4 ms·

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.

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.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      I mostly agree with that, except for two edge cases: (1) If the externality tax is used to raise funds for basics such as the police, then it's the lesser evil to have it go to the general ledger. Where else would public funds be raised to fund these basics? (2) In the rare case that the externality is so broad, it can go to the general ledger, such as with carbon pollution (to the extent that it's harmful). Trying to figure out who is harmed and by how much is itself a bureucratic and potentially wasteful process that can be coopted by government corruption, so we should be weary of that.
  - syshum 5y ago
    >> first principles examination of Libertarian axioms. First principles of libertarian axiom is not the Non-Aggression Principle as many believe, in fact there are some serious flaws with that [1], libertarianism is more accurately stated as having a foundational principle of Self Ownership [2], from this the non-aggression principle can be derived however like with many other things non-aggression can not be viewed as an absolute, if it is then every breath you exhale is an act of aggression.... [1] https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ >> The role of the state in a Libertarian framework is to protect individuals from such unwanted force by enacting force onto the aggressor. That is an extreme over simplification of what a libertarian framework is, and stated in the way you have could betray the libertarian principles as it seems to have with in it a justification for the initiation of violence, something that would counter the libertarian ideology
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      Suppose for argument's sake that climate change is both significantly driven by humans and that it poses a real and grave risk. What would be the Libertarian solution to that, and what would be its justification? I've heard Yaron Brooks, who I usually agree with, on this topic but he seems to downplay negative externalities, which I view as a non-starter, given that they clearly exist and in some cases are large in magnitude (e.g. dumping of chemicals in a river). > serious flaws with that [1] I've read this before and agree with it. > That is an extreme over simplification Is it an over simplification of minarchist-libertarians, though? What state apparatus do they want? Police, courts, etc. These all have the purpose of protecting individual A from individual B by using force (arrest, prison, fines, etc) on individual B if they commit violence/fraud/etc against A. I perhaps shouldn't have used the word "Libertarian" for that though since that's a broader category.

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.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    I mostly agree with that, except for two edge cases: (1) If the externality tax is used to raise funds for basics such as the police, then it's the lesser evil to have it go to the general ledger. Where else would public funds be raised to fund these basics? (2) In the rare case that the externality is so broad, it can go to the general ledger, such as with carbon pollution (to the extent that it's harmful). Trying to figure out who is harmed and by how much is itself a bureucratic and potentially wasteful process that can be coopted by government corruption, so we should be weary of that.
- syshum 5y ago
  >> first principles examination of Libertarian axioms. First principles of libertarian axiom is not the Non-Aggression Principle as many believe, in fact there are some serious flaws with that [1], libertarianism is more accurately stated as having a foundational principle of Self Ownership [2], from this the non-aggression principle can be derived however like with many other things non-aggression can not be viewed as an absolute, if it is then every breath you exhale is an act of aggression.... [1] https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ >> The role of the state in a Libertarian framework is to protect individuals from such unwanted force by enacting force onto the aggressor. That is an extreme over simplification of what a libertarian framework is, and stated in the way you have could betray the libertarian principles as it seems to have with in it a justification for the initiation of violence, something that would counter the libertarian ideology
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    Suppose for argument's sake that climate change is both significantly driven by humans and that it poses a real and grave risk. What would be the Libertarian solution to that, and what would be its justification? I've heard Yaron Brooks, who I usually agree with, on this topic but he seems to downplay negative externalities, which I view as a non-starter, given that they clearly exist and in some cases are large in magnitude (e.g. dumping of chemicals in a river). > serious flaws with that [1] I've read this before and agree with it. > That is an extreme over simplification Is it an over simplification of minarchist-libertarians, though? What state apparatus do they want? Police, courts, etc. These all have the purpose of protecting individual A from individual B by using force (arrest, prison, fines, etc) on individual B if they commit violence/fraud/etc against A. I perhaps shouldn't have used the word "Libertarian" for that though since that's a broader category.