True environmentalism is rooted in the individual; it is a movement based on education, connection with nature, and working to show people the sentimental side of nature that only comes through direct experience (not from Al Gore, a president, or some political rally). It is a movement based on individual liberty, responsibility, and localism. In fact, the principles of true environmentalism are nearly identical with libertarianism. However, common mainstream environmentalism does not focus on the education and knowledge of nature nearly as much as it uses the environment as an excuse to push forward a political ideology.

The simple fact is that government cannot sustainably change the way people approach the environment. If you see a logger cutting down a tree on his own property, is it morally defensible to hold a gun to his head preventing him from going any further? Is it acceptable morally if a collective group like government holds the gun to his head? When you approach nature from the standpoint that only the government can protect it, you are essentially giving in to the ridiculous idea that only through coercive collective force can nature be preserved.

“Nature will not be admired by proxy.” — Winston Churchill

This is not to say that all people in the environmental movement want to coerce people into their vision of the planet. However, the movement has become one only rooted in a political movement. And yet, they somehow seem surprised that not many people subscribe to the belief that you must expand government force to keep people in line with the environment. The thinking goes that without preventive collective force, “capitalists” (somehow people exercising their freedom as individuals are separate from everyone else) supposedly would ravage the environment and build as many hotels, stores, and resource-consuming projects as possible on the nation’s most beautiful land.

One of the most frustrating things for me to see, especially with teens and young adults, is the firm belief that government legislation is the ultimate way to bring about environmental change. We had a very kind lady come to my small private high school this past fall to talk about issues like climate change and the usual rhetoric from today’s environmental organizations. At the end of her presentation, this lady tried to get kids excited by announcing the “Declaration of Energy Independence” (a list of energy policies and subsidies for the federal government to undertake) that was to be signed by Barack Obama. This lady’s group and the mainstream environmental movement has it stubbornly implanted in their heads that our environmental fate lies with the government or a president.

I told her clearly that even though I did not believe the science or reasoning behind her presentation, I would certainly work to reduce waste and increase efficiency in my area. No person is going to argue, “Darn it all, I want my waste and inefficiency if it’s the last thing I do!” There is tremendous value in efficiency, and efficiency comes about naturally and most effectively in a free, non-coerced society. Incentives for efficiency do not come from government force, they come from natural free market competition and the God-forsaken profit motive common in a laissez faire society built on liberty.

Unlike a business in a free market, government does not convince you of the value of its product, it coerces you into taking and subsidizing the product whether you desire it or not. It is absurd that people have their heart set on the belief that the market recklessly destroys nature, and they just as easily fall into the trap that noble political servants know the ideal method to provide value and conservation to the environment. The detached and costly process of government intervention is the last thing we need to encourage responsibility, efficiency, and sustainability. We need individuals utilizing the power they carry as human beings! This is a key principle that probably all libertarians agree upon, and it is a principle that true environmentalists should take to heart.

No one can argue against a cleaner planet. The environmental movement would gain ongoing support from individuals of every background if it disregarded political motives and instead focused its resources on bringing education and direct nature experiences to people, as well as using resources (as many organizations have done past and present) to purchase land with the intent of preservation. Consider how much longer lasting an environmental group’s efforts would be in actually purchasing some beautiful land and opening it up to tourists, educational visits, and explaining the importance and benefits of conservation. Given the amount of people who support environmental projects, simple creative solutions like this are hardly implausible. Instead, the environmental movement has fallen into the uncreative trap that is government and politically motivated change through coercion.

The current environmental classes in public schools are so dry and lacking of substance that kids come out with very little experience in nature. My school introduced a new class this year based on the games put together by environmentalist and Sharing Nature founder Joseph Cornell. We are trained to lead small groups in nature activities that bring kids into nature itself to learn to feel, smell, and observe nature for themselves. You encourage connection with nature, rather than viewing it as a foreign object that only disgruntled hippies can find enjoyable. Do you think kids (and adults) will appreciate nature more when they get to have fun in nature or when their teacher recites a lecture of political talking points that the kids will probably forget anyway? Rather than using fear as a motivator for people to sign off on increased government intrusion in the name of the environment, consider the impact environmentalists could have if they worked on bringing this basic understanding and realization of nature to kids and adults alike. It has nothing whatsoever to do with politics and government, it simply awakens the joy of nature on a level that we as individuals can appreciate and value. In short, it would be far more effective than lobbying Obama or other government officials to throw more laws on the backs of the American people.

One major defect of mainstream environmentalism is its focus on bringing about massive regulation on a national and even global scale. Basic economic history shows that expensive laws and penalties benefit larger corporations looking to encumber competition from smaller businesses (thus why Dow Chemical, General Electric, and other billion dollar corporations are among the primary groups lobbying for “cap and trade” and other climate legislation). As government expands, so do the beds corporations use to snuggle up with their favorite bureaucracies. Environmental legislation such as Cap and Trade merely provides another outlet for corporations to diminish smaller, localized competition. In other words, it destroys precisely the setting where individuals have the most influence over business practices and products. Legislation of this sort provides a de facto monopoly to the corporations who can afford to jump through the arbitrary legal hoops and regulations created by politicians and unelected bureaucrats. By nationalizing and globalizing governments to such impressive scales, environmentalists are at the same time destroying the power of individuals in their local communities.

Place the power where it belongs: in the hands of the people. People carry their power not through national and global bureaucracies, but in their families, communities, and local environments. Is it easier to influence a $50 billion corporation propped up through government legislation, or a small local business? Is it more sensible to attempt to influence a Congress of 535 individuals representing more than 300 million people, or become active in a local government representing several thousand people? There is no question that we as individuals carry our influential powers over business, government, and the environment, on a local scale. It is the only logical outlet for the environmental movement to focus its efforts of sustainability and preservation.

This power and responsibility of individuals can only be adequately and sustainably utilized on a local level. Sustainable environmental conservation and education must originate through individuals locally, not through unelected bureaucrats nationally and globally. Localism, through empowered individual property rights, gives measure to the effects of responsibility and decisions made by individuals relating to themselves and their property, their respective communities, as well as the environment. Its function can only operate in a society free of bureaucratized laws and central planning.

The true environmental movement begins with the direct experience of an individual and cannot be furthered by governmental law. True environmentalism and libertarianism originate in the same source: the individual. Both believe strongly in individual liberty and the responsibility that comes with that liberty. By providing individuals with the full power of responsibility over their own lives, the environment will take a greater step forward in the minds of people. People won’t feel detached and separated from nature, they will feel a direct connection and obligation in their local communities. Are people not more concerned and responsible about the land, air, and water they see and use on a daily basis?

Return the responsibility of duties to the individual, not unelected bureaucracies promising the wonders of central planning, and you immediately provide the incentive (through property rights) and ability to maintain clean property, engage in sustainable activities, and preserve environmental quality. Returning to the responsibility of the individual on a local level is the only reasonable and lasting method for true conservation and respect of natural beauty.

James Cameron’s Avatar has shaken the entertainment industry in the past couple months, raking in more than $2.3 billion so far in the box office worldwide. I first saw the film in January and was blown away by the incredible visuals, a detailed exploration of the Na’vi culture, and what I thought was a masterfully told story (as common or predictable as it may be to some). Unfortunately, some conservative and libertarian writers condemn the movie as a wackjob combination of pro-Green, anti-military, and anti-capitalist thinking wrapped into a movie. However, when I saw the movie I thought it strongly reinforced the importance of private property, individual rights, and protection against central force.

Consider the planet Pandora, where the “savage” Na’vi tribes have made their residence for generations. Their planet is their property. When a human corporation backed by hired mercenaries (hardly a constitutional military used for national defense) establishes itself on the planet to further the exploration and mining of a valuable mineral called Unobtanium, they face severe blowback from the tribes. One of the first scenes in the movie shows a massive vehicle returning to base with several arrows stuck in the tires. The tribes understandably felt threatened and saw the human tactics as an invasion of their property. Is this really an attack on the principles of peaceful exchange common in a free market?

The Omiticaya tribe that is prominent in the film does not need anything the humans offer in return for the mineral whether it be roads, education, medicine, etc. Is this really unreasonable? Does an owner of a product not have the right to negotiate the terms of a transaction? The Na’vi are not being selfish, the humans simply do not have a product or service that is more valuable than the land itself is already worth to the Na’vi. It is the same as if someone was offering $10 for a family heirloom that you will never give up. Just because you refuse their offer doesn’t mean they can take that item by force, as the mercenaries in Avatar did.  Once again, this reinforces peaceful and voluntary exchange in a free market.
(more…)

Do people sometimes forget that we are all individuals with common goals, diverse circumstances, and unique perspectives? In many situations this is the case. The more governments, both local and national, expand in size and scope, the more politics become a game of winning and losing rather than representation of the people, providing individual freedom and choice, and encouraging local solutions and creativity. The world faces no shortages of problems, but the solution does not, as often believed, lie in continued centralized power of government, but increased freedom on a local level.

As centralized representatives are empowered with more responsibilities, their ability to directly and effectively represent their constituency decreases. Certainly it is more difficult to directly represent 200 million people than it is to represent 100 people. Such power maintained by a select few opens the door to lobbyists, special interests, and privileged groups who seek to grab a portion of that extraordinary power in order to gain an unnatural advantage over fellow individuals. In 2008 alone, 14,808 lobbyists contributed $3.3 billion to government. In such a scenario, who receives more direct treatment, the 14,808 lobbyists or 14,808 individual citizens? A large government is easily influenced not by individual citizens, but by large and privileged groups with the means to essentially bribe those in control, thus decreasing the power of individuals over our government. Central policies simply can’t represent the unique needs of local communities, towns, and counties.

As governments centralize and expand in power, the power and freedom of individuals decreases. It is not necessary to increase our individual abilities through a complex system managed by far-off politicians. In fact, all that is necessary is a simple concept that is commonly blurred or forgotten: freedom. Freedom is the only “system” that sees all individuals as naturally equal; freedom is based on individual, not central, power, and recognizes that we, the people, can solve our dilemmas free of constraint, force, and coercion. Freedom provides individuals the opportunity to keep the full fruits of their labor and appropriate their money to where they see fit, whether it be to the elderly, those in need of food, or any other service. The element of choice lies with the individual, not with the power of others. Simply put, when focusing on local solutions, individuals maintain far greater freedom and influence of participation, activism, and travel (voting with their feet), than they have in a strongly centralized system.

Individuals carry the greatest initiative, responsibility, and obligation over government in their counties, towns, communities, and neighborhoods. Things would appear much differently today if individual people, rather than federal officials and bureaucrats, were the driving force behind environmental, medical, and other policies. Chances are that many communities would oppose the opening of a nearby coalmine and would work together, as individuals, to find a cleaner, sustainable energy source. People will certainly feel a greater sense of charity and responsibility if they see or know people in their town who need but can’t afford health care. People are simply connected to something that they personally understand, see, and love, and will work together to protect and improve such a place. This is a basic world where solutions are based not on conflict and political gain, but community involvement and cooperation.

A locally managed government created to represent and serve the people fully can only function with an informed and active public. To do my own part in bringing this about, I developed Freedom Chatter in March 2009 with the slogan, “Involve, Interact, Inform.” Freedom Chatter is an ongoing project of mine with the objective to bring together a community of contributors and excited individuals eager to analyze all areas of business, economics, and public policy. Freedom Chatter recognizes the inherent qualities of human nature to be creative, diverse, and develop original ideas; it is unreasonable to expect everyone to subscribe to one viewpoint or ideology, whether it is on a local or national scale. By acknowledging the power and creativity each one of us carries locally as individuals and utilizing our ability to interact and inform, a rebirth in freedom, prosperity, and happiness is well within reach.

Originally written as a college application essay in November 2009.

The main arguments against capitalism, that I’ve heard, include that it’s an unfair system primarily about greed and taking advantage of your fellow man. Arguments for government intervention and social planning can sound attractive. “Free” education, “free” health care; as the laundry list of “free” items stack up, it sometimes sounds too good to pass up.

The primary problems that I see with government intervention and central planning on all levels is that it assumes that those select few individuals know what’s best for the people, the economy, etc. Capitalism is the only system that “admits”, so to speak, that there is room for improvement outside the control of the government and central planners. Human nature to increase efficiency, get lower prices, and create sustainable living styles cannot be outdone by an interventionist government system.

What we’re going to realize is that a nationalized, subsidized, and fiat money economy is not sustainable. We’ve experienced and tinkered with it for nearly a century, and while the short-term results haven’t been too bad, it simply cannot last. With an inflationary monetary system like we’ve had since 1971, saving is discouraged because it makes no sense to hold dollars when they’re losing value every month. This is the largest fundamental problem with our economy today. It seems that we always have to be spending, that is at the heart of the bailouts and stimulus packages over the past year. Never has it been suggested that people save money and make their own decisions with their money. Whether it be banks or auto businesses, the U.S. has lost the core capitalist principle of individual responsibility and instead has gone the route of letting no one fail.

I’ve heard many times that we’ve had an economy of greed over the past several years. In many ways this is correct, but blaming it on capitalism is not. I believe that our paper money system controlled by the Federal Reserve has encouraged more greed than anything else. When you have a deceitful central bank with an unsound currency, I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of that not stimulating greed. Central banks do not hold the citizens’ interest, that is the first thing to remember. With the Fed, we have a central bank who doesn’t even give out the names of the many banks it has loaned trillions of dollars to in a matter of months. With these special, unbalanced interests, it will not impact the economy in a good way. Couple this with a paper money currency enforced by the government which leads to higher prices and a stretched middle class, and you’ve got a recipe for greed and reckless spending to take off. I am not saying that the Fed is the only entity or factor to blame, but merely that it has contributed more than anything else to this unbalanced and unfair economy.

When the greed argument is used to blame capitalism, this often is aimed at “lack of regulation” on Wall Street. With the amount of bickering about too little regulation, you’d think we had a system of anarchy ten years ago. People forget about Enron and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that came of that scandal. People forget that The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established in 1934 to prevent corporate abuse on reporting information. Laws and regulations have stacked up for 70+ years, yet bad and stupid things still happen in the world of business. Only now, when something goes wrong, the whole country accepts more regulations and the belief that more money poured into government intervention will suddenly make everything better.

Instead of shareholders being responsible for the business and its accounting practices, the SEC stepped in and essentially led people to believe that it has everything under control. It discourages investors from performing their own research and due diligence. Rather than the SEC, FDIC, and lord knows what other regulatory agencies try to take the place of personal research and responsibility, the destiny of a business must lie with the shareholders and consumers. As we can see from the past hundred years or so, when the government tries to take the place of the invisible hand of supply and demand, it does not solve the problems. It’s foolish to think that the government and central planners can perform a task in a more efficient, smart, and sustainable manner than the individuals of this country.

As the federal government and Federal Reserve have pulled in more responsibility for themselves, taking it from the people, we have embarked on the road to nationalization, big business, and big government. We’ve tried our hand at nationalized education, which has been a horrendous excuse for a public program. Ever since the 1970s the federal government has gotten much more involved with the health care industry and put more control into the drug companies, taking away from the pivotal patient/doctor relationship. In a broader sense, we are quickly moving toward nationalizing industries, both with government and through the government’s favoring of larger corporations.

What I see this as is an attack on localization. I find it silly to believe that we can solve our problems by putting them up on a larger scale, by “modernizing” industries which has always led to the destruction of smaller businesses at the hands of government intervention, and many other ways through government involvement. By discouraging local and community involvement, we have lost the key to what makes an economy great. Strong growth doesn’t mean a thing on its own in the short-term. Rather, it is strong, sustainable, honest growth that capitalism aims to create. I think the easiest, most efficient, and most sustainable way to achieve this is through local economies and community involvement. Whether it be with politics, economics, or business, it is the personal interaction that makes a strong system.

When we nearly force businesses and politics to be done at a national level, it tears away the personal touch that is so essential to a prosperous society. Individual responsibility is much more easily accomplished through a local economy, rather than through a government and corporate-controlled national economy, which is increasingly evident what we have in place today. With politics, it is much simpler and beneficial to bring about change on a local or state level than on the national scale. I think the same goes for a business and economy too. With a strong, involved community, next to nothing is impossible.

The Founding Fathers shared this ideal as they were writing the Constitution and envisioning America. They made it very clear in the Bill of Rights with the 10th Amendment; that issues not given to the federal government or prohibited to the states were to be put in the power of the states or the people:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The federal government was not created to solve every social, economic, and even political problem. The federal government was initially created to be as little involved as possible compared to the states, but today the opposite seems to be true. Rather than give more power to the people and states to make their own decisions and take their own responsibility, that power has been given, like never before, to the federal government. In other words, localization is near being destroyed due to nationalization and a huge federal government overstepping its bounds.

The sooner we realize that individuals, local communities, and states can solve their own problems far better than the federal government, the sooner we will be on the road to recovery, and a prosperous, sustainable economy and society.