8 ms·

Coase, Pigou, all these ideas are fairly libertarian, just like other forms of property rights are, and externalities like pollution can be thought of as a form

by mikecb 10y ago

Coase, Pigou, all these ideas are fairly libertarian, just like other forms of property rights are, and externalities like pollution can be thought of as a form of trespass.

nickff 10y ago
Pigouvianism is inherently intolerant and totalitarian, not libertarian, as it relies on imposing one's value judgements on others. Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may be 'nicer', but is not Liberty.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may be 'nicer', but is not Liberty. So if I reduce the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years, I am simply exercising my liberty?
  - nickff 10y ago
    You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. There are a great many works on this type of issue, and if you are looking for a complete answer, I suggest you read them. If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone else.
    - fweespeech 10y ago
      > You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. And if you know its a common tort or trespass, it is simpler to tax that tort/trespass rather than require every individual to sue every other individual. > If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone els I don't really care. I just find your doublethink curious and wanted to confirm it was what I thought it was. I find Doublethink in general a very interesting subject.
      - nickff 10y ago
        What doublethink are you talking about? There is no internal inconsistency in my position, I just disagree with you.
        fweespeech 10y ago
        I assumed: A) You believe climate change and science by majority consensus on scientific facts exist. B) You believe pollution is grounds for a lawsuit (which is a form of tax in that you are charged a fee for violating the social contract) which is enforced by society due to the damage it represents. C) You believe carbon is pollution but is not grounds for a lawsuit (which is a form of tax in that you are charged a fee for violating the social contract) which is enforced by society due to the damage it represents.
        nickff 10y ago
        Voluntary agreements, legal settlements, and damages awards are not equivalent to taxes. For example, if I were to set your car on fire, and you sued me for that tort, any payment I made to you would be compensation, not a tax. In addition, social contract theory is wrong, and I don't believe in it.[1] Pollution may be grounds for a lawsuit, or it may not, it depends on the circumstances, just like any other tort or trespass. [1] http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Huemer1.pdf http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Huemer1.pdf
        fweespeech 10y ago
        Okay, so you just don't believe climate change exists.
        nickff 10y ago
        You've changed this post at least two times since I first tried to respond to it; I can't write a coherent response if you keep on deleting your post and re-writing it. And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists'; as a matter of fact, I avoid the issue of consensus/reality entirely, as it has become a morass of tribal politics, where each side rejects the arguments of the other out of hand.
    - tzs 10y ago
      • Scenario 1 I build my factory next to your land. A byproduct of my factory is a bunch of polluted water, which drains strait onto your land, causing much damage. The tort system could deal with this fine [1]. You can easily prove that it was the pollution from my factory that damaged your land. This may not be a good way to deal with it, because (1) it takes effort to take someone to court, which many small landowners may not have the time for and so will discourage them from defending their property rights, and (2) it assumes that only the monetary value of your land is important and thus it is OK for someone to damage your land as long as they pay. • Scenario 2 I build my factory 1000 miles from your land. My polluted water runs into a nearby river, eventually makes it to the ocean, and some of it eventually ends up on your land. The tort system is useless to address your injury. There are too many chaotic physical processes between the emission of the pollution at my end and the arrival of pollution at your end for you to prove that any of that pollution came from me. If you sue me, my defense is that there are hundreds or thousands of other factories polluting, and for all we know all of my pollution either stayed in the ocean or when it got back to land ended up on land other than yours. If we modify the tort system so that in the case of pollution we turn the burden of proof around and require the defendant to prove that they did not pollute the plaintiff's property, then you can sort of make it work. But if we do that, now we've just turned the problem around. It will be almost impossible for me to prove that my pollution did not reach any given plaintiff. Anyone who finds pollution of the type that my factory produces can easily and successfully sue me. If that's the case, then as soon as you sue me, I'll be filing third party complaints against all the other factories that emit the same kind of pollution, alleging that they are equally responsible for the pollution that damaged you. Of course, you won't be the only plaintiff suing me, since pollution spreads far and wide from the source. And all of the defendants will be filing third party complaints against all the other defendants. So we'll end up with a bazillion lawsuits, each consisting of one plaintiff with damaged land, and thousands of factory owner defendants. Someone will try and succeed in turning this into a class action. The class plaintiffs will win, damages will be accessed will be accessed with each factory's share probably proportional to the amount of their pollution, and split among the plaintiffs proportionally to the damage to their land. This only settles things among those defendants and the plaintiffs that are in the class, so this thing will have to be repeated when new plaintiffs arise or new factories are built. The net result will be that instead of a simple, straightforward, approach of the legislature creating a pollution fee or tax with the proceeds going to pollution cleanup, with the executive handling enforcement, we end up with an ad hoc sort of equivalent cobbled together from the tort system that is costlier, more time consuming, and has a lot more uncertainty (and still needs legislative action to create because it depends on changing the burden of proof in pollution cases). [1] By "deal with it fine", I mean identify the party responsible for the pollution and make them pay monetary damages. One can make a good case that this is not actually fine, for at least two reasons. First, it assumes that only the monetary value of land is important. Land often has esthetic or sentimental value to people, which they would not give up even for much much more money than anyone else would pay for the land. Second, it takes time and effort to sue someone. Many small landowners would not have the resources for that, and so would have to just suck it up and accept the pollution.
- mikecb 10y ago
  Strict libertarianism recognizes central authorities as a role to prevent you from taking from me, which is what distinguishes it from anarchism. Libertarians should like pigou because it's the theoretical most efficient. Of course, auctioned cap and trade turns out to be the most efficient in the real world, because it turns out we're not good at estimating true prices.
  - nickff 10y ago
    There is no such thing as 'strict libertarianism'; libertarianism is a spectrum (with one or more dimensions), with many internal divides including issues such as intellectual property. Depending on the libertarian you speak with, they may argue for a robust system of police, or a 'minarchist' government which only deals with external threats and trade issues. Auctioned cap and trade is good at achieving two objectives: 1) a strict limit, and 2) political cronyism. Most people who suggest a carbon tax are in favor of instituting it, then adjusting based on the resulting emissions. We are no better at estimating the results of any given level of pollution or emissions than we are at forecasting supply and demand response to price changes.
    - mikecb 10y ago
      Maybe I should have said theoretical or stereotypical. Apologies.
socialist_coder 10y ago
> externalities like pollution can be thought of as a form of trespass Perhaps in theory, but American Libertarianism will never see anyone recovering any losses due to rising CO2 / climate change. You would have to sue someone in court and win. And do you really think you can successfully sue Exxon Mobil when your shellfish farm is ruined because of ocean acidification? This is basically why US Libertarianism is broken. If we truly had a Libertarian government, the environment would be quickly ruined.
- mikecb 10y ago
  A cap and trade system where the initial credits were auctioned would be the closest I could imagine to recovering losses, yes.

by mikecb 10y ago

Coase, Pigou, all these ideas are fairly libertarian, just like other forms of property rights are, and externalities like pollution can be thought of as a form of trespass.

nickff 10y ago

Pigouvianism is inherently intolerant and totalitarian, not libertarian, as it relies on imposing one's value judgements on others. Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may be 'nicer', but is not Liberty.

fweespeech 10y ago
> Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may be 'nicer', but is not Liberty. So if I reduce the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years, I am simply exercising my liberty?
- nickff 10y ago
  You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. There are a great many works on this type of issue, and if you are looking for a complete answer, I suggest you read them. If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone else.
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    > You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. And if you know its a common tort or trespass, it is simpler to tax that tort/trespass rather than require every individual to sue every other individual. > If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone els I don't really care. I just find your doublethink curious and wanted to confirm it was what I thought it was. I find Doublethink in general a very interesting subject.
    - nickff 10y ago
      What doublethink are you talking about? There is no internal inconsistency in my position, I just disagree with you.
      - fweespeech 10y ago
        I assumed: A) You believe climate change and science by majority consensus on scientific facts exist. B) You believe pollution is grounds for a lawsuit (which is a form of tax in that you are charged a fee for violating the social contract) which is enforced by society due to the damage it represents. C) You believe carbon is pollution but is not grounds for a lawsuit (which is a form of tax in that you are charged a fee for violating the social contract) which is enforced by society due to the damage it represents.
        nickff 10y ago
        Voluntary agreements, legal settlements, and damages awards are not equivalent to taxes. For example, if I were to set your car on fire, and you sued me for that tort, any payment I made to you would be compensation, not a tax. In addition, social contract theory is wrong, and I don't believe in it.[1] Pollution may be grounds for a lawsuit, or it may not, it depends on the circumstances, just like any other tort or trespass. [1] http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Huemer1.pdf http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Huemer1.pdf
        fweespeech 10y ago
        Okay, so you just don't believe climate change exists.
        nickff 10y ago
        You've changed this post at least two times since I first tried to respond to it; I can't write a coherent response if you keep on deleting your post and re-writing it. And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists'; as a matter of fact, I avoid the issue of consensus/reality entirely, as it has become a morass of tribal politics, where each side rejects the arguments of the other out of hand.
  - tzs 10y ago
    • Scenario 1 I build my factory next to your land. A byproduct of my factory is a bunch of polluted water, which drains strait onto your land, causing much damage. The tort system could deal with this fine [1]. You can easily prove that it was the pollution from my factory that damaged your land. This may not be a good way to deal with it, because (1) it takes effort to take someone to court, which many small landowners may not have the time for and so will discourage them from defending their property rights, and (2) it assumes that only the monetary value of your land is important and thus it is OK for someone to damage your land as long as they pay. • Scenario 2 I build my factory 1000 miles from your land. My polluted water runs into a nearby river, eventually makes it to the ocean, and some of it eventually ends up on your land. The tort system is useless to address your injury. There are too many chaotic physical processes between the emission of the pollution at my end and the arrival of pollution at your end for you to prove that any of that pollution came from me. If you sue me, my defense is that there are hundreds or thousands of other factories polluting, and for all we know all of my pollution either stayed in the ocean or when it got back to land ended up on land other than yours. If we modify the tort system so that in the case of pollution we turn the burden of proof around and require the defendant to prove that they did not pollute the plaintiff's property, then you can sort of make it work. But if we do that, now we've just turned the problem around. It will be almost impossible for me to prove that my pollution did not reach any given plaintiff. Anyone who finds pollution of the type that my factory produces can easily and successfully sue me. If that's the case, then as soon as you sue me, I'll be filing third party complaints against all the other factories that emit the same kind of pollution, alleging that they are equally responsible for the pollution that damaged you. Of course, you won't be the only plaintiff suing me, since pollution spreads far and wide from the source. And all of the defendants will be filing third party complaints against all the other defendants. So we'll end up with a bazillion lawsuits, each consisting of one plaintiff with damaged land, and thousands of factory owner defendants. Someone will try and succeed in turning this into a class action. The class plaintiffs will win, damages will be accessed will be accessed with each factory's share probably proportional to the amount of their pollution, and split among the plaintiffs proportionally to the damage to their land. This only settles things among those defendants and the plaintiffs that are in the class, so this thing will have to be repeated when new plaintiffs arise or new factories are built. The net result will be that instead of a simple, straightforward, approach of the legislature creating a pollution fee or tax with the proceeds going to pollution cleanup, with the executive handling enforcement, we end up with an ad hoc sort of equivalent cobbled together from the tort system that is costlier, more time consuming, and has a lot more uncertainty (and still needs legislative action to create because it depends on changing the burden of proof in pollution cases). [1] By "deal with it fine", I mean identify the party responsible for the pollution and make them pay monetary damages. One can make a good case that this is not actually fine, for at least two reasons. First, it assumes that only the monetary value of land is important. Land often has esthetic or sentimental value to people, which they would not give up even for much much more money than anyone else would pay for the land. Second, it takes time and effort to sue someone. Many small landowners would not have the resources for that, and so would have to just suck it up and accept the pollution.
mikecb 10y ago
Strict libertarianism recognizes central authorities as a role to prevent you from taking from me, which is what distinguishes it from anarchism. Libertarians should like pigou because it's the theoretical most efficient. Of course, auctioned cap and trade turns out to be the most efficient in the real world, because it turns out we're not good at estimating true prices.
- nickff 10y ago
  There is no such thing as 'strict libertarianism'; libertarianism is a spectrum (with one or more dimensions), with many internal divides including issues such as intellectual property. Depending on the libertarian you speak with, they may argue for a robust system of police, or a 'minarchist' government which only deals with external threats and trade issues. Auctioned cap and trade is good at achieving two objectives: 1) a strict limit, and 2) political cronyism. Most people who suggest a carbon tax are in favor of instituting it, then adjusting based on the resulting emissions. We are no better at estimating the results of any given level of pollution or emissions than we are at forecasting supply and demand response to price changes.
  - mikecb 10y ago
    Maybe I should have said theoretical or stereotypical. Apologies.

socialist_coder 10y ago

> externalities like pollution can be thought of as a form of trespass Perhaps in theory, but American Libertarianism will never see anyone recovering any losses due to rising CO2 / climate change. You would have to sue someone in court and win. And do you really think you can successfully sue Exxon Mobil when your shellfish farm is ruined because of ocean acidification? This is basically why US Libertarianism is broken. If we truly had a Libertarian government, the environment would be quickly ruined.

mikecb 10y ago
A cap and trade system where the initial credits were auctioned would be the closest I could imagine to recovering losses, yes.