusal to answer direct questions are really what started the landslide of derisive comments directed at him.

I like spirited, intelligent debate, but I submit that with VERY few exceptions, people on the left do not like debate. Murthaduck claims that this is one of the few libertarian/conservative blogs that wouldn't shut him down. I seriously doubt that. Most blogs that I frequent have their own version of Murthaduck, because it seems that (with the exception of Martin Brock, who is not stupid; and Gil, who also is not stupid AND has a sense of humor) that's all the Left has to offer.

Please note the difference in the way most of us discuss and debate with Gil. I get frustrated at times that he constantly labels me an anarchist because I believe that government should be very limited in its power and scope, and even though I realize that Gil is a contrarian, he still gets to me sometimes. However, Gil generally answers questions directed at him, which is the only way to carry on a meaningful discussion.

Posted by: brotio | Apr 12, 2008 4:07:01 PM

“Nature is miserly.” Outstanding sentence! She has wealth beyond measure, but she must be teased and cajoled by the creative human spirit to spend any of it.

The fact (if it holds) that muirgeo has withdrawn voluntarily is almost a categoric refutation of his professed philosophy. He learned at no cost thanks to the communal generosity of this anti-socialist blog and its non-Democrat commenters. It is as if an invisible hand offered him a course of study, and once that study was complete, pointed him to the exit.

Yes, Mesa, it needed to be said. His posts had stopped revealing new information. They were noise. And generated only more noise in response. His participation was a barrier to my learning. If I could have blocked him, I would have.

Posted by: foxmarks | Apr 12, 2008 5:03:30 PM

“threatened by the mindless worship of nature” Nonsense! It might very well become a threat in a future but until now it has mostly been empty talk and I have not seen anything of a mindless worship of nature that is even close to be as threatening as the mindless disregard for nature that I have seen… that is unless there is a serious problem with your national parks that I am not aware of.

And by the way if, I was a professor at a university and expected to defend the liberty of thought and which is in fact the only reason why we have universities and tenured professors then I would definitely not like to be seen as siding or being defended by some of the characters that are posting on this blog.

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Apr 12, 2008 5:11:48 PM

"I have not seen anything of a mindless worship of nature that is even close to be as threatening as the mindless disregard for nature that I have seen..." - PK

The mindless worship of nature has led to the opposition of all energies that are economical and abundant: oil, coal, nuclear, hydro, natural gas.

The mindless worship of nature has the US government subsidizing ADM (a Fortune 500 company) to produce corn-based ethanol, a fuel that takes more energy to produce than it releases. Corn is much more useful as a food, but because the mindless nature-worshipers have such a hold on the government in general, and especially the Democrat Party we have milk, beef, pork, corn meal and corn syrup prices skyrocketing because the federal subsidy makes corn more VALUABLE as fuel source.

Because corn has now been made artificially more valuable, less wheat is being planted because there is a federally guaranteed market for corn, so now the price of bread and other wheat-based products is also going up.

The only mindless disregard for nature that I see are in socialist paradises like China, Cuba and North Korea, or other impoverished paradises of a socialist/authoritarian bent. I'm a skeptic of AGW, and an opponent of every scheme to combat AGW that I've read about because every one of those schemes begins with the (unwritten) preamble: "Surrender your liberty to government. It's the only way for the planet to survive!"

"And by the way if, I was a professor at a university and expected to defend the liberty of thought and which is in fact the only reason why we have universities and tenured professors then I would definitely not like to be seen as siding or being defended by some of the characters that are posting on this blog."

Have any of the regular posters to this blog ever tried to silence your ability to post to this blog? A few people asked if there was a technology available that would allow readers of the blog to block certain peoples' posts from appearing on their computers, but even as pissed as everyone gets at Murthaduck, no one ever asked for his removal. Are you insinuating that Murthaduck should be allowed to speak his muirpidity without anyone calling him on it?

I'd like to point out that every time Methinks called Murthaduck a muirdiot, she also explained WHY that is so.

Posted by: brotio | Apr 12, 2008 6:17:26 PM

Maybe he needs to digest things for a while.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Apr 12, 2008 6:48:28 PM

Good riddance, muirgeo. I can't believe that an MD could be as stupid as you. Makes me want to stay as far away from the medical profession as possible: eat right, exercise, and especially, eat an apple every day!

Posted by: Russ Nelson | Apr 12, 2008 10:19:20 PM

“The mindless worship of nature has the US government subsidizing ADM (a Fortune 500 company) to produce corn-based ethanol, a fuel that takes more energy to produce than it releases. Corn is much more useful as a food, but because the mindless nature-worshipers have such a hold on the government in general …prices skyrocketing because the federal subsidy makes corn more VALUABLE as fuel source.”

Posted by: brotio | Apr 12, 2008 6:17:26 PM

Clearly bio-fuel is a crazy way to solve our energy needs but this has of course absolutely nothing to do with nature worshipers but with the normal exploitation of commercial opportunities, by people who dress up as nature-worshipers so as to do business in what seems the modern way of doing business, here there and everywhere, by lobbying.

If bio-fuel was economically feasible, without subsidies, for instance if oil hits 300, then following the logic presented that would suffice to throw out all the environmental considerations… and that would indeed be a mindless disregard of nature.

And by the way my comment does not imply the defense of a Robert Kennedy Jr. who might very well just be exploiting an issue for his own selfish motives… which indeed I believe he does seeing how he so shamefully allows himself to be exploited by chávez… though this does not give anyone the right, least a professor, to dismiss well reasoned environmental concerns that nature worshipers might indeed have; and much less doing so with silly and pompous arguments like that “the bounty that… comes from nature is in fact the relatively recent product of human creativity and industry unleashed by free markets.” And I who thought Professor Boudreaux was against politicking!

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Apr 12, 2008 11:49:44 PM

“Have any of the regular posters to this blog ever tried to silence your ability to post to this blog? … Are you insinuating that Murthaduck should be allowed to speak his muirpidity without anyone calling him on it?”
Posted by: brotio | Apr 12, 2008 6:17:26 PM

I am not insinuating you tried to silence anyone since in that case you could be left without someone to use in case you needed to vent some frustrations.

What I am saying is that the right to participate in a debate includes the right to participate in a decent and well educated debate in a decent and civilized environment. The way some debate here reminds me of the way a chávez debates, which is mostly by disqualifying others… but, then again we all know how often the extremes meet.

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Apr 13, 2008 12:02:39 AM

"...but this has of course absolutely nothing to do with nature worshipers but with the normal exploitation of commercial opportunities, by people who dress up as nature-worshipers so as to do business in what seems the modern way of doing business, here there and everywhere, by lobbying."

Unless you are claiming that the Sierra Club, ELF, ALF, and Greenpeace are not nature worshipers, then I don't see how you can claim that nature-worship has nothing to do with our idiotic (lack of) energy policy. ANWR is off limits because of nature worshiping, environmental nutcases. Same with the Gulf of Mexico, Roan Plateau, and the pressure being put on Canada to refrain from developing its tar sand resources. To nature worshipers, coal is the fuel of the anti-Christ, and nuclear reactors are his Armageddon.

"The way some debate here reminds me of the way a chávez debates, which is mostly by disqualifying others…"

As I recommended to Marcus: Go through the archives from the last year or so, and see how people TRIED to keep the debate decent and civilized. Deception and hypocrisy don't deserve civilized debate.

Posted by: brotio | Apr 13, 2008 1:22:47 AM

“Unless you are claiming that the Sierra Club, ELF, ALF, and Greenpeace are not nature worshipers, then I don't see how you can claim that nature-worship has nothing to do with our idiotic (lack of) energy policy.”
Posted by: brotio | Apr 13, 2008 1:22:47 Am

But of course many members of those organizations are not nature worshipers at all and pursue other agendas just like the way many free market worshipers are not free market worshipers and the role of the sensible middle is to give due consideration to nature and markets and not just placing themselves into a simple minded opposite camp….just like Professor Boudreaux does calling out… “Here I am the true defender against the evil on the other side of the river…who is on my side?”

The real split in society is not between those who want free markets to any extent and those who want protective environmental protection to any extent but between those who believe that markets should be allowed to operate as freely as possible within its limitations and that the environment should be protected as rational as possible and all the others who prefer being more extreme either on markets or environment.

In my country Venezuela, the real split is not between chávez and the opposition as it is known but the real line in the sand is drawn between those who believe that the national oil revenues should be managed by the state in a de-facto communist model and those who believe it should be done by the citizens.

I dare you to swim in the middle of the river, where more truth could be found, mind you not all; and even though it is more dangerous and life is more complicated than going to any of the shores to comfortably embrace the simplicity of a them and us.

By the way crawling up on one shore and calling it Café Hayek is a profound disrespect for that great open mind that he was. Individualism is based on individual responsibility and is not just simply an alternative serfdom.

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Apr 13, 2008 6:37:38 AM

"Deception and hypocrisy don't deserve civilized debate."
Posted by: brotio | Apr 13, 2008 1:22:47 AM

This is exactly what a chávez loves. “Come down to my level where we can throw punches and spit at each other!”

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Apr 13, 2008 6:43:16 AM

Mesa Econoguy, I find your comments offensive and unproductive. You've posted nearly a dozen times with nothing but ad hominem attacks on someone you've never met, without addressing his arguments (however flawed you may find them). Muirgeo may have different politics than you, but that does not mean you have the right to take up space on this blog with asinine, unsubstantial posts such as "Go the f*** away," calling people "bastards," "idiots," "troglodytes," and "frauds."

Posts like yours spoil this blog for me, and it's making it a less intelligent place for fans of economics. Please tone it down, be a bit more respectful, or I think I will stop reading Cafe Hayek.

(Please take note, Don & Russ--I listen to EconTalk and love it, even if I don't share your Libertarian principles, but your lax comment policy which permits all sorts of offensive behavior is deteriorating the quality of your blog and driving away readers.)

Posted by: brian | Apr 13, 2008 7:54:29 AM

Brian,

There was over one year of history between muirgeo and this blog. And during that time period, the posting behavior of muirgeo (and his ideology) would goad many participants into some interesting and heated exchanges. If you were not particpating or reading during that time period, you really don't quite understand the level of frustration at that particular troll.

So, now that you know what provoked that, whether it was fair or not, I have a bone to pick you. You are, admittedly, someone who does not share the blog's owners ideological point of view. That's fine, too, although I do hope that one day you'll acquire the same passion for liberty that many of us here share. But do not expect to come to a blog where you are in the minority of opinion -- an opinion that at least some of us consider [literally] very threatening to our own ideology -- and be treated with kindness by some of us.

Taking a so-called highroad position while exclaiming that you'll take your toys and go home unless you see respect and good conversational tone is bordering on playing the 'concerned troll'. I am highly suspicious of you already. Especially now that you have petitioned the blog owners with this use of a supposed highroad position to do what people of your threatening ideology do best: claim victimhood and ask for paternalism.

There's two things here. One, if you are truly being genuine and are actually getting something useful out of what you've been reading so far, you're not going to go anywhere. And, if you continue to post here, don't expect any free passes as you troll. You're not entitled to any respect or friendly tone just because you're a 'progressive'...that's not the way it works with many of us.

Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Apr 13, 2008 9:41:35 AM