[tokyo_to_motueka]

I am not a libertarian, and I frankly find many libertarians to be either morally repugnant or just plain nutty. BUT, there are certain libertarians i do have the utmost respect for, including the people at Antiwar.com. (i highly recommend everyone check out www.antiwar.com/blog.

Disappointingly, i have seen several dismissive posts at antiwar.com regarding peak oil (see The Economics of Oil) that have no basis whatsoever in evidence or scientific fact.

My question is, why do libertarians seem so (overly?) eager to dismiss PO as some sort of fringe conspiracy theory? And why do such self-confessed rationalists descend into faith-based non-debates--resting on the bedrock article of faith "where there's a will there's a way"--rather than a survey of actual evidence pointing to the end of cheap oil and the massive impact that will on modern societies very soon (less than 5 years)?

The last straw was the article on Lew Rockwell.com by someone professing to be "a jouranlist specializing in energy, the Middle East, and Islam". This was five pages A4 printed at 9-point font size, and i kept thinking, "when is he going to get to the convincing part of his argument?" But it never happened. What gives?

Maybe geology or thermodynamics (especially EROEI) are just too hard for some libertarians to grasp...

[Sencha]

I'm not an expert on Libertarianism, but my guess would be this:

Libertarians are very free market oriented. Peak Oil would mean that the entire economy would be disintegrated. I think their denial of peak oil is a natural response from a group that believes strongly in free enterprise and the prosperity that could come from it.

Alternatively, their resistance to the idea of P.O., might be because they think that a free market will inevitably find an alternative energy source in order to counter the effects of PO. Even though that can't work.

[skiwi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tokyo_to_motueka', '
')The last straw was the article on Lew Rockwell.com by someone professing to be "a jouranlist specializing in energy, the Middle East, and Islam". This was five pages A4 printed at 9-point font size, and i kept thinking, "when is he going to get to the convincing part of his argument?" But it never happened. What gives?

Maybe geology or thermodynamics (especially EROEI) are just too hard for some libertarians to grasp...

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tokyo_to_motueka', '
')My question is, why do libertarians seem so (overly?) eager to dismiss PO as some sort of fringe conspiracy theory?

[cador]

Libertarians believe that an unfettered free market is the cause of prosperity. They are correct to a certain extent...

Back in 1989 (just before the wall fell) when East Germans were immigrating to West Germany to the "land of gold", many East Germans found out how hard you had to work under capitalism. The East Germans were used to working only 2 hours and then playing chess for 6 hours for the rest of their work day. East Germany may have been a "worker's paradise" (job security, very low performance standards, etc) but it had a very poor quality of life compared to the West. That's because everyone was too lazy to do any actual work.

Capitalism is great system for maximizing human energy. A healthy competition for jobs forces everyone to put in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. But capitalism, like socialism, has its excesses. Large companies are trying to find new and creative ways to export as much labour from the West to the third world. The 40-hour work week is being circumvented by creating "salaried" positions.

Libertarians seem to put a lot of faith in human ingenuity. Although I subscribe to the crash-landing side of the peak oil theory, I am open-minded enough to accept the possibility that the free market might find a solution to our energy problems. But looking at the economic trends of the last 35 years, I have seen the overall quality of life decrease as people work longer and longer hours to make ends meet.

If there was a way to invent ourselves out of this mess, we'd have done it by now.

I am a staunch conservative so I tend to put my faith in a higher power rather than faith in my fellow human beings. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Sept. 11 and US warmongering all show how insane humanity can become. I doubt that a diminishing energy supply coupled with the banksters' ponzi scheme is going to provide a soft-landing scenario.

Perhaps the secret to the West's economic success is a combination of its high average IQ coupled with an access to cheap energy.

[LaLaLand]

The original poster uses an ultimatum statement that is inaccurate. Not all libertarians dismiss the peak oil theory, just the purists.

I don't consider myself a purest libertarian. I agree with roughly 80% of their philosophies, but 20% of them are quite far-fetched and unattainable considering the American mindset. I’d love to see a free for all society, but "it aint gonna happen". The elite would lose too much power in the competitive marketplace.

Basically, libertarian lore stresses "free markets" will bring large amounts of prosperity, including new technologies that would move society post oil if need be. There is only one problem that all who argue in favor of the peak oil theory point out: American markets are not "free". They are controlled by the business elite. It's no secret if you look in the right places that the business elite are happy with how things are working right now so new technologies are shown off for propaganda purposes only. These new technologies rarely reach the marketplace in mass, or in a timely manner (for control purposes), due to the risk of accelerated competition that would put them at a disadvantage.

I personally don't see markets getting any freer in the USA where they would count, and that’s the bottom, where the workers are. The working public, and the elite who control them, likes regulation as long as it suits their visible short-term goals of consumption. As I’ve pointed out in other posts, I would also argue American culture is to conservative and slow moving to accept libertarian principals or the peak oil theory until visible signs of a real crisis are screaming in their face to get a move on. Of course, by that time its to late.

[Oiltanker]

Most people dissmiss peakoil.

Libertarians are people.

[Toaster]

I am a Libertarian, and I think peak oil will occur very soon and peak energy just a decade or three later.

Some wishful thinking Libertarians want to see some inventive solution other than nature reducing the population to a more sustainable 1 billion. Some Libertarians, such as I, have a more pesimistic view and see the problem as lacking a solution other than a nature imposed rapid population reduction.

Whatever the more accurate assessment of the future, there is the least harm done by being free to deal with this period of time. Free markets may not be perfect, but they beat the alternative, government controlled economic activity. If you are free then you can do the best you can for yourself, but if the government is controlling what you do or can/can't do, then you will get the same sorry result as was the case in Cuba, Russia, Eastern Europe etc.

I see many of you piss and moan about big business controlling the US government and using laws to benefit themselves at the expense of the majority. This is not freedom, but rather a controlled market. The solution is not more government but less, but when 50% of the economic activity is government, and you clammor for more government, you are just picking the worst possible future possible, no matter what happens with energy availability and possible invention. I can tell you that periods in history that had the least freedom also had the least invention and the most economic stagnation, and the greatest human suffering.

So, my suggestion is that you direct your criticism to the big government Democrats and Republicans who are the source of most of the social and economic evils that plunder your life force.

[tokyo_to_motueka]

Thanks to everone for their replies.

LaLaLand wrote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he original poster uses an ultimatum statement that is inaccurate. Not all libertarians dismiss the peak oil theory, just the purists.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cador', ' ')But looking at the economic trends of the last 35 years, I have seen the overall quality of life decrease as people work longer and longer hours to make ends meet.

[cador]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tokyo_to_motueka', 'c')ador wrote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')erhaps the secret to the West's economic success is a combination of its high average IQ coupled with an access to cheap energy.

[Chuck]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cador', '
')Here's an interesting article about IQ and the wealth of nations:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/wealth_of_nations.htm

[Toaster]

You say you don't agree that a government controlled economy is the opposite of free markets, and then you say that the local community should decide.

What happens if someone in that community does not agree with the decision of the group? Is he forced to do what others want the community to do, or is he free to persue his own economic goals? If he is forced, then it is a government controlled economy; if he cannot be forced, then it is a free market. So either you are advocating a free market (which always allows for volintary cooperative efforts) or you are advocating government control of the marketplace, so on the face of it your assertion that the alternative to free markets is not government control is not a logical assertion. Government on any level is force and that is why morally and practically the less government, the better off citizenry has been, is and will be.

I identify with a line from the Mel Gibson movie, "The Patriot" to the effect that there is little difference between one tyrant, 1,000 miles away, or 1,000 tyrants, one mile away.

On the issue of IQ and economics, I wonder if this is a chicken and egg thing, "Which comes first?" As with all adaptations in the course of evolution one species or subspecies is molded by the environment, which eventually changes the genetic material, so there should be differences based on locality. There are other differences; I once saw a study that showed a coorelation between freedom and prosperity, which again may be a chicken/egg thing. Overall, I would say that better IQ should produce better economics, and that more freedom should produce better economics, so perhaps there are four combinations, with low IQ and slavery producing the worst economic results and high IQ, high freedom producting the best results.

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Toaster', 'I') see many of you piss and moan about big business controlling the US government and using laws to benefit themselves at the expense of the majority. This is not freedom, but rather a controlled market.

[LaLaLand]

Not that it matters... I wrote the above post. I keep forgetting to log in first before I post.

[eastbay]

This is the worst kind of disgusting racism. It is also intellectually pathetic.

Well, actually cador is academically, empirically and demonstrably accurate. Caucasian average IQ may not be as high as Han Chinese, Koreans or non-Ainu Japanese, for example, but it certainly is above average and high enough to have manipulated the gifts of nature into complex creations like few people ever did before them.

The technical inventiveness of Caucasians will be remembered as incredible.

EastBay

[dmtu]

Libertarians will rule the Olduvai Gorge! Or will it be small fascist societies. Reguardless you can bet your ass it won't be Socialist, Democrats or, Republicans.

[tokyo_to_motueka]

one of Sam Koritz's recent posts on the "myth of PO":

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')There are two parts to the peak oil debate: (1) that oil production is, or will soon be, in decline, and (2) that unless governments prepare for this decline it will lead to a significant crisis. I don't believe oil production is in decline because: oil production keeps increasing, previous estimates of oil and other commodity shortages have been consistently wrong, and the price of oil does not appear to be in a long-term up trend, as one might expect if there were a supply shortage. The (inflation-adjusted) price of oil is lower than it was 25 years ago but higher than it was few years ago. The recent price rise is unsurprising, considering the surge in demand for commodities caused by China's economic boom. Compare for example this oil price chart -- here -- with this iron ore price chart: here.

Regardless, both economic theory and history suggest that the market is capable of adjusting, without major crisis, to commodity depletion.

[formandfile]

ah the cult of the free market strikes again....

[BiGG]

Wow Cool! And here I was starting to feel guilty about the gallon of fuel my boat burns per mile! Thanks Sam!