3 ms·

I would want to make sure their purchase were taxed at a high enough rate to replace that gasoline with renewable energy, on top of the usual sales taxes. If th

I would want to make sure their purchase were taxed at a high enough rate to replace that gasoline with renewable energy, on top of the usual sales taxes. If that were the case, I would tell them to go for it, as their purchase would be a net benefit to society. If the energy used by bitcoin mining is irreplaceable, that just means we're not taxing it enough to replace it properly with renewables. The solution is simple, just tax industrial energy use so that it's not underpriced relative to the externalities it creates. Spend that tax revenue on bulking up the grid with renewables. Then let people buy however much they want and do whatever they want with it, at the right price.

Dylan16807 3y ago
But we know those taxes don't exist right now. That would be a way to fix the problem, but it sounds like you agree that the problem exists and the burning in the thought experiment is a bad thing.
- everfree 3y ago
  If we start telling people what they can and can't use legitimately-purchased energy for, we go down a dangerous path very quickly. We might as well tell people what they can and can't use wood to build, or what they can and can't use an internet connection to transfer (i.e. net neutrality). If you purchase gasoline, it's not my right to tell you what to do with it, insofar as it doesn't create additional externalities from that point on, like if you pour it in a river or something. You legally own it now, you get to do whatever you want with it. Same with wood, same with internet bandwidth - this is generally how private property should work. The burning in the thought experiment is actually the least bad thing imo. The alternative is to seize property from someone who purchased that property legitimately, which is unacceptable. As a side note, burning gasoline for no reason is pretty close to what billionaires do whenever they fly their private jets. It's a fact of capitalism, and it will exist for as long as capitalism exists.
  - dymk 3y ago
    > If we start telling people what they can and can't use legitimately-purchased energy for, we go down a dangerous path very quickly No, you make the cost of energy take into account the cost of the carbon emissions. That's what a carbon tax is. It's not a dangerous path, it's basic economics.
    - everfree 3y ago
      Right, that’s essentially what I’m advocating for a few replies up. The person I’m discussing it with rejected that premise the sake of argument.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        I didn't reject it, I just wanted to make the simpler premise clear too, looking at the situation before talking about potential solutions. And I didn't say anything about "telling people what they can and can't do", you pulled that out of nowhere. The earlier comments were talking about "shaming" and "what's the fuss", not legal mandates. Also in practice a law like that is almost certainly going to be implemented as a fine, which is pretty close to a tax.

Dylan16807 3y ago

But we know those taxes don't exist right now. That would be a way to fix the problem, but it sounds like you agree that the problem exists and the burning in the thought experiment is a bad thing.

everfree 3y ago
If we start telling people what they can and can't use legitimately-purchased energy for, we go down a dangerous path very quickly. We might as well tell people what they can and can't use wood to build, or what they can and can't use an internet connection to transfer (i.e. net neutrality). If you purchase gasoline, it's not my right to tell you what to do with it, insofar as it doesn't create additional externalities from that point on, like if you pour it in a river or something. You legally own it now, you get to do whatever you want with it. Same with wood, same with internet bandwidth - this is generally how private property should work. The burning in the thought experiment is actually the least bad thing imo. The alternative is to seize property from someone who purchased that property legitimately, which is unacceptable. As a side note, burning gasoline for no reason is pretty close to what billionaires do whenever they fly their private jets. It's a fact of capitalism, and it will exist for as long as capitalism exists.
- dymk 3y ago
  > If we start telling people what they can and can't use legitimately-purchased energy for, we go down a dangerous path very quickly No, you make the cost of energy take into account the cost of the carbon emissions. That's what a carbon tax is. It's not a dangerous path, it's basic economics.
  - everfree 3y ago
    Right, that’s essentially what I’m advocating for a few replies up. The person I’m discussing it with rejected that premise the sake of argument.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      I didn't reject it, I just wanted to make the simpler premise clear too, looking at the situation before talking about potential solutions. And I didn't say anything about "telling people what they can and can't do", you pulled that out of nowhere. The earlier comments were talking about "shaming" and "what's the fuss", not legal mandates. Also in practice a law like that is almost certainly going to be implemented as a fine, which is pretty close to a tax.