As I have expressed on several occasions, I am not a fan of regulating the market, in fact, it is totally the opposite, I believe that markets should be as free as possible, without tariffs, without value added taxes, without income taxes, without practically labor legislation, without legislation that conditions the production of goods and services, without intellectual property laws, that is, a market that is almost totally free; however, like everything, this has its exception.
As I move forward in my analysis of the possibilities of developing a true free market, I realize that although in theory this brilliant proposal intrinsically could not bring more than benefits, there are two main problems, which sadly, I have only found the solution through state control.
The first of them I have already discussed in a previous publication: Can economic protectionism be a protector of the free market?. In which I argue that local or national markets would be highly affected by legislation external to them, and that therefore, the free market would be destroyed from abroad and not from within the system, so that protectionism is considered as the only viable solution to face foreign laws and sustain a free market.
Now, while my analysis of the situation is progressing, I have noticed an even more worrisome problem for society, a specific problem that has been the source for the creation of multiple institutions and political parties especially focused on that same problem, which is basically the ecological issue.
First of all, I want to make clear that I am what would be considered a skeptic on the issue that human industrial behavior is the fundamental reason why climate change, global warming, or as you prefer to call it, is being carried out. However, I think it is inevitable to realize the damages that our consumption habits are having on the environment, that is, the level of environmental pollution, rather than climate change, is really a problem that affects billions of people, and that will inevitably lead, in one way or another, to the destruction of life on the planet.
Given this circumstance, we have two options; or we can sit idly by while waiting for a solution to be created spontaneously, while continuing with alternative ecological projects; or we take the bull by the horns, and face this problem as directly as possible.
I am one of those who believe that currently the free market can't provide a direct solution to this problem. Mainly because people's consumption habits don't seem to be changing at the expected speed, very few people actually opt for ecological products and services, in such a way that the free market, despite being probably much more environmentally friendly than current market, could lead to a huge ecological problem, because in the free market, the power to lead society, falls entirely into the hands of consumers of goods and services, who ultimately decide what should occur, where it must be produced, where it must be sold, in what quantity it must be made, and in what quality it must be designed, for what it is they, through an impersonal mechanism, who decide if the market should design more or less ecological products.
Under these circumstances, there are some questions that must be asked, would people freely take the greener option before the contamination? Would they greatly compromise their lifestyle in exchange for safeguarding the social future?
The answer to that unfortunately I don't have it, so trying to guess what would be the response of billions of people, would be an absurdity for me.
But in the event that these questions were answered in a negative way, there would still be a dilemma to face in order to carry out an intervention, in favor of ecology, in the market, and it would be basically the following one; is it morally acceptable for the State to intervene in our consumption habits to safeguard ecological well-being?
Well, allow me to paraphrase Bolivar: "No matter how great the wisdom contained in codes, systems and statutes, they are a dead letter having but little influence in society; virtuous men, patriotic men, learned men make the republic."
In this way, my response to this dilemma varies depending on a circumstance, because although I believe that the State is intrinsically authorized to intervene to safeguard the ecological well-being, since this same welfare derives the fact that the rights can be guaranteed natural of man, life, freedom and property, then what could the individual do without everything that naturally surrounds him; Could he live? Would he be free? What would he own? But I also consider that, if the individuals who govern are not virtuous, something difficult to find in the politicians, then they will not represent more than a threat, not only to ecology, but also to natural rights, so give them that power about us, it would only bring negative consequences.
Thus, as the solution to this problem can't fall on the State, but rather falls on the public conscience, the problem of the environment can only be solved if there is a moral commitment of the inhabitants to the planet, for safeguard collective welfare, not through coercion, but rather on the basis of free choice, and the practice of virtue.
