The natural environment is under central control. Once the central authority grants permission, grantees are only accountable to adhere to the regulations. They are absolved from the consequences of their actions on the environment. Examples might be GMO contamination, oil spills, and general contamination of land, water, sea, and air.

Central Authority has resulted in one failure after another. For example, large parts of Oregon’s virgin forests have been auctioned off to the highest bidder in parcel sizes that could only be bid upon by large extractive corporations. This is exactly what we should have expected from a Crony government in cahoots with its Crony corporate partners.

What would have happenned under individual private ownership?

An individual might not feel like selling his land. Individual owners are under no compulsion to sell their land, or to put it to the highest and best use as seen by the central authority.

If an individual owner did feel like selling, he might put a covenant on it, or he might sell it to someone with his own values at whatever price they agree on. It does not have to be a price that he would sell it to someone else. In selling, individuals consider more than just money. (Inspite of the misreadings taught in school about Adam Smith.)

Definitely, some individual owners would want to maximize the sale price. They might sell at auction. But more likely they would sell the land on the basis of full discosure of its attributes and difficult-to-evaluate subjective features. This maximizing contributes to price signals setting price values on land, forest land, virgin forest land, and by deriviative prices for old growth timber and plywood.

Central Authority is incapable of effectively setting prices based on subjective evaluations. At best they can try to simulate a subjective consideration by a heartless administrative application of administrative rules derived from arbitrary agendas from previous meetings. Their attempts to simulate Free Market selling decisions is no better than their liquidation-auctions of valuable public assets.

Given these repeated failures, we should try a paradigm of private ownership.

I do not mean, “Auction it off” to the same corporations that have already benefitted in the past. As a first step, Federal ownership of lands within Oregon must be transferred to The State of Oregon. Then, hopefully, Oregonians will accept the Free-Market paradigm as valid, and the most efficient means of preserving what needs to be preserved, and using what is harmless or beneficial to harvest.

The elligibility for individual ownership and the date of transfer, and conditions, and cost (if any) are all subjects for public discussion. Now is the time to elect people who understand the value of private ownership in preservation and proper valuation of property for preservation and our need to survive.


Most Libertarians believe in Free Will, the Non-Agression-Principle, Self-Ownership, a first-claim on our labor and the fruits of our labor, and private property – first by homesteading and then through sale and purchase.

Good must come from individual responsibility and not at the expense of other people. Violating the rights of others is a violation of the Non-Agression Principle.

Boiled down: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The environment must be considered in this context. It can best be preserved (and benefit people) through the motivation of ownership.



2 thoughts on “Enviroment

  1. Rosemary McGaughy

    Well stated. Environmental management is a crucial issue that relates to most aspects of our lives as individuals as well as societies. Human beings are obviously dependent on the natural world. The preservation of our habitat must be considered by everyone. Too often it is not. Businesses and individuals in America often ‘cop out’ to the idea that it is too expensive or personally inconvenient to make ethical consumer choices. Some have no idea that ethical choices regarding the environment even exist. This is a function of the failure of our educational system and mass media to be responsible for our mutual shared resources. This does not bode well for the economy, health care system, or the environment, and promotes social dysfunction. Those with the ability to make the right decisions regarding land and shared resources should be responsible for regulation and ownership. Those who cannot live sustainably or harmoniously with respect to our habitat should not be given any authority with regard to ownership of land and resources. It’s a small world with too many people to afford any more errors in this department.

Please let me know what you think.

%d bloggers like this: