4 ms·

You must find the easy libertarians to debate. The answer is that maximizing liberty involves minimizing net aggressions, and externalities are aggressions. The

You must find the easy libertarians to debate. The answer is that maximizing liberty involves minimizing net aggressions, and externalities are aggressions. Therefore, a society is more free if the government proactively prevents/taxes/regulates certain types of externalities that are impractical to deal with in individual lawsuits (non-localized pollution fits this bill perfectly). In the case of smog, the most common interpretation is levying a carbon/pollutant tax such that the tax generates sufficient revenue to offset the damage. For something like mercury that has extreme, more localized effects, it would be perfectly reasonable and in-line with non-aggression-based philosophy to outright criminalize certain types of disposal. Compare this to progressives, who want to protect the environment but have no metric or process for measuring how much environment to protect and how/why, other than what appeals to their emotions, so they deal with everything case-by-case and inconsistently. In general, this leads to broad, draconian regulations in some domains (like not allowing people to create ponds on their property) and a lack of progress in other domains (CO2 emissions and waste disposal, for example). And yes, the carbon tax is a libertarian concept.

titzer 9y ago
I've literally never heard a libertarian argue that before.
- lend000 9y ago
  Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party (capital L) does not fully embrace this line of thinking in their official platform. However, it's a logical interpretation of their base philosophy to which I subscribe, and many of the millennial libertarians I know have more progressive interpretations that address externalities.
- __s 9y ago
  No true Scotsman fallacy
- stale2002 9y ago
  Libertarian is not the same thing as AnacroCapitalist. A Randian objectivist is also not the same thing as a Libertarian.
- alehul 9y ago
  From the perspective of a consequential (results-driven) libertarian rather than deontological (morally-driven), it's arguable. A libertarian generally opposes government involvement because it creates inefficient pricing errors in the economy, such as subsidies. The argument for a carbon tax is that, for those who believe in climate change, it will actually minimize the current pricing error by taking into account the externalities that the carbon will create. The only question is then what the tax should be priced at, and by whom, in order to accurately reflect the damage.
maxxxxx 9y ago
" levying a carbon/pollutant tax such that the tax generates sufficient revenue to offset the damage" Who determines what the damage is and who pays for the people who make the determination?
- lend000 9y ago
  I quickly found this link which quotes $1000/ton of CO2: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new-machine-sucking-carbon-directly-air http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new... At some point, the government either needs to generate bids for a contract in the free market (subject to the cronyism of government officials) or do it in-house (inefficient). We need a government, so every implementation of any policy you can think of can potentially suffer from a combination of these two factors -- I hardly see that as a hole in this approach. > who pays for the people who make the determination? China and the Fed, obviously -- same as now. If you are trying to shoot down these ideas because you don't think I believe in any taxation, you're really walking into a trap here. The quoted cost for undoing damage clearly takes into account bureaucratic / managerial overhead, as would any contract.
UncleEntity 9y ago
> And yes, the carbon tax is a libertarian concept. Actually, it's not. Pretty much everything I've read by the libertarians (Rothbardians really) about carbon taxes either call it a wealth redistribution scheme (which the original inventor[0] intended it to be) or a case illustrating how the true tragedy of the commons is the fact that the commons exist at all. So, for your mercury example, the libertarian solution would be for the owner of the polluted water supply to hunt down the source of the contamination and seek restitution for the damaged caused. As far as I can tell No True Libertarian has ever conceded that The State has the legal or ethical right to tax or outlaw anything (other than theft, fraud and coercion), ever. [0] https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/08/09/the-unsung-inventor-carbon-tax/f1xFyWmaXf2XzW3nVxrNJK/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/08/09/the-unsung-inve...
- lend000 9y ago
  > No True Libertarian No True Scotsman! Just like you are closely aligned with Fidel Castro and other autocrats on all issues, because you probably believe in socializing certain things, right? :) Libertarians are extremely intellectually diverse in their politics -- anecdotally, much more so than conservatives and progressives combined (population size adjusted). Old school Libertarians -- the ones often associated with the birth of the movement (and the ones quoted by Democrats to avoid intellectual debate) -- tend to lean heavily conservative and have an oversimplified view of either the non-aggression principle, the imperfect nature of the world, or both. Milton Friedman is an example of one of the first prominent libertarians to start considering alternative approaches for externalities. Do I care who first coined the term carbon tax? Nope; it's not about scoring points for your team. The fact of the matter is that the idea of a carbon/pollution/externality-offsetting tax arises naturally from the non-aggression principle, as I described. > So, for your mercury example, the libertarian solution would be for the owner of the polluted water supply to hunt down the source of the contamination and seek restitution for the damaged caused. I didn't realize you spoke on behalf of true libertarians! Tell me, what would you do today if someone dumped mercury in your yard? The same thing -- just because there are laws, does not mean you don't have to deal with people breaking them. And regardless, no, mercury has non-localized and criminal effects (poisoning is a form of assault). If someone threw a couch or some other localized non-poisonous pollution in their neighbor's yard, then yes, that is generally a matter for the civil courts. As it is now, even though littering is illegal.

titzer 9y ago

I've literally never heard a libertarian argue that before.

lend000 9y ago
Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party (capital L) does not fully embrace this line of thinking in their official platform. However, it's a logical interpretation of their base philosophy to which I subscribe, and many of the millennial libertarians I know have more progressive interpretations that address externalities.
__s 9y ago
No true Scotsman fallacy
stale2002 9y ago
Libertarian is not the same thing as AnacroCapitalist. A Randian objectivist is also not the same thing as a Libertarian.
alehul 9y ago
From the perspective of a consequential (results-driven) libertarian rather than deontological (morally-driven), it's arguable. A libertarian generally opposes government involvement because it creates inefficient pricing errors in the economy, such as subsidies. The argument for a carbon tax is that, for those who believe in climate change, it will actually minimize the current pricing error by taking into account the externalities that the carbon will create. The only question is then what the tax should be priced at, and by whom, in order to accurately reflect the damage.

maxxxxx 9y ago

" levying a carbon/pollutant tax such that the tax generates sufficient revenue to offset the damage" Who determines what the damage is and who pays for the people who make the determination?

lend000 9y ago
I quickly found this link which quotes $1000/ton of CO2: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new-machine-sucking-carbon-directly-air http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/switzerland-giant-new... At some point, the government either needs to generate bids for a contract in the free market (subject to the cronyism of government officials) or do it in-house (inefficient). We need a government, so every implementation of any policy you can think of can potentially suffer from a combination of these two factors -- I hardly see that as a hole in this approach. > who pays for the people who make the determination? China and the Fed, obviously -- same as now. If you are trying to shoot down these ideas because you don't think I believe in any taxation, you're really walking into a trap here. The quoted cost for undoing damage clearly takes into account bureaucratic / managerial overhead, as would any contract.

UncleEntity 9y ago

> And yes, the carbon tax is a libertarian concept. Actually, it's not. Pretty much everything I've read by the libertarians (Rothbardians really) about carbon taxes either call it a wealth redistribution scheme (which the original inventor[0] intended it to be) or a case illustrating how the true tragedy of the commons is the fact that the commons exist at all. So, for your mercury example, the libertarian solution would be for the owner of the polluted water supply to hunt down the source of the contamination and seek restitution for the damaged caused. As far as I can tell No True Libertarian has ever conceded that The State has the legal or ethical right to tax or outlaw anything (other than theft, fraud and coercion), ever. [0] https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/08/09/the-unsung-inventor-carbon-tax/f1xFyWmaXf2XzW3nVxrNJK/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/08/09/the-unsung-inve...

lend000 9y ago
> No True Libertarian No True Scotsman! Just like you are closely aligned with Fidel Castro and other autocrats on all issues, because you probably believe in socializing certain things, right? :) Libertarians are extremely intellectually diverse in their politics -- anecdotally, much more so than conservatives and progressives combined (population size adjusted). Old school Libertarians -- the ones often associated with the birth of the movement (and the ones quoted by Democrats to avoid intellectual debate) -- tend to lean heavily conservative and have an oversimplified view of either the non-aggression principle, the imperfect nature of the world, or both. Milton Friedman is an example of one of the first prominent libertarians to start considering alternative approaches for externalities. Do I care who first coined the term carbon tax? Nope; it's not about scoring points for your team. The fact of the matter is that the idea of a carbon/pollution/externality-offsetting tax arises naturally from the non-aggression principle, as I described. > So, for your mercury example, the libertarian solution would be for the owner of the polluted water supply to hunt down the source of the contamination and seek restitution for the damaged caused. I didn't realize you spoke on behalf of true libertarians! Tell me, what would you do today if someone dumped mercury in your yard? The same thing -- just because there are laws, does not mean you don't have to deal with people breaking them. And regardless, no, mercury has non-localized and criminal effects (poisoning is a form of assault). If someone threw a couch or some other localized non-poisonous pollution in their neighbor's yard, then yes, that is generally a matter for the civil courts. As it is now, even though littering is illegal.