Environmentalist Libertarian Socialism

[This is a re-post of something, now paywalled, that I wrote on Quora a few years ago. This is by way of explaining some of my politics. Something else I wrote about socialism and wealth creation is here: https://blog.bobtrower.com/2020/01/socialism-and-wealth-creation.html]

In one sense, you can’t be a libertarian without also being an environmentalist. How can you reasonably have liberty in a world destroyed by misuse? 

Here is the definition of the word ‘libertarian’ as it applies to me, and as it is defined by the Collins English Dictionary:

1. a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc.
2. a believer in the doctrine of free will
3. of, relating to, or characteristic of a libertarian

[The OED has essentially the same definition. I have a shelf full of dictionaries here (Shorter OED, Webster’s, etc.) and The Collins is my favorite for having both the words I am looking for and lucid definitions.]

I identify as a ‘libertarian socialist’. It’s a thing! Some people calling themselves libertarians seem to be extreme, dogmatic, crazy, authoritarian, and capitalistic. Those are aspects of them, not libertarianism.

People nailing the notion that ‘property rights are sacrosanct’ to libertarianism can’t be true libertarians. They certainly can’t be reasonable ones. Libertarianism is about liberty, not enforcement of (alleged) property rights.

To be honest, I think we should dispense with all the old labels and their baggage. Misuse has rendered them largely meaningless.

You should separate the notion of ‘environmentalist’ from the political aspects that have attached to it like lampreys. We share the environment and are joint custodians of it whether we like it or not. There is no sane policy regime that allows anybody to destroy any substantial part of our shared environment. None of us ‘own’ (literally true in Canada). We are custodians who enjoy its use. You might not be able, in your own mind, to resolve a mandatory mutual enterprise with a claim to libertarian leanings, but I have no problem with it.

Right wing conservatives can be environmentalists as well. Just an opinion, but the fusing of ‘leftism’ to ‘environmentalism’ seems a cynical political move to control others. Entities like the WWF have a tendency to become corrupt by their nature and conflation of things to pick and choose whatever supports their goals seems one of the methods those corrupting things use to further their aims.

Liberty is hardly consonant with a world destroyed by allowing some people to claim ownership of, and the right to abuse vast resources. As a libertarian, I recognize that acquisition of vast resources by the few does not likely optimize liberty for the many. It is not a libertarian view that life should be a cruel lottery and that the state should enforce letting the chips fall as they may.

Go try the test at The Political Compass and see where you land. Last time I took it, I was at decidedly both Libertarian and Socialist score (-10, -10). You are not likely to be as focused(?) as me, but I I would bet that you fall very safely in the lower left quadrant.

You can be at least libertarian and not be extreme and crazy about it. Hardliners are like: They want a system such that you could be drowning in a river right in front of them, and they would not be obliged to throw you a line on a pole beside them, because ‘freedom’. They can believe what they like. They are obliged to throw you a line. At least here in Canada, it is illegal for them not to help someone in immediate danger if they can. Yes, it infringes upon their liberty to choose whether or not to help you, but your right to continue living trumps their unprincipled, dogmatic views of liberty.

I think libertarianism, properly understood, is the very definition of ‘good’ politically. Similarly, I think most of us think that environmentalism in the sense of keeping our environment intact is ‘good’. Can you be good twice? I think so.