I challenged the Orlando gathering last week of the Libertarian Party with their Achilles heel:  property rights versus the commons.  Numerous members admitted that the LP has a horrible assumption of environmental degradation.

             And rightly so.  I've never heard them use the word "commons."  The word originated in England centuries ago to define what the royalty could not touch.  In fact, much of our current trial by jury, magistrates, and other components of our judicial system stem directly from that era when peasants desperately needed use of the commons just to grow their food.

             When the aristocracy owned everything and the king (or queen) could take anything he wanted, the judicial system developed to protect the unlanded peasants from privileged overreach.  Folks needed a place to grow vegetables, keep a milk cow, and gather firewood.  Of course, we all know about the tragedy of the commons where overuse destroyed the ecology.  If no one is in charge of use, no single person has an incentive to steward the area.  Certainly some communities cared for their commons well, policing abusers and creating plans to insure long-term carrying capacity, while others did not.

             Today, the commons is used more as a philosophical term to describe the air, soil and water that we all share.  These things are basic for our survival; we don't originate them and we need them here for our grandchildren.  The libertarian view is generally the notion that the best stewardship naturally flows from individual ownership and personal responsibility; that people tend to not abuse the resources that underpin their wealth.

             We all know now that is not the case.  We also know that in the words of Bill McKibben, there is no away.  My away is in someone else's back yard.  I assured them that I didn't have the answer to this conundrum, this balance between personal ownership and communal responsibility, but that they could build a lot of political equity if in their platform they would recognize the commons and the imperative of shared stewardship.

             We discussed briefly different policies that would reward stewardship, but of course most were met with skepticism since they involved governmental involvement.  I do think a huge difference exists between federal government involvement and local government involvement.  And I think most libertarians share this view; that many policies appropriate at a local level are inappropriate at a federal level.

             Perhaps if the libertarians simply suggested that environmental stewardship and policy is best served at the local level that would be enough to take the edge off the current perception that libertarians don't care about ecology.  At least if localities tangled with their own unique ecological contexts we could enjoy a mosaic of different ideas.  The problem with federalizing everything is that it creates a winner-take-all climate and destroys diversified policy.  Allowing and encouraging different ideas is the lifeblood of cultural innovation.

             By localizing environmental policy, one jurisdiction could sue another for damaging its water or stinking up its air.  Or a locality would sue a business for fouling the air.  Redress for common infringement created the basic tenets of western jurisprudence and is a far better remedy for abuse than bureaucrats who constantly overreach just like the British royalty.  Rather than creating a new royalty of technocracy, how about empowering individual communities to circle their own wagons?

             If we went back to an ancient level of commons care with policing through a jury of peers, would we need the Environmental Protection Agency?