Libertarians and Climate Change

[Praktik]

Therefore, the free market would undersupply "not having the world destroyed by a giant comet" and the world would be destroyed.

But - at least we could say the path to our destruction was the path of freedom...

best to go out chin-up, innit?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Larger industries and wealthy people would do the same thing the government would do, with missiles, but probably faster, for far less money, and without building a giant aquarium in 30 cities and a $200 billion Space Command in Virginia.

It's taken the private sector about 60 years longer than NASA and the USSR to get man in space (Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, which will go operational in a few years).

BTW, Missiles would probably do a bad job at stopping a giant comet. You need to lure it away from its course with a probe.

As I've just been reading about it, how good was the private sector at beating the Spanish Flu in Manchester, UK? It took the collective will of the Office of Health to shut down schools, public gatherings, starving it out and saving thousands of lives. It was advice that the rest of the country simply did not follow, to their peril.

 

[Beerina]

Correct. I am far more worried about the potentially disastrous effect on humanity due to political meddling than I am due to global warming in all but the most catastrophic of cases (runaway greenhouse or inducing an ice age accidentally.)

The reason is simple: We have many examples of overbearing, intrusive governments (North Korea vs. South, former USSR & friends) that demonstrate actual massive slowdown, if not actual retrograde results, with respect to the length and quality of human life, as actually measured by scientific studies.

Yes that's a simple reason. One sided, too. I referred you to Diamond 2006 already. Not sure what makes you think implementing carbon trading (or something else) would transform rich-world democracies into predatory dictatorships but it's probably some kind of hyperbolic slippery slope that looms large to you.

It's not an issue of becoming a "predatory dictatorship". The economy doesn't care why politicians are pressing a huge thumb down on it, anymore than evolution cares if reproduction is due to tender love or a vicious rape.

That's why such decisions should not be taken lightly -- there are very real, measurable downsides even by well-intentioned laws. Worse, these downsides exist even if the law is correct and necessary. Hence you should also make sure the law, seen as necessary because of some real problem, and a "solution" to said problem, might still end up causing a lower quality of life than doing nothing at all.

Science, especially medicine, is loaded with all kinds of things "that should work", but end up having a net worse effect on the population than the disease. Sometimes these are very hard to determine.

General-purpose 1-a-day type vitamins don't do squat, apparently, and may actually increase the risk of cancer significantly. So, too, for most specific vitamins as general supplements (as opposed to for specific, known health issues.)

You have to understand the math of all this -- a slowdown in technological growth adds up, year after year, compounding like interest. If, after a century, you're just, say, a few years behind in medical tech than you otherwise would be, a paltry 2% slowdown, you're killing millions needlessly every year. This outweighs, without doubt, just about any problem you are trying to solve.

This kind of thing cannot be overestimated. This is also why I'm so virulent about socialized medicine. It slows medical tech development. This kills far more than it saves.

It is also completely counter-intuitive. But that's what science is for.

There is loads of evidence that hampering the economy does indeed bring on famine, pestience, riots, and social decay, thanks for asking. Just see last century for hundreds of long-term economic experiments with every level of possible government intervention.

Approximately 3 billion people have, nonetheless, been able to enjoy at least rising living standards concurrent with and because of government intervention too (and sometimes despite it). Some of them have really done terribly well.

Good! Let's study what kinds of intervention helps best.

Here's the fast track: Securing property rights such that people can pursue their own goals without fear of theft or interference by everyone from petty thieves to mafia locals to powerful lobbies looking for rent seeking through the government to government officials demanding kickbacks wins that race.

It's basically the government protecting your farm of everything your produce, so you can sell it, from everything from birds to the lazy grasshopper to a group of marauding ne'er-do-wells to a local church demanding a 50% cut. Except replace wheat with cars and light bulbs and wiis and projection DLPs and Virgin Galactic trips to space and...

 

[Beerina]

One sided, too. I referred you to Diamond 2006 already.

By the way, there's apparently a documentary version of this just out, and Roger Ebert's scared ****less about it, which is surprising because he's usually fairly stable and logical and would be well at home in the skeptic community.

In any case, from Ebert's comments, it's apparent they're choking on the same, discredited notion from the 1970s, conflating "Known Reserves" with "All The Oil That's In The Ground And That's It".

Julian Simon shot this down in general and also for oil directly years ago, with the exact same theory that was tested and proven over and over vs. the 1970s version of said people.

He says it better than me, but basically as the cost of oil goes up, people will look to satisfy the demand harder and harder, which will find more oil, make financially viable extracting harder-to-get oil, create more oil out of thin air engineered bacteria, alternatives to gas for existing engines, alternatives to existing engines and transport modes, etc.

As for plastics, same process, same result.

 

[dudalb]

Larger industries and wealthy people would do the same thing the government would do, with missiles, but probably faster, for far less money, and without building a giant aquarium in 30 cities and a $200 billion Space Command in Virginia.

More proof that the Libertarians are living in a world that has little to do with reality.

 

[Francesca R]

You have to understand the math of all this [ . . . ] you're killing millions needlessly every year. This outweighs, without doubt, just about any problem you are trying to solve.

This kind of thing cannot be overestimated.

It is also completely counter-intuitive. But that's what science is for.

It's not really what your maths is for no. Consider that, using a 2% interest rate, one cent rendered unto Caesar in Jesus’s day would have accrued interest of about $1.5 quadrillion today (thirty times as much money as is in the world). And go on to ludicrous propositions such as: because a doctor's surgery overspent by $1 on antiseptic wipes one year, then two centuries later a thousand people needlessly lay dead. It's more an attempt to mislead and confuse. Not interested thanks

Here's the fast track: Securing property rights such that people can pursue their own goals without fear of theft or interference by everyone from petty thieves to mafia locals to powerful lobbies looking for rent seeking through the government to government officials demanding kickbacks wins that race.

Necessary but not sufficient. Plenty of subsistence farmers in Kenya who are, say, 50km from the nearest city, don't really need to worry about anyone abridging their property rights. They do need to worry about a crop yield which is not enough to feed themselves, and is declining due to no investment to maintain the land, and getting malaria, and AIDS killing the most physically productive villagers etc etc. It really doesn't make too much difference if you send them a memo reassuring them you have implemented the non-agression principle within a 10km radius of where they live.

 

[psychictv]

a slowdown in technological growth adds up, year after year, compounding like interest. If, after a century, you're just, say, a few years behind in medical tech than you otherwise would be, a paltry 2% slowdown, you're killing millions needlessly every year. This outweighs, without doubt, just about any problem you are trying to solve.

If this were true you should be able to point to some situations where country A did intervention X and was measurably worse off or farther behind in their technology than country B that did nothing.

 

[mgidm86]

Typical JREF Libertarian thread:

1. OP: "What do Libertarians think of X?"

2. 30 responses by non-libertarians.

My crackpot theory:

That's because there aren't many Libertarians around. Many people, at some point in their lives, think, "Wow, Libertarianism sounds like the way to go!". Then, after some time, reality and reason take over and they move away from it. Because of this, there is a constant, yet changing, Libertarian pool that remains relatively small. There aren't enough of them to go around.

Of course, a few of them never see the light and remain Libertarian. I wish Libertarianism could work, but I've grown to know that it will not.

 

[Merko]

It's not surprising that a few libertarian crackpots are AGW deniers. What seems a bit odd though is that it seems to be the norm. Whenever I stumble upon a climate change article in Reason or Wall Street Journal, it seems to be climate change denial. There's probably some dissenting voice, but denial certainly seems to be the default position.

Most libertarians don't deny that government has some important roles to fill. So why do they feel the need to take this extreme position? Why not just acknowledge that sure, government needs to step in here, but we should be relying on market principles as far as possible blablabla.

The way I see it, there are two basic methods to reduce CO2 production:
1) Rationing, ie the planned economy method.
2) CO2-taxation, ie the market-based method.

Rationing is a planned-economy method because it basically means the government figures out who 'needs' to emit CO2. Taxation is a market-based method because you put the cost on what is undesirable, and then you leave it to the market to decide who most 'needs' to emit.

Funnily enough, the solution of the day seems to be cap-and-trade, which falls a bit in the middle. Here, the government first decides who gets the permits, but then there's some room for market principles because you can trade them (assuming the government gave you some in the first place).

This seems like a great opening for libertarians to attack the policy. But they don't attack it on these grounds (with very few exceptions). Why not?

My personal theory is that very few of the 'libertarians' that are visible in the public debate are actually guided by any libertarian principles. I believe that most of them are rather stooges of big business, who use libertarian-sounding arguments to reach preordained conclusions, suitable to their masters. That's why the libertarian outrage against bank bailouts was so faint. And that's why, although these 'libertarians' don't like cap-and-trade, they dislike a straight CO2 tax even more. Because cap-and-trade will at least have the benefit that the government will give their well-connected masters some valuable assets for free.


Oh, and by the way, I don't think cap-and-trade is all bad. It seems to have worked in the past with other types of emissions. I do believe that it is a corrupt system however, and though I'm by no means much of a believer in the free market, I do think that it would be a useful tool for this problem within the context of developed economies. The only advantage I can see with cap-and-trade is that politicians have to be less active in adjusting the system. With a CO2 tax, they would have to monitor the development and increase the tax if the response did not bring CO2 production down as forecast.

 

[EGarrett]

Government coercion is immoral. War, pestilence, famine, and death -- those are all fine, but Jesus, Mary, and Joseph spare me from the immorality of government coercion to prevent those.

The above comment is a perfect example of how not to post on a message board. I'm not a libertarian but you do a great job of making their opposition look ignorant and childish.

 

[daenku32]

The above comment is a perfect example of how not to post on a message board. I'm not a libertarian but you do a great job of making their opposition look ignorant and childish.

Since today is my birthday (and the forum software is hard pressed not to let me forget it) any of MY comments or arguments cannot be wrong.

Argumentum ad natalis dies.


Ergo, libertarians take the importance of non-taxation above all other moral dilemmas.

 

[Chaos]

The above comment is a perfect example of how not to post on a message board. I'm not a libertarian but you do a great job of making their opposition look ignorant and childish.

No. The comment you quoted is a perfect example of a clear and concise summary of the moronic drivel Libertarians (Beerina for example) post here. Have you ever actually read any of that crap?

 

[EGarrett]

Ergo, libertarians take the importance of non-taxation above all other moral dilemmas.

No.

No. The comment you quoted is a perfect example of a clear and concise summary of the moronic drivel Libertarians (Beerina for example) post here. Have you ever actually read any of that crap?

I've read and watched a lot of it, and you obviously have paid no attention to it. It's this exact type of ignorant, non-conversational, childish strawman arguing and ranting that turned me from a democrat into a moderate.

How on earth could you expect an objective person to take you seriously when you act like this? This is the way creationists argue. You make the other side look like the fair-minded and thoughtful ones...

 

[Earthborn]

The comment you quoted is a perfect example of a clear and concise summary of the moronic drivel Libertarians (Beerina for example) post here.

Libertarians don't think that war, pestilence, famine, and death are fine. They tend to think those things are the result of government coercion, and are therefore very bad. Take away the government coercion and war, pestilence, famine and death will disappear, they say.

 

[Chaos]

Libertarians don't think that war, pestilence, famine, and death are fine. They tend to think those things are the result of government coercion, and are therefore very bad. Take away the government coercion and war, pestilence, famine and death will disappear, they say.

Except that anyone with one functioning brain cell knows better - Libertarians willfully ignore this and thus prefer government-less war, pestilence, famine and death to non-war, non-pestilence, non-famine and non-death under a government. Or maybe they´re just sticking their fingers into their ears, closing their eyes and chanting "Lalala, I´m not listening"; the results are the same either way.

 

[Neally]

The way I see it, there are two basic methods to reduce CO2 production:
1) Rationing, ie the planned economy method.
2) CO2-taxation, ie the market-based method.

There are several other proposed solutions. Cutting carbon and taxing it was near the bottom of the list as prioritized by this group of researchers:
http://fixtheclimate.com/component-1/the-result-prioritization/

 

[drkitten]

You know, I stand by what I wrote.

The free market would solve it because [...] global warming would happen because that is our free choice under capitalism, and what would be immoral is government coercion. Libertarianism doesn't need to solve anything.

We -- well, anyone who's cracked a book on economics -- already know that public goods are undersupplied. TB acknowledges that one possible outcome under a free market is unfettered global warming, because no one cares enough to put the resources in to fix it.

People will die given unfettered global warming. Crops will fail, creating famine. A collapsing global food network is likely to lead both to pesilence and to war as countries compete for a shrinking resource pool.

In other words, global warming is extremely likely to lead directly to : war, pestilence, famine, and death.

Government coercion is immoral. War, pestilence, famine, and death -- those are all fine, but Jesus, Mary, and Joseph spare me from the immorality of government coercion to prevent those.

... but only "government coercion" is immoral. TB explicitly prefers W,P,F,&D to the government action to prevent them.


I've noticed how nutcases hate it when people actually read what they write; apparently they're so used to thinking and talking in slogans, bumper stickers, and soundbites that they don't actually bother to go through the implications of what they write. And when someone does go through and point out the implications, that's -- what was the word? -- "ignorant and childish."

Evidently it's knowledgeable to make statements without considering the implications, but ignorant to consider the consequences. Because only by ignoring what libertarians and other extremist nutcases actually write, can you maintain any kind of belief (or "know") that they might be correct.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

It seems to me, that many Libertarians underestimate the extent to which public goods are undersupplied, as well as the extent to which a central authority can quickly and easily solve these problems in a top-down way.

On the other hand, some non-libertarians, and in particular, big government advocates, underestimate the efficacy of strong property rights in conjunction with tort remedy.

For instance, the first effectual mitigation of sulfur dioxide emissions was instituted through a lawsuit, not governmental regulation. The State of Georgia sued a copper company and was awarded damages. Part of the case involved imposing regulations, but the disincentive is inherent in the fear of being sued as well, so you can't assume that regulation is the only solution to an externality. The ultimate solutioon for both of these methods is to put a price on polluting that was inappropriately free otherwise.

(please correct me if I'm mistaken on the history here ^^)

On the subject of Libertarianism in general: There is a pervasive thinking among non-libertarians, that libertarianism is always of the deontological breed. ie - "no use of coercion, force, or fraud, don't tread on me, etc."

Where, in reality, there are many people, whose views seem libertarian, but could be more appropriately called utilitarians. These are people who favor maximization of utility as the ultimate goal of any public policy, or lack thereof, as the case may be. If a solution to an inefficiency, social ill, or environmental catastrophe, etc, involves significant government action, centralization and tax, to ensure maximizing utility, then so be it. If doing so would hamper utility, then forget it.

Those who are the most vehemently anti-libertarian seem to view a governmental solution as the forgone conclusion, and the market solutions as "the market alternative."

It is a more honest approach to allow the market to operate, and only favor market intervening strategies when you've proven the market to fail.

That is, the burden of proof should always be on those who propose disrupting voluntary transaction, not the other way around.

Just for a simple example.. For instance, if I say, "The Department of Motor Vehicles should be privatized." I should only have the burden of proving this can be done without too much initial chaos or severe problems due to the transition from government-run system to a voluntary market system.

But those in favor of keeping the DMV as a government operation must prove that the market (people) cannot handle this without intervention, and it is thus justified in remaining centralized.

 

[drkitten]

It is a more honest approach to allow the market to operate, and only favor market intervening strategies when you've proven the market to fail.

Why?

That is, the burden of proof should always be on those who propose disrupting voluntary transaction, not the other way around.

Why?

Just for a simple example.. For instance, if I say, "The Department of Motor Vehicles should be privatized." I should only have the burden of proving this can be done without too much initial chaos or severe problems due to the transition from government-run system to a voluntary market system.

But those in favor of keeping the DMV as a government operation must prove that the market (people) cannot handle this without intervention, and it is thus justified in remaining centralized.

That seems, frankly, unjustifiably silly and slanted. You need only demonstrate that the new system will not produce "severe" problems, while pro-government advocates must prove that the market cannot do it.

In other words, if both sides stipulate that the government-run system is more efficient and cost-effective, and that privatization will cause problems, but not severe or insurmountable ones, then the government run DMV must be eliminated. The idea that we use the most efficient and cost-effective system has been eliminated.

How is this "utilitarian" in any meaningful word? I would think that a utilitarian viewpoint would demand that privatization prove itself to be superior to the public alternative.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

Why?

Why?

Because government intervention, is, by definition, intervening into the market.

The market precludes the intervention, not the other way around.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it, but if it is, then do."

Therefore, the burden of proof is on those who propose government intervention to first prove that it [market, voluntary trade] is in fact, "broke."

That seems, frankly, unjustifiably silly and slanted. You need only demonstrate that the new system will not produce "severe" problems, while pro-government advocates must prove that the market cannot do it.

In other words, if both sides stipulate that the government-run system is more efficient and cost-effective, and that privatization will cause problems, but not severe or insurmountable ones, then the government run DMV must be eliminated. The idea that we use the most efficient and cost-effective system has been eliminated.

How is this "utilitarian" in any meaningful [way]? I would think that a utilitarian viewpoint would demand that privatization prove itself to be superior to the public alternative.

It is true that one would need to prove that privatization (of the DMV/DDS) could function more efficiently than the current public system, but there is still a burden of proof on the part of the public advocate, because the private "alternative" precludes the public method.

That is, if you reduce the system into its basic components, you have a market (human beings engaging in voluntary trade).

Essentially, public intervention cannot exist without the market. However, a market can exist without public (governmental) intervention.

[...] I would think that a utilitarian viewpoint would demand that privatization prove itself to be superior to the public alternative.

You're saying that someone should go ahead and put a bandaid on my arm, and then the burden of proof is on me to prove to you that there is in fact no cut on my arm. I'm saying that's backwards thinking.