5 ms·

What I don't understand is how someone so often identifies as libertarian in these climate change discussions and immediately dismisses the existence of climate

What I don't understand is how someone so often identifies as libertarian in these climate change discussions and immediately dismisses the existence of climate change as a government conspiracy or denies any realistic solution that by necessity will involve governments. Of course, I agree capitalism is probably the least worst economic system and that companies will have a role to play in combating climate change, but I don't see how libertarian philosophy as employed in the 'small government' sense is compatible with global or climate catastrophes.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Who is the someone you mention? > I don't see how libertarian philosophy as employed in the 'small government' sense is compatible with global or climate catastrophes. You might be conflating anarchists or anarcho-capitalists with Libertarians. Libertarians do believe in a government (with limited scope) that protects individual and property rights. If you believe in CO2 mediated climate change. having to deal with the damage of someone else's pollution falls squarely within those property rights. It is no different then if someone dumps a pile of toxic waste on your land or upriver. The libertarian solution would be more along the lines of cap and trade and civil damages opposed to sin taxes and a Green New Deal.
- formerkrogemp 5y ago
  Specifically I'm referring to an earlier commenter that represents this view: > I do not recognise that government can be righteous. All I see is forcible fine extraction from the citizens it purports to help. Climate change + technology will be an excuse to take away more freedoms (of travel, life style), levy more fines and licenses, while also justifying government intrusion and micro-management (how much water, electrity, travel credits). How would a carbon cap and trade be much different or more effective than a carbon 'sin' tax? I don't know if you've heard, but the SEC is planning on requiring publicly traded companies to disclose their risks to climate change and to report emissions. I see this sort of action as moving in a positive direction for once, but it feels too little too late. > If you believe in CO2 mediated climate change. It's a little beyond time for that, now isn't it?
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >How would a carbon cap and trade be much different or more effective than a carbon 'sin' tax? Sin taxes dont necessarily solve any problems, but raise revenue that officials can spend on pet projects and caviar. They aren't morally or financially based in the damage done, and don't compensate those harmed. Money from Cap and trade doesn't have to go to the government. Private manufacturers buy them, and individuals can sell them. one example is every American gets a 1 carbon credit and they can sell it on an exchange to manufacturers (or not). >It's a little beyond time for that, now isn't it? Take that up with people who don't believe in climate change. perhaps the "someone" upthread, not me.
    - formerkrogemp 5y ago
      I didn't mean you in particular, but I do think we'd agree that action is necessary; we might just disagree about the specifics and extent of implemented action. > Money from Cap and trade doesn't have to go to the government. Private manufacturers buy them, and individuals can sell them. one example is every American gets a 1 carbon credit and they can sell it on an exchange to manufacturers (or not). I think I've heard this referred to as a carbon dividend, but it's not necessarily the same. Anyways, thanks for the replies, consideration, and chat. It was pleasant.
verisimi 5y ago
Let's say you have 2 bad neighbours. One keeps dumping toxic sludge in your garden (corporations). The other is forever telling you this is OK (government) and that you need to forget about it. Eventually they start to tell you that that your garden is a problem and that something needs to be done. At this point they come to you to ask for more money (a lot more) to clear it up, and ask that you can't go outside any more while they sort out the problem. And you think this is right and agree! I hope you can show you have become weaker at their expense, because you believed their nonsense! The unfortunate reality is that the people that run government and corporations are the worst of us - parasites that are expert in extracting wealth from us, who then try to kid us that their abuse is in our best interests. Those people who accept government are failing to recognise what poor psychology they have wrt government. They are the enablers of a narcissistic beast. You would NOT accept the behaviour that government does from a person, a person you would hold to account, but you justify and argue for government to be part of the solution! Amazing. If you think those undertaking the abuse are going to resolve the issue they themselves present to you, you have it wrong. Until you recognise your frailties, and how you yourself are enabling their abuse, nothing will change. The promised land of a clean earth or whatever, will not be achieved while the worst of us are seeing opportunities to make more money and take greater control.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Who is the someone you mention? > I don't see how libertarian philosophy as employed in the 'small government' sense is compatible with global or climate catastrophes. You might be conflating anarchists or anarcho-capitalists with Libertarians. Libertarians do believe in a government (with limited scope) that protects individual and property rights. If you believe in CO2 mediated climate change. having to deal with the damage of someone else's pollution falls squarely within those property rights. It is no different then if someone dumps a pile of toxic waste on your land or upriver. The libertarian solution would be more along the lines of cap and trade and civil damages opposed to sin taxes and a Green New Deal.

formerkrogemp 5y ago
Specifically I'm referring to an earlier commenter that represents this view: > I do not recognise that government can be righteous. All I see is forcible fine extraction from the citizens it purports to help. Climate change + technology will be an excuse to take away more freedoms (of travel, life style), levy more fines and licenses, while also justifying government intrusion and micro-management (how much water, electrity, travel credits). How would a carbon cap and trade be much different or more effective than a carbon 'sin' tax? I don't know if you've heard, but the SEC is planning on requiring publicly traded companies to disclose their risks to climate change and to report emissions. I see this sort of action as moving in a positive direction for once, but it feels too little too late. > If you believe in CO2 mediated climate change. It's a little beyond time for that, now isn't it?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >How would a carbon cap and trade be much different or more effective than a carbon 'sin' tax? Sin taxes dont necessarily solve any problems, but raise revenue that officials can spend on pet projects and caviar. They aren't morally or financially based in the damage done, and don't compensate those harmed. Money from Cap and trade doesn't have to go to the government. Private manufacturers buy them, and individuals can sell them. one example is every American gets a 1 carbon credit and they can sell it on an exchange to manufacturers (or not). >It's a little beyond time for that, now isn't it? Take that up with people who don't believe in climate change. perhaps the "someone" upthread, not me.
  - formerkrogemp 5y ago
    I didn't mean you in particular, but I do think we'd agree that action is necessary; we might just disagree about the specifics and extent of implemented action. > Money from Cap and trade doesn't have to go to the government. Private manufacturers buy them, and individuals can sell them. one example is every American gets a 1 carbon credit and they can sell it on an exchange to manufacturers (or not). I think I've heard this referred to as a carbon dividend, but it's not necessarily the same. Anyways, thanks for the replies, consideration, and chat. It was pleasant.

verisimi 5y ago

Let's say you have 2 bad neighbours. One keeps dumping toxic sludge in your garden (corporations). The other is forever telling you this is OK (government) and that you need to forget about it. Eventually they start to tell you that that your garden is a problem and that something needs to be done. At this point they come to you to ask for more money (a lot more) to clear it up, and ask that you can't go outside any more while they sort out the problem. And you think this is right and agree! I hope you can show you have become weaker at their expense, because you believed their nonsense! The unfortunate reality is that the people that run government and corporations are the worst of us - parasites that are expert in extracting wealth from us, who then try to kid us that their abuse is in our best interests. Those people who accept government are failing to recognise what poor psychology they have wrt government. They are the enablers of a narcissistic beast. You would NOT accept the behaviour that government does from a person, a person you would hold to account, but you justify and argue for government to be part of the solution! Amazing. If you think those undertaking the abuse are going to resolve the issue they themselves present to you, you have it wrong. Until you recognise your frailties, and how you yourself are enabling their abuse, nothing will change. The promised land of a clean earth or whatever, will not be achieved while the worst of us are seeing opportunities to make more money and take greater control.