Ryan McMaken
The hydraulic fracturing (fracking) industry is fighting regulations
or outright bans against fracking in a variety of states and
localities. There are many reasons to oppose government restrictions on
fracking, of course. If a fracking operation can arrange to frack on
private land and pay market rates (not subsidized rates) for water, then
there is no reason why a private company should not be free to do so.
If fracking results in polluting a neighbor’s land or water, the
fracking organization in question should be liable in the fashion
outlined by Rothbard for dealing with polluters.
One reason to
not support fracking, though, is because it is good for “energy independence” or
economic nationalism.
Both concepts have long been dreams of militarists and economic
interventionists who believe that investors, consumers, and private
citizens should be dictated to by government as to what they can buy,
where they should invest, and whom they should be able to work for.
Every now and then, one sees a new article coming from nationalists such
as Pat Buchanan who claim that it is a matter of “national security”
that the United State attempt autarky in food production, energy
production, and, of course, production of the machinery of war. Since
capital and labor move constantly to better accommodate consumers and do
not respect national borders, such autarky can only be achieved through
government regulation, prohibition, and force.
Thus, you can understand my disappointment when I noticed this video
from a pro-fracking industry group called Friends for Safe Energy that
argues for freedom in fracking, not because freedom or respect for
private property are good things, but because fracking is (allegedly)
bad for the Russians. In other words, faced with the option of appealing
to basic human rights (such as private property) or appealing to rank
and crude nationalism, the fracking group decided to go with the latter:
Why bother with a pro-freedom argument when you can employ nationalistic fear-mongering and ethnic stereotypes instead?
As an argument, this is barely a step up from the “If you Ride Alone You Ride With Hitler”
propaganda campaign
which lectured Americans about not contributing enough to “energy
independence.” They didn’t use that term back then, but that’s what they
meant. Yes, it’s true that the stated goal (at least on the surface) of
“Friends of Safe Energy” is more freedom for frackers and their
clients, but is it necessary to make their case by employing inherently
statist canards? It’s also true that there’s nothing wrong with
encouraging people to carpool, but we all know that to encourage
economic nationalism, whether it’s anti-Hitler or anti-Russian, is to
posture against free trade, free association, and consumer freedom.
Not that we should be surprised. Numerous major industries, including
the oil industry have long had a very bad record on free trade and free
markets. From the sugar industry, to steel, all the way back to
Jefferson’s trade embargo, many domestic industries have been more than
happy to encourage xenophobia and nationalism to help the bottom line.
Friends for Safe Energy is apparently carrying on this tradition, and
if they’re the best we can hope for in making the case for free
markets, we are in deep trouble indeed.
This piece was reprinted by RINF Alternative News with permission or license.
