Custom Search
More for Green Libertarians
Submitted by fyl on Wed, 2010/03/03 - 08:47.
(4 votes)
As many of you may have noticed, I labeled myself as a Green Libertarian. I have since had a few people tell me that it makes sense and/or they consider themselves Green Libertarians as well. I don't know if it is time for us to create our own political web site (olet me know, seriously) but there certainly is something to talk about. Here are some related observations.
- I see people regularly saying "I am Liberal on X but Conservitive on Y". Maybe they are Green Libertarians.
- I see people saying "I was a leftist, now I am a rightist" and vice versa. Maybe they are Green Libertarians.
- I see people that all for "Corporate Socialism" but always against "People Socialism". Maybe they are Green Libertarians. Or maybe they are just the opposite (help corporations kill people and the planet is what that means to me). In any case, Green Libertarian may mean more to them than Liberal or Conservative.
So, what does this have to do with Nicaragua? First, most of the people who have identified with Green Libertarian either live in Nicaragua or are moving here. Also, in Nicaragua it is a lot easier to see who represents what than in, for example, the US or even the UK. Governments here, from whatever party, tend to be not very Green but relatively Libertarian.
Before you disagree with the Libertarian side, I am not talking about party rhetoric. I am talking about implementation. The government here is just not big/rich enough to be much beyond Libertarian. While there are social programs, they are pretty minimalist. I don't have the numbers for per capita government spending on health care, for example, but I don't even think a serious Libertarian would find it excessive.
Let's look at the Green side where I do feel the government just doesn't do enough. I regularly see violations of the rules of the Tisey reserve, for example. While the Libertarian side says this is OK, the Green side says it isn't. I pick green here. Tisey (and Miraflor) are reserves for good reason. They are the watershed for Estelí. While it may be Libertarian to tell the people in Estelí is their problem, I do have some things on my what government should provide list. Do you have some on your list as well?
- fyl's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I agree with much of what you are saying here
I do find the "Libertarian" label is something that is measured by mostly US standards. For example, I feel, as a Canadian would have to apply US political standards in order to find where I fit in.
Now I'm not at all saying this is necessarily bad. It just makes it a little more difficult for non US citizens to align our self.
I would likely fit the Libertarian label pretty well in most cases, in others I am all over the map. This makes it hard to for people to figure out which pigeonhole to file me in.
I have often be categorized as being left wing. While I support many social programs nothing could be further from the truth.
On the other hand, others have accused me to be radical right wing. They are wrong as well.
I suppose it all depends on the observers perspective.
Fyl, to start a website that allows Libertarians (Or for that matter everyone) to voice their views and to bring their ideas to light, GREAT IDEA. Just keep it simple and grass roots.
"decentralized socialism" and "communalism"
i was just recently thinking about a term that just occured to me, "decentralized socialism", maybe this is close to what you say about Green Libertarianism,. Also, recently, i've been reading and intrigued with the what is now being called "communalism" which i sense is also similar but somehow these terms are hijacked by certain individual definitions. THere is ussually a very subjective interpretation which leads one to associate themselves with one ideology or other and we often find that people who associate themselves with the same ideology find other's definition to not be completely in line with what they think, and this is p[articulartly the case with ideologies that don't have the establishment of a historical political trend .
My current focus in philosophies is centered on the perspective of the social ecologist. Social Ecology is what I have found to be the most encompassing social theory which deals with a sicentific anthropological interpretation, an objective ecological material assesment, and the intention to incorporate these objective perspectives into our language for the sense of communicating more clearly the issues that are raised and supporting and implementing new as well as older traditions that take into account the the health of society in accordance with ecological principles.
There are similarities amongst the new wave of phillosophies and ideologies taking place. Many of them are a sort of mix or fusion of what we would have considered right of left ideologies. Scientific matierialism would suggest that this is a natural occurence not only from the perspective of dialectic materialism but because of the greater influential need of our material survival. Our susrvival is based upon a healthy social ecological relation, so as our ecological health is weakened it becomes ever more necessary to implement sustainable practices
Asian perspective on Communalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism_(South_Asia)
anarchist persepctive on communalism: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/cmmnl2.mcw.html
articles on decentralized socialism vary somewhat but they seems to be mostly indicating that decentralized socialism is the modification of the failed centralized form of socialism. Interestingly the Scandinavian countries are the most in line with this ideology. Like in Sweden where avout 90% of economic activity is in private hands but are heavily taxed in order to "spread the wealth" and to run its social welfare programs. I don't think this is necessarily what i had in mind but its a good contribution to the debate....
Interesting..
Is interesting this new focus of a socialism directly linked to the base of our existence and our conflicts: "resources".
Taxing the wealthiest is the right way to balance the social justice, but implementing that theory in our countries ,where the wealthiest classes are in a feudal reminescence..is almost a utopia.
For that reason the populism leaded by wealthies leftist, is the new path in LA.
But the problem is that when you implementing a economic philosophy in your patio and still acting in other ways toward the exterior, you has solved only a half of the problem.
The Scandinavian model, sure is a better approach to the social justice, but their economic model still based in the capitalism itself.
This two essay address must of this problems.
Aukje A. H. Van Hoek, Transnational Corporate Social Responsibility: Some Issues with Regard to the Liability of European Corporations for Labour Law Infringements in the Countries of Establishment of Their Suppliers. http://philpapers.org/rec/VANTCS-2
Social Responsibility in Labour Relations: European and Comparative Perspectives By Frans Pennings, Yvonne Konijn, Albertine Veldman http://books.google.com.ni/books?id=SD3ZVdXfm64C&lpg=PR19&ots=tPmsNh9qUh...
Will be good
I don't know if I'm libertarian or greener, but I'm pretty sure than I'm realistic and i can identify the bad from the worse.
In a specific subject i will ask something.
You think that the government is making a good decision allowing the development of the Natural Reserves in Nicaragua?
Yourself are clear that TISEY and MIRAFLORES are a water reservoir for Estelí, but with a money you can buy whatever you want in this areas.
Can people do the same in Yellowstone?
Apples and Oranges
There are actually quite a few questions in your question. Let's start with the difference between Tisey and Yellowstone.
Yellowstone is a US National Park. That is land owned by the US government and managed by the US government. Tisey is a reserve. Conceptually, Tisey is more like a National Forest or even BLM land in the US. And, yes, you (ranchers, mining companies, lumber companies, ...) can buy rights to the resources in National Forests and BLM land. For example, many ranchers depend on their ability to lease BLM land to extend the size of their ranches so that they can make a profit.
But, I said more like. The reality is that the land in Tisey and Miraflor is not government owned. It is private property that received its "reserve" status in 1991. That is, a law was passed changing the rights of the owners to limit their possible use. In order to do something in the Tisey and Miraflor reserves, you must now get approval from FIDER, an NGO first, and then from MARENA. Are those laws always followed? No. But, that's the procedure.
Thus, a more realistic comparison for your "Can people do the same in Yellowstone?" question would be to ask if you could do the same in the Granada central park. Government land, managed by the government with, like Yellowstone, possible concessions for various businesses.
Now, backing up to your other question about what the government is allowing, it seems that if the government wanted to totally control what could be done in the reserves, it would first need to actually purchase the land from the private owners. My assumption is that this didn't happen (and won't happen) for financial reasons. Thus, the current management plan is a compromise between what is best for Nicaraguans in general and what is best for those who own property in what became reserves.
All that said, this is a classic battle between the Green side (preserve the environment) and the Libertarian side (whoever owns it gets to do what they want with it). It is also exactly why the idea of a Green Libertarian appeals to me. It's a real debate where neither side is absolutely right. Having a movement/party/whatever that recognizes this and can address it internally rather than picking one said and blaming everything on the other people/movememt/party seems like the only way to move forward.
Eco-capitalism and blue greens
There is another term, eco-capitalism, that has several definitions. It's either green party members who favour free market principles to achieve environmental aims OR conservatives/liberals who believe in green policy. "Blue greens" are another name for them.
People who believe in eco-socialism are called "red greens".
Libertarians
I won't bother commenting on the U.S. Yellowstone or Granada's Parque Colón or on Tisey and Miraflor. I just wanted to give my opinion about what qualities a Libertarian should have. IMHO a Libertarian is a liberal morally and a conservative economically, i.e. he/she would be pro-abortion but believe in free enterprise. I guess a Green Libertarian then would have to be a Capitalist who tries to do as little damage as possible to the environment.
i don't know what i am..
I know I'm liberal morally, but in economic i tend to be more socialist ..but not in a state centralized model, and in the environment i think that looking for doing little damage isn't enough...instead i support for a recovery of sustainable levels and the creation of a friendly exploitation of the resources.....
A big utopia...not??
Sounds right to me
Is this the first time we have every agreed on anything?
"Pro-abortion"
I kinda think we should let the doctors and scientists hold sway on the ethics life-and-death issues, including abortion. Other than that, I'm in total agreement.