5 ms·

What are alternatives to controlling negative externalities? My understanding is that they are by definition not fixable by the free market, and anything that i

What are alternatives to controlling negative externalities? My understanding is that they are by definition not fixable by the free market, and anything that is not the free market is government essentially.

ghostwriter 5y ago
privatise everything so that the owners are able to sue those who negatively impact their assets https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/if-you-want-to-save-the-elephants-privatize-them https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/if-you-want-to-save-the-e...
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  How would that work for air pollution?
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    How would suing them work?
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      How does that get around the free rider problem? If someone is polluting the air, they're making everyone's life worse by epsilon. If I'm to sue them, all the cost of the lawsuit is privatized, and all the benefit is socialized
      - Consultant32452 5y ago
        As opposed to the current system where they still pollute, they still kill you, but you're not even allowed to sue because the state owns the air/water and lets them pollute and you get no compensation.
        fighterpilot 5y ago
        It's a good point that the air being fully public leads to a tragedy of the commons situation. Either way, we're asking a lot of the comperence of the system. If the air were privatized we'd still need a legal system that isn't corrupted by special interests. Since it'd still be (I'm assuming) a representative democratic process that creates that system, corporatism is still possible. Thoughts? I've always seen a pollution tax as a Libertarian friendly solution to air pollution. A libertarian system needs to raise some tax money, so isn't it better that all tax money comes from a tax on externalities ? If we don't tax externalities then aren't we left to tax productive activity which is even worse?
        syshum 5y ago
        The only way it would be remotely libertarian would be if you upended the entire tax system and replaced it with Single Tax system aka Geo-Libertarianism... But that is not in the cards, and no one is proposing that, they want to ADD these externality based taxation ON TOP of the tax on productivity
        fighterpilot 5y ago
        I agree that in practice it's largely a ploy to get more revenue to the state. But at the same time, the tax itself seems to follow from a first principles examination of Libertarian axioms. Negative externalities can be seen as a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. The role of the state in a Libertarian framework is to protect individuals from such unwanted force by enacting force onto the aggressor. An externality tax would be one practical way to achieve that, and therefore seems wholly consistent with the Libertarian view.
        Consultant32452 5y ago
        I would add the externality tax funds should be given directly to the harmed population. Those funds going into the general tax ledger fails to compensate the harmed.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    In theory by owning a certain part of the atmosphere above your country. The government would then set a maximum CO2 limit in ppm that is allowed on your cubic metres of atmosphere. In practice it is heavily simplified and you don't get to own portions of the atmosphere, instead you get usage rights, which means the right to pollute a certain amount. This is done via cap and trade already.
- imtringued 5y ago
  That didn't work for pigs and chicken.

ghostwriter 5y ago

privatise everything so that the owners are able to sue those who negatively impact their assets https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/if-you-want-to-save-the-elephants-privatize-them https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/if-you-want-to-save-the-e...

fighterpilot 5y ago
How would that work for air pollution?
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  How would suing them work?
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    How does that get around the free rider problem? If someone is polluting the air, they're making everyone's life worse by epsilon. If I'm to sue them, all the cost of the lawsuit is privatized, and all the benefit is socialized
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      As opposed to the current system where they still pollute, they still kill you, but you're not even allowed to sue because the state owns the air/water and lets them pollute and you get no compensation.
      - fighterpilot 5y ago
        It's a good point that the air being fully public leads to a tragedy of the commons situation. Either way, we're asking a lot of the comperence of the system. If the air were privatized we'd still need a legal system that isn't corrupted by special interests. Since it'd still be (I'm assuming) a representative democratic process that creates that system, corporatism is still possible. Thoughts? I've always seen a pollution tax as a Libertarian friendly solution to air pollution. A libertarian system needs to raise some tax money, so isn't it better that all tax money comes from a tax on externalities ? If we don't tax externalities then aren't we left to tax productive activity which is even worse?
        syshum 5y ago
        The only way it would be remotely libertarian would be if you upended the entire tax system and replaced it with Single Tax system aka Geo-Libertarianism... But that is not in the cards, and no one is proposing that, they want to ADD these externality based taxation ON TOP of the tax on productivity
        fighterpilot 5y ago
        I agree that in practice it's largely a ploy to get more revenue to the state. But at the same time, the tax itself seems to follow from a first principles examination of Libertarian axioms. Negative externalities can be seen as a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. The role of the state in a Libertarian framework is to protect individuals from such unwanted force by enacting force onto the aggressor. An externality tax would be one practical way to achieve that, and therefore seems wholly consistent with the Libertarian view.
        Consultant32452 5y ago
        I would add the externality tax funds should be given directly to the harmed population. Those funds going into the general tax ledger fails to compensate the harmed.
- imtringued 5y ago
  In theory by owning a certain part of the atmosphere above your country. The government would then set a maximum CO2 limit in ppm that is allowed on your cubic metres of atmosphere. In practice it is heavily simplified and you don't get to own portions of the atmosphere, instead you get usage rights, which means the right to pollute a certain amount. This is done via cap and trade already.
imtringued 5y ago
That didn't work for pigs and chicken.