Greens?
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.
This is just the sort of egalitarianism that libertarians have always opposed. It is not merely dangerous to a libertarian politics; the two are antithetical.
What does it really mean, after all, for all persons to have"the rights... to benefit equally... from the resources afforded us... by the environment?" It means constant, massive redistribution of resources. It means an enormous and intrusive state to do the dirty work. It means the end of the free market and the beginning of socialism. Whether you're a libertarian by way of Rothbard, Nozick, Rand, Friedman, or anyone else for that matter, it's hard to see how this economic egalitarianism is at all a defensible value. And even if you see the worth of voting strategically for Democrats -- as many libertarians have lately done to achieve gridlock -- it's hard to see the strategic benefits to voting Green.
A practical illustration may help. Consider Maryland Libertarian Party Senate candidate Kevin Zeese, who appeared on the state ballot under the Green Party's name while receiving the LP's endorsement. Zeese supported single-payer healthcare and defaulted altogether on the question of property rights and regulatory takings. A candidates' questionnaire asked him,"Would you favor having the Congress restore protection for such bodies of water as headwaters streams, isolated wetlands, and prairie potholes?" His answer?"Yes," to which his only qualifiers were examples of how he would further expand the power of Congress. It wasn't merely that he disagreed with the standard libertarian position on environmental issues and private property -- no, he seemed utterly ignorant that libertarians even had a position here. Yet for the past several years, regulatory takings have been one of most important concerns in libertarian policymaking.
The most obvious libertarian answer to this question would simply be"no." Just no. Not even yes. No.
Other plausible answers might include"Yes, but only provided that the government is held to very strict rules that give due compensation for the lost value of the property." Or, if we're feeling really wonkish, we could make some reference to the work of Ronald Coase, which provides a free-market solution to this very problem, one in which the government only adjudicates and protects a newly created market in land use rights that might not otherwise exist.
So anyway... If Kevin Zeese shows what we'd get from a libertarian-Green alliance, I have to say I'm not interested. Pot legalization is great; ending the war is great. If I were a legislator, I'd happily vote with the Greens -- on those issues. But I can't go further than that. The underlying economic egalitarianism just ruins the whole deal for me, and this recent all-too-local example shows that it's not just an abstract or a theoretical concern.
[Crossposted at Positive Liberty.]