5 ms·

"Libertarian" and "tax" in the same sentence. How does that even work?

by JustUhThought 10y ago

vorotato 10y ago
I assume by arguing the personal liberty cost of emissions outweighs the personal liberty gained by tax reduction.
- unprepare 10y ago
  wouldnt the libertarian reaction to emissions be to sue the emitter for the lowered quality of air?
  - ancap 10y ago
    Yes
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    Why is anybody entitled to free unpolluted oxygen in libertopia?
    - socialist_coder 10y ago
      Yes, why would humanity be interested in keeping the only environment we currently have in a livable state? It is truly a mystery.
    - throwaway2016a 10y ago
      I'm going to answer your flamebait with a real answer: Because no one can own the air and you do not have a right to pollute something you do not own... further more if you pollute on land you do own you cannot guarantee the pollution will go to land owned by other people. And if you can guarantee that it will stay on your property, win win, we solved global warming!
      - ancap 10y ago
        I disagree that no one can own the air. To clarify, airspace can be homesteaded like any other piece of property. Obviously this is not necessarily the ownership of every air molecule in a given airspace as that would be quite impractical. But just the same, no one can pollute someone else's airspace.
        throwaway2016a 10y ago
        Airspace is not air. Air flows freely across airspace. How can you guarantee that your air will not flow into my property?
        ancap 10y ago
        From a libertarian perspective, at least when discussing air pollution, it is unimportant that air molecules flow from one property to another. What is important is that I do not pollute your airspace.
  - mrsteveman1 10y ago
    I'm not at all familiar with the law in this area, but what stands in the way of doing that right now?
    - mediaman 10y ago
      Frictional costs of reclaiming those costs: lawsuits are expensive, and when a large number of people are impacted a small to moderate amount, it's very difficult for diffused harm (those breathing polluted air) to reclaim damages against concentrated gain (polluting industry). This would be the argument for creating more of a structured market approach to assigning the costs of these externalities: courts are inefficient and plagued with problems when there's a power difference between the parties, so creating a market structure allows those externalities to be compensated in a more efficient way, while still allowing market pricing to incentivize industry to resolve the externality in the most efficient way available. The libertarian's argument against this (I imagine) is that any government market scheme will screw it up more, though I don't know why so much faith is placed in the court system as a magically efficient system that resolves property disputes fairly and cost effectively in cases like diffused externalities.
    - tzs 10y ago
      One big problem is proof. In a civil suit plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was responsible for the harm. Our water systems and our atmosphere are large, very effective mixers, and pollution injected at one point can travel hundreds or even thousands of kilometers before ending up on someone's land and causing damages. An emission of pollution from one polluter and another of the same kind and amount emitted at the same time from a second polluter a few kilometers away could end up taking very different paths and end up causing harm to people thousands of kilometers apart.
  - JustUhThought 10y ago
    Agreed. That's how I read their platform.
  - gpm 10y ago
    In a perfect court system where the overhead of a lawsuit is 0, sure, that would be an acceptable outcome. In reality that's not the case, and there is no overarching principle any sect of libertarians hold (as far as I know) that harm can only be addressed via lawsuits. Since the overhead of lawsuits grows ridiculously large when the number of plaintiffs is equal to the population of the country (or even world), the far more practical solution is to just directly apply a Carbon Tax. This is pretty much equivalent to a lawsuit without the overhead of the courts. The biggest difference is while after a lawsuit the wealth is distributed directly, here the wealth is distributed by lowering taxes.
    - dpark 10y ago
      I believe the Libertarian party stance is that such damages should be addressed via lawsuits.
      - gpm 10y ago
        So, the party platform apparently opposes any government action on the issue. The reasoning seems to be more "it's not effective" than "the proper way to address it is lawsuits" though. On the other hand I've seen Gary Johnson quotes like this one > In 2016, as a candidate, Johnson talks about balancing the budget but lacks the zeal of libertarians who think the state could be cut in half without consequence. He’d keep Social Security for current retirees. He wouldn’t abolish the EPA, after learning in New Mexico how the government policed bad actors. > “In the libertarian view, without the EPA, you as an individual could sue under the law,” said Johnson. “But not really. You don’t have deep pockets to go up against Chevron.” From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-libertarian-gary-johnson-a-factor-in-clinton-trump-matchup/2016/06/10/05025d84-2dc5-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-libertarian-gary-... Either way, good point.
  - jcfrei 10y ago
    That's already happening. Ie. ExxonMobile: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/03/exxonmobil-sued-pollution-baton-rouge http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/03/exxonmobil-sued-po... or Volkswagen: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/us-civil-suit-volkswagen-clean-air-act https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/us-civil-sui... But as another commentator pointed out that's a very inefficient process because courts generate a huge overhead. And the US already spends way too much on lawyers imho.
  - throwaway2016a 10y ago
    Most of the Libertarian's I know are moving away from this for the case of the environment for the various reasons listed and add one more, that in this country the court cannot make new laws. But with that said too: the government itself can sue, it doesn't have to be people.
- JustUhThought 10y ago
  I just went and read the Libertarian Party's platform. [1] Under the issue of Environment: "Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required." And under Government Finance and Spending: "All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a 'Balanced Budget Amendment' to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes." So, unless it is shown to be constitutionally mandated a carvon tax is not endorsed by their platform. If I read correctly, it would not be endorsed under their Crime and Justice section either. Interesting aside, the Libertarian Party doesn't seem to be aware that all (100%) of U.S. currency is based on debt. The Treasury issues a bond, the Fed lrints money to buy it, and then all that goes into circulation. It's not magic, it's explicitly fiat, but I guess they missed that, or want to go back to something like the gold standard, which totally makes sense if you believe in the intrinsic value of gold rather than simply inderstanding it as a convenient means to mark a currency against if you want to limit inflation as only so much gold production per year is possible. [1] https://www.lp.org/platform https://www.lp.org/platform
  - dpark 10y ago
    Most people who identify as libertarian (little 'l') do not identify as Libertarian (big 'L'). When someone makes a libertarian argument, it's generally not intended to be a Libertarian argument, in the same way that someone making an argument based on democratic principles is generally not making an argument based on the platform of the Democratic party.
elgabogringo 10y ago
Because it's a Billionaire shilling for more subsidies, that's how.
fweespeech 10y ago
Damage to the commons via pollution should be paid for by the polluter.
throwaway2016a 10y ago
Libertarians are not anti-tax. This is a common falisy. Libertarians are anti-income and sometimes property tax but not anti-consumption tax. Basically the government cannot take "by force" the money that an individual earned or forcefully levy a tax on property they own. But taxing someone for polluting the atmosphere? Sure. Carbon tax is actually very Libertarian. Greenhouse gasses pollute the commons which deprives other's of their right to quality air. I think many Libertarians would be for the government stepping in to end pollution of the commons and making companies pay for their own pollution is a fair way to do it.

"Libertarian" and "tax" in the same sentence. How does that even work?

vorotato 10y ago

I assume by arguing the personal liberty cost of emissions outweighs the personal liberty gained by tax reduction.

unprepare 10y ago
wouldnt the libertarian reaction to emissions be to sue the emitter for the lowered quality of air?
- ancap 10y ago
  Yes
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  Why is anybody entitled to free unpolluted oxygen in libertopia?
  - socialist_coder 10y ago
    Yes, why would humanity be interested in keeping the only environment we currently have in a livable state? It is truly a mystery.
  - throwaway2016a 10y ago
    I'm going to answer your flamebait with a real answer: Because no one can own the air and you do not have a right to pollute something you do not own... further more if you pollute on land you do own you cannot guarantee the pollution will go to land owned by other people. And if you can guarantee that it will stay on your property, win win, we solved global warming!
    - ancap 10y ago
      I disagree that no one can own the air. To clarify, airspace can be homesteaded like any other piece of property. Obviously this is not necessarily the ownership of every air molecule in a given airspace as that would be quite impractical. But just the same, no one can pollute someone else's airspace.
      - throwaway2016a 10y ago
        Airspace is not air. Air flows freely across airspace. How can you guarantee that your air will not flow into my property?
        ancap 10y ago
        From a libertarian perspective, at least when discussing air pollution, it is unimportant that air molecules flow from one property to another. What is important is that I do not pollute your airspace.
- mrsteveman1 10y ago
  I'm not at all familiar with the law in this area, but what stands in the way of doing that right now?
  - mediaman 10y ago
    Frictional costs of reclaiming those costs: lawsuits are expensive, and when a large number of people are impacted a small to moderate amount, it's very difficult for diffused harm (those breathing polluted air) to reclaim damages against concentrated gain (polluting industry). This would be the argument for creating more of a structured market approach to assigning the costs of these externalities: courts are inefficient and plagued with problems when there's a power difference between the parties, so creating a market structure allows those externalities to be compensated in a more efficient way, while still allowing market pricing to incentivize industry to resolve the externality in the most efficient way available. The libertarian's argument against this (I imagine) is that any government market scheme will screw it up more, though I don't know why so much faith is placed in the court system as a magically efficient system that resolves property disputes fairly and cost effectively in cases like diffused externalities.
  - tzs 10y ago
    One big problem is proof. In a civil suit plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was responsible for the harm. Our water systems and our atmosphere are large, very effective mixers, and pollution injected at one point can travel hundreds or even thousands of kilometers before ending up on someone's land and causing damages. An emission of pollution from one polluter and another of the same kind and amount emitted at the same time from a second polluter a few kilometers away could end up taking very different paths and end up causing harm to people thousands of kilometers apart.
- JustUhThought 10y ago
  Agreed. That's how I read their platform.
- gpm 10y ago
  In a perfect court system where the overhead of a lawsuit is 0, sure, that would be an acceptable outcome. In reality that's not the case, and there is no overarching principle any sect of libertarians hold (as far as I know) that harm can only be addressed via lawsuits. Since the overhead of lawsuits grows ridiculously large when the number of plaintiffs is equal to the population of the country (or even world), the far more practical solution is to just directly apply a Carbon Tax. This is pretty much equivalent to a lawsuit without the overhead of the courts. The biggest difference is while after a lawsuit the wealth is distributed directly, here the wealth is distributed by lowering taxes.
  - dpark 10y ago
    I believe the Libertarian party stance is that such damages should be addressed via lawsuits.
    - gpm 10y ago
      So, the party platform apparently opposes any government action on the issue. The reasoning seems to be more "it's not effective" than "the proper way to address it is lawsuits" though. On the other hand I've seen Gary Johnson quotes like this one > In 2016, as a candidate, Johnson talks about balancing the budget but lacks the zeal of libertarians who think the state could be cut in half without consequence. He’d keep Social Security for current retirees. He wouldn’t abolish the EPA, after learning in New Mexico how the government policed bad actors. > “In the libertarian view, without the EPA, you as an individual could sue under the law,” said Johnson. “But not really. You don’t have deep pockets to go up against Chevron.” From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-libertarian-gary-johnson-a-factor-in-clinton-trump-matchup/2016/06/10/05025d84-2dc5-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-libertarian-gary-... Either way, good point.
- jcfrei 10y ago
  That's already happening. Ie. ExxonMobile: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/03/exxonmobil-sued-pollution-baton-rouge http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/03/exxonmobil-sued-po... or Volkswagen: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/us-civil-suit-volkswagen-clean-air-act https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/us-civil-sui... But as another commentator pointed out that's a very inefficient process because courts generate a huge overhead. And the US already spends way too much on lawyers imho.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  Most of the Libertarian's I know are moving away from this for the case of the environment for the various reasons listed and add one more, that in this country the court cannot make new laws. But with that said too: the government itself can sue, it doesn't have to be people.
JustUhThought 10y ago
I just went and read the Libertarian Party's platform. [1] Under the issue of Environment: "Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required." And under Government Finance and Spending: "All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a 'Balanced Budget Amendment' to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes." So, unless it is shown to be constitutionally mandated a carvon tax is not endorsed by their platform. If I read correctly, it would not be endorsed under their Crime and Justice section either. Interesting aside, the Libertarian Party doesn't seem to be aware that all (100%) of U.S. currency is based on debt. The Treasury issues a bond, the Fed lrints money to buy it, and then all that goes into circulation. It's not magic, it's explicitly fiat, but I guess they missed that, or want to go back to something like the gold standard, which totally makes sense if you believe in the intrinsic value of gold rather than simply inderstanding it as a convenient means to mark a currency against if you want to limit inflation as only so much gold production per year is possible. [1] https://www.lp.org/platform https://www.lp.org/platform
- dpark 10y ago
  Most people who identify as libertarian (little 'l') do not identify as Libertarian (big 'L'). When someone makes a libertarian argument, it's generally not intended to be a Libertarian argument, in the same way that someone making an argument based on democratic principles is generally not making an argument based on the platform of the Democratic party.

elgabogringo 10y ago

Because it's a Billionaire shilling for more subsidies, that's how.

fweespeech 10y ago

Damage to the commons via pollution should be paid for by the polluter.

throwaway2016a 10y ago

Libertarians are not anti-tax. This is a common falisy. Libertarians are anti-income and sometimes property tax but not anti-consumption tax. Basically the government cannot take "by force" the money that an individual earned or forcefully levy a tax on property they own. But taxing someone for polluting the atmosphere? Sure. Carbon tax is actually very Libertarian. Greenhouse gasses pollute the commons which deprives other's of their right to quality air. I think many Libertarians would be for the government stepping in to end pollution of the commons and making companies pay for their own pollution is a fair way to do it.