Myth #3: Economy, Military, and Sustainability Goals are Mutually Exclusive

5/11/2007

Last installment of the 3 general things that pissed me off during the PurpleThink self-imposed hiatus.

Our two-party system in the U.S. has the affect of polarizing more than surface debate. Those who buy into this false dichotomy are also likely to believe in the mutual exclusivity of certain hot topics.

For example:
- If you’re pro-business, you aren’t green.
- Being eco-friendly is ill-advised during this time of war.
- The best celebrity deathmatch ever would be Cheney v. Gore

The media certainly doesn’t help. It seems every news story – politics (liberal/conservative), business (union/management), society (have/have-nots) – starts with the assumption there is a grand battle waged between well-defined camps.

Sometimes this is true, but other times it is lazy journalism feeding a warped view of reality in the United States -- kinda like Paris thinking she truly understands what it means to live a simple life.

Rather than bore you with the many examples on topic, let’s get to it. When it comes to the economy, military, and sustainability, can we have our cake and eat it to?

Yes!

In an earlier discussion, PurpleThink explored this in the context of rising gas prices. Imagine the following scenario:

"The U.S. remains the largest automobile market. If the government made it economically safe for manufacturers to produce alternative fuel vehicles, we would see them – quickly. But, right now, it’s too risky. If the U.S. mandated a phased approach whereby all new automobiles sold in the U.S. after 2030 must be hydrogen-powered – we would see dramatic reductions in oil consumption within 5-years. Knowing there would be a market for hydrogen power, filling stations would bear no financial risk in retrofitting their stations for hydrogen. Automobile manufacturers would be forced to plan their hydrogen-based models immediately and there would be incredible market pressure to get them out there fast. Big Oil would see that their financial future rests in mass-production of hydrogen and would begin that process in just months.

This is a political blog and not an economic one, so let’s throw-in a curveball. Because the U.S. is such a large consumer of automobiles, the hydrogen-based car models would proliferate quickly across the globe – compounding the affect of decreased oil demand. This dramatic reduction in oil consumption would bring oil prices to under $20 a barrel within 15 years. Oil producing nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela would see their tyrannical governments in chaos trying to support their massive social welfare systems. Cash-strapped and desperate, the threat of war would possibly be even greater than it is today.

Thus, any plan to shift from oil to hydrogen must include expanded oil-drilling. ANWAR, the gulf, and the pacific coast must be opened to oil exploration at the beginning of any hydrogen-based energy policy. There will always be a need for oil -- airplane fuel, asphault, cosmetics and other products will continue to require petroleum and the U.S. may need our own sources to stave-off any political crisis that could erupt in oil-rich nations."

And so,

1) While The U.S. still leads in automobile production and consumption, use this to our advantage. We set the standards by which the rest of the world must comply and the U.S. economy benefits by a) lower gas prices and b) U.S. industrial output.

2) In so doing, we use alternative fuels that sustain the environment.

3) Decreased oil revenue in the Middle East and Venezuela provides for U.S. security

Now, for many that read this site there is a huge problem here. How could a libertarian ever consider manipulating the economy in this way? From my buddy at Slaying-Dragons:

"Breaking new ground is always risky. In addition to setting prices, the market helps determine whether a new venture is "stupid risky" or "worth it risky." Forcibly making the market take a risk is not prudent. If the possible gains are worth the possible losses, the market will take the risk without legislation. If the possible gains are not worth the possible losses the market will not take the risk and should not be forcibly compelled to."

This is a valid argument to be sure. However, I must disagree that this violates libertarian principles.

1) The constitution allows for federal governance over inter-state commerce -- surely fuel production and distribution qualifies.

2) Just like the government established our federal highway system, this is a way in which standards can be set without undo market manipulation. The setting of standards is not in itself a violation of state/individual rights. Of course the Feds have overstepped their bounds by distributing highway funding to states that jump through hoops to get it, but this doesn’t have to be.

3) This is a national security issue. I am always fearful that the government can manufacture a national security problem any time it wishes to assert control. However, this is one case that can meet constitutional muster any way you slice it.

4) The free market cures nearly all ills, but seldom does so quickly.

5) Libertarianism is itself an "ism" and we must be careful to avoid hypocrisy. The marketplace should always be the mechanism of choice, but never blindly.

Bottom line, we can have a win-win-win scenario. It requires breaking the left/right dichotomy and looking at our problems sans ideology.

Besides, clearly the best celebrity deathmatch would be Condi and Hillary.

|

 

Home|epinion|Purple People Eater

Feedback@PurpleThink.com

©2007 PurpleThink.com