Does Combating Climate Change Justify Violating Rights?

The climate change question is really at least four questions. (There are other related questions as well.)

1.) Is climate change occurring or is it just normal fluctuations we haven’t yet recognized due to only possessing a couple centuries worth of data?

2.) If climate change is occurring, is mankind entirely or largely to blame?

3.) If climate change is occurring, can mankind actually have an impact on slowing or reversing the process at this point?

4.) Is infringing on self-ownership and property rights justified as a method of combating the (perceived) threat of climate change?

Regardless of the answers to questions 1-3, my answer to question 4 is an unequivocal NO!

Save as PDFPrint

Written by 

Parrish Miller has worked as a web designer, policy analyst, blogger, journalist, digital media manager, and social media marketing consultant. Having been largely cured of his political inclinations, he now finds philosophy more interesting than politics and is focused particularly on alternative ideas such as counter-economics, agorism, voluntaryism, and unschooling.

Notify of

1 Comment
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
5 years ago

I think your wording of 4 is a tad biased. If it’s true that man-made climate change is causing, for example, desertification and droughts that endanger others, I don’t see how this wouldn’t constitute an act of aggression any less than a lynching would. Self-ownership and property rights would then be about stopping such things.

But it seems like you’re defining the content of property rights independent of a definition of possible violations of those rights, which seems like a confusing protocol to me.