4 ms·

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 exa

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.

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.