How does a Libertarian say "ethanol lobby"? Getting corned
Trevor Bothwell, writing at Lew Rockwell's Libertarian website, has had it up to here with the government trying to foist ethanol down our gas tanks. As we mentioned this summer, some boaters reported lots of problems when using E10, and Bothwell was one of them. He needed to get the carburetors repaired on his 2005 17-foot Boston Whaler with a 90-horsepower Mercury four-stroke outboard engine. While he admits this particular engine is especially ethanol-unfriendly, he still blames the government for forcing him to use the corn-based fuel at all. Bothwell thinks the worst part of the government's push for ethanol is the mandates which "impose all sorts of costs on citizens" but he also doesn't like that "there is evidence suggesting that this ethanol push is more or less intended to be one big handout for American corn farmers, and, by extension, ethanol manufacturers."
I agree the government is a little too into ethanol for anyone's real benefit. I disagree with Bothwell and Rockwell that the state should be kept out of our vehicles entirely (can you say seat belts? How about unleaded gasoline?), but if ethanol is the problem, then should the free-market solution be to build better engines?
To get an idea of where writers on Rockwell's site come from, politically, here's how Lew's sites explains who he is: "an opponent of the central state, its wars and its socialism." The writers featured don't, of course, speak for him, but they are people he finds "important, or simply interesting."
Related:
[Source: LewRockwell.com via Free Market News Network]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1985 Gripen 5:08PM (1/01/2007)
While I agree with the general opinion expressed, I have a concern about the Libertarian Party's views on the environment. As a Libertarian myself I'm concerned specifically that the Party doesn't seem to have a uniform platform that addresses environmental issues at all.
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
Personally, I think the free market approach works in most cases and that government is RARELY the solution to problems (adding red tape and bureaucracy is very inefficient), but I don't know how the free-market system can address most environmental issues.
For example, even if all subsidies for both ethanol production and petroleum production were revoked so they could compete on more level ground (along with other great alternatives such as biobutanol) I'm not sure that petroleum wouldn't still be the least expensive option. Therefore most people without an overt interest in the environment will still go for the cheaper option, which is worse for the environment.
The Libertarian Party as a whole needs to get together to come up with a platform that addresses the very serious problem of climate change. Not that the Repubicrats have a better, more unified plan for the environment...
Reply
Neil 3:34AM (1/02/2007)
I am generally a voting libertarian and I agree our platform on the environment is a bit lacking. Eliminating tariff's and other red tape in the way of cheaper ethanol is absolutely a fantastic idea. But yeah, I still think oil will remain king regardless. I think one of the most reasonable positions a libertarian can take is admit that markets, as powerful as they are, can not account for everything. 99% of the time they should be left to their own devices and we will all be better for it. However a lot of libertarians (not the anarchists) admit that government control of the commons is a necessary evil. However a libertarian-sized government is much, much smaller, and so in theory it can do a much better job overseeing those commons and enforcing other necessary environmental laws, such as air pollution credits and water quality. An issue like global warming is another example. If government does need to step in, libertarians can advocate that it's done in a market based way. For example, if we want a cap on CO2 output, the most efficient way to do it is just to set up a system of CO2 pollution credits and set the price such that the equilibrium results in the desired output or less. Markets can react to the price and figure out how best to adjust, whether it be less air travel and more trains, or whatever. This is far better than government trying to set regulations that determine what kind of vehicles we buy, while letting people buy private jets without penalty. The markets are smarter and far more dynamic than bureaucrats so the challenge for libertarians is to convince people of that and sell ideas that use the power of markets. Some environmental regulations are necessary and libertarians should offer the ideas that are most compatible with free markets (or as free as possible).
Reply
Tim 3:45PM (1/02/2007)
When can we can stop giving away $Billions every year on corn subsidies mainly to large corporate producers? http://www.taxpayer.net/agriculture/learnmore/factsheets/corn.pdf Maybe we can spend some of that on something more productive than buying votes? Like, maybe renewable electricity generation and storage for ZEV transportation. You know, NO INTERNAL COMBUSTION PERIOD! http://internalcombustionbook.com and NO HYDROGEN SCAM http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h_scam.htm
Reply
Trevor 5:52PM (1/18/2007)
Sebastian, I thought I would share my thoughts on seat belt laws since you mentioned it.
http://bothwell.typepad.com/whos_your_nanny/2007/01/kentucky_applau.html
Thanks,
TJB
Reply