So I am well over 3/4's of the way done with The Fountainhead, and though I don't find it nearly as phenomenal as Atlas Shrugged, it is still an interesting read that deals with a few select topics that Shrugged didn't get into from what I remember. One of those topics is that of capitalist environmentalism, though I doubt Rand really meant for it to be an issue to consider.
On page 507, Rand describes Monadnock Valley, a kind of summer resort protagonist Howard Roark built that was ultimately meant to be a failure:
Why not offer these people (in reference to those with modest income) a place where, for a week or a month, at small cost, they could have what they wanted and needed?...Don't touch the hillsides, don't blast and level them down. Not one huge ant pile of an hotel--but small houses hidden from one another, each a private estate...
I think this passage in particular is clearly demonstrative of how environmentalism could work in a purely capitalist society. While the left and environmentalists alike are understandably wary of businesses exploiting the destroying the environment, they often advocate for such measures as utilizing the government's authority to either take full control of the land or intervene into business practices in an effort to regulate how waste is disposed of. Both of which drive up costs for consumers as land decreases in supply since it is taken off the market and businesses pass down the cost of regulations to the population. And it should also be mentioned that job opportunities are lost as well when the government prevents companies from coming in and extracting natural resources that are high in demand.
While others, such as Robert P. Murphy, have outlines how a society's strict adherence to private property rights would prevent most environmental pollution from occurring due to the fear of lawsuits and desire to preserve the value of land, there is another aspect of capitalist environmentalism that is not mentioned so much. What Roark does in Monadnock Valley is take advantage of the demand people have for a natural setting and a serene vacation spot. As our society progresses and population grows, a kind of natural expansion will occur due to most people's innate desire for privacy. As this happens, the demand for a more natural and aesthetically pleasing environment will grow as more and more land is developed. All government confiscation of this land does it keep it off limits of private ownership and encourage exploitation whenever some feel like they can the risk legal penalties to do such things as dumping tires, batteries, waste, etc...
If one were to come along, as Roark does, and treat the land as a commodity, the profit incentive would enhance the need for conservation of the land in order to draw more people in. No matter how much society progresses and develops, there will continue to be a desire by people to enjoy a setting far away from the technological achievements and industrial developments that have increased our standard of living.
On a less theoretical note, I got through to Washington Journal on C-Span this morning and asked a relatively simple question to Bloomberg's David Welch. In regards to the U.S. auto industry, which was the topic of discussion, I asked that if Mussolini defined fascism as privatizing the gains and socializing the losses, and hypothetically if the government were to experience a loss on its bailing out of GM and Chrysler, is it or is it not fascism by definition? While Mr. Welch's facial expression during the question was quite humorous, he denied that it was fascism and went on to say how unpopular the bailouts were but that GM was recovering well. Once the Volt starts selling more than 350 a month, I will concede that GM is recovering well, despite the fact that bankruptcy saved it, not a bailout.
Update- here is the video of Washington Journal, I come in somewhere at the midpoint...
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar