A paradoxical objection to 'capitalism' as it exists today is that it brings too much progress and production, which harms natural environments as resources are consumed and wastes are created. The remedy, we are often told, is to 'put the brakes' on unhindered profit and production by empowering government with a mandate to interfere whenever it is deemed necessary by the bureaucratic officials charged with oversight. But progress is not the enemy of people or of environments. It is quite important to have unhindered economic progress if the environmental problems which always arise as civilization develops are to be solved. The expansion and change that are quite naturally a part of human civilization mean that our interaction with land, air, water, natural resources, environments, flora and fauna, and ecosystems must always be reconciled with the constant reinterpretation of financial, personal, scientific, medicinal, technological, and other interests. So it has always been, and so it will always be. There is no avoiding the reality that problems will arise and require answers. But these answers depend on achievement and development rather than bureaucratic control, especially scientific and technological development, which is the product of progress within a free market. Governmental interference to slow down economic progress will also slow down the means for finding solutions: individual accomplishment.

That is not to say that in the stateless free market of Promethean capitalism, people must never express displeasure with what is done with the resources of business and industry under its private and personal ownership, simply because of the general interest of progress. In Promethean capitalism, private ownership of land and resources by an individual or voluntary group does mean that it belongs to them for their use as they see fit, as long as they do not directly harm others or other property. However, there is also no obligation in a free market to purchase products produced from farms, businesses, and industries which are perceived as destructive to the environment. There is nothing preventing the organization of boycotts and peaceful protests. There is nothing standing in the way of purchasing this land for its conservation. There is also nothing that says poor caretakers cannot be shunned completely, if others desire to do so. There is quite a lot of room for deterring industries from environmental destruction just for short term-financial profit, if no one will buy what is produced or if it will cost considerable consumer goodwill in the future. And in extreme cases, independent arbitration may find that some actions on private property are excessively detrimental to the welfare of environmental resources, so as to cause directly harmful effects to other people, and that the perpetrators must be prevented from this. But such a malicious act deserving such an extreme response would certainly be perverse and infrequent, because in general it is direct personal ownership of property which ensures that individual human interests are well in line with wise, considered, and considerate behavior.

In thinking about the ecological impact of business practices, it is important to begin from what is desired rather than means. All too often, concern over environmental problems has stimulated agitation for the centralized ownership, or centralized management of land outside of individual hands, without considering the full implications of that investment of political power — and without realizing that those seemingly direct means will actually be untrustworthy and unlikely to achieve the desired effect of preserving and protecting the worth of environments.

Consider the parallel of art. Relatively few people clamor for central ownership of great art, for its protection. This is not because no one cares about art, quite the opposite. The reason is that there is no need to do so; the worth of most well-known kinds of art is widely recognized and acknowledged, with few exceptions. Just as a private owner of the Mona Lisa would never destroy it, and would be very likely to allow others to experience it as well (probably in exchange for compensation), a private owner of land who recognizes that the environment on his land is valuable in many senses, will be very likely to protect it and care for it well. Increasing awareness of this worth, and increasing the perception of the importance of resources and environmental conservation, helps to bring this about. That is the central task of beneficial environmentalism: education under the assumption that owners are the fitting caretakers of environments, capable of enlightened stewardship due to their own best interests.

The central, 'communal' ownership or management of resources and environmentally significant land has tended towards just the opposite from enlightened stewardship. This is especially the case when the avowed 'community' is large, and especially when it is structured around government, that is, when it is non-consensual. The larger the group, and the more centralized the political control of the group, the more removed it will be from personal interest, and personal responsibility. Most members of such a group will have no connection to the resources and land, and perhaps no knowledge of it, so that they have not become its caretakers of their own actively interested choice. This explains why small tribal groups which have banded together in consent have with very few counterexamples often managed environments and resources well, usually balancing the need for the use of resources with long-term conservation, both of which are in the personal interests of members of the tribe. Centralized nation-states, however, have a poor historical record. The very worst environmental devastation has been in authoritarian communist states with communal property; the extreme and almost universal pollution, large scale environmental destruction, and widespread disregard for long-term consequences under the centrally-planned economies of the Soviet Union, the eastern European Soviet bloc, and Maoist China are without comparison.

A more moderate example of federal mismanagement of land is the National Forest land in the United States. National Forests are supported by tax money as well as even more considerable visitor fees. As with many public resources, political influence tends to obtain access which is otherwise impossible. This is quite likely the reason why, at the same time that use of this land is limited for most people to charged visitation, subsidies are provided to encourage corporate use of national forests for timber, mining, and grazing. Perhaps these corporations are being responsible, but many feel that they are overusing the land. It might be surprising if they were not. Someone who owns a house and has to live in it is far more likely to maintain it well than someone who can live in a house he does not own, and move from house to house. Certainly, there is no particular interest in managing such land for the future. Not only are the corporations ordered without clear personal ownership and responsibility themselves, there is also no direct link between any individual owners and the land. There is no one to hear complaints except politicians and officials who have mismanaged the land by proxy in the first place, since they lacked a personal interest in it and knowledge of it. If a corporation destroys the land, they do not own it and they do not have to clean it up. If a politician or official entrusts the use of land to a destructive end, or to disastrous administration, it is unlikely they will be personally responsible in the massive, faceless bureaucracy that is the United States government. They will not have to clean it up themselves, and it will not affect them personally. They may never have had an appreciation of the land in question. They may never even look upon the land at all.

Without individually-referenced stewardship based on ownership, there is no personal incentive for the protection or conservation of resources and environments. Private property is no more the enemy of the environment than progress, and it is even more important to the preservation and care of this world. With property comes ownership, and with ownership comes both opportunity for personal gain, and personal responsibility for the future.

<< Promethean Capitalism contents
< previous, Part Four: Property and Arbitration
> next, Part Six: Monopolies