I'm not sure if I understood well, but if I did the problem can be solved by alowing homesteading of parts of, let's say, the ocean. The problem rises only because it is illegal, thus there is no incentive for obtaining more natural resources, thus making them part of the market system.
Besides, the market never sais what is to be done. It only tells you when you are wrong.
MK, thanks for the comment.
Allowing homesteading is a classic libertarian response. It's flaw is that it expects the government to do something that it rarely does - to get out of the way.
Perhaps a more realistic approach would be for the government to actively focus on "tragedy of the commons"-type situations, and to promote dialogue and private property solutions.
ITQs (individual transferable quotas) have already proved themselves to be a viable solution for most fisheries. In the case of seas within the 200 mile limit, the US can aggressively seek to realize ITQ regimes. Internationally, things are less settled as the applicable legal regime is not clear in which event we can try to establish a useful legal regime and can actively promote dialogue and discuss technology that would make it easier to establish property rights regimes for fisheries that are outside various nations' exclusive zones.
Really interesting list, thanks for sharing it. The "theory of market failure" is one of the most exciting topics of economics for me.
By the way, you've got to be careful with capital letters in links. If you copy and paste some of the links, it doesn't work. Some work, but others don't. You should change these ones:
Pollution Trading Permits as a form of Market Socialism and the Search for a Real Market Solution to Environmental Pollution
Robert W. McGee and Walter E. Block
www.walterblock.com/.../pollution_trading_permits.pdf
Resolving the Tragedy of the Commons by Creating Private Property Rights in Wildlife
Robert J. Smith
www.cato.org/.../cj1n2-1.html
And the latest one in Acton doesn't work.
Thanks for the head's up, Martin. The links all work now.
good post, i read that too. can you blog about POLAR CITIES re my blog here? thanks. pro or con okay.
Tom,
I'm curious to know what you feel should be done about environmental crises, within a Libertarian framework? We both agree that employing government force in a command-and-control paradigm is ineffective and actually destructive, so what would you propose that individuals do within their own sphere of voluntary influence to address these issues?
Also, since talking about individual actions speaks primarily to actions taken on the consumer side of the equation, what would you propose that businesses do to address these issues? Environmentally-friendly production methods are all well and good, but how would you resolve the fact that many of these methods simply aren't profitable in today's market? Some people are indeed willing to pay extra for environmentally-friendly products, as evidenced by the proliferation of organic food markets, but I suspect that they are in the minority. In any case, how do you prevent pricing the poor out of some market by advocating a switch to more expensive, yet more environmentally conscious methods of production, without forced "charity" to make up the difference?
~ Ron
Danny, as the climate warms, economic activity will naturally gradually shift to the north as opportunities arise.
The last thing that would help us to efficiently allocate capital and resources if we experience a pinch due to rapid climate change would be direct governmental investments and subsidies.
We do, however, need government involvement in clarifying and enforcing property rights to any Arctic assets that are now "public".
Ron, good questions. Appropriate responses of course depend on the precise problem that you're talking about.
Individual responses on what we call "environmental" problems typically have limited effectiveness because harms are usally spread out, it is often difficult to identify a precise person/firm responsible and one's legal rights to take action both limited and burdened by the balance between personal costs and benefits that are shared with others.
Individuals can multiply their influence by banding together with those who agree with them and making their voice heard through purchasing campaigns, protests and other forms of market pressure (boycotts, speech, disclosure/dissemination of information about the undesired behavior, supporting "green" firms and products, etc.).
Changes in market demand gradually move businesses and as supply gradually changes more "expensive" green products become less expensive. And of course pollution isn't "free" - but merely the shifting of real costs to others - and often represents real welfare losses that would be avoided by more efficient arrangements that had the effect of internalizing external costs. Cleaning up the environment in the Western nations did not impoverish anyone.
There are of course profitable businesses to be made in finding and marketing ways that reduce the inefficiencies that result in environmental damage. Cleaner and greener businesses should be marketing themselves, not only to consumers but to other businesses. Information is a key driver of expanding opportunities to reduce pollution, etc.
Clean businesses should be campaigning to get the government out of the way as much as possible, except for trying to clarify and enforce property rights, or otherwise coordinating group action.
Pingback from fight » Libertarian reticence to save the world
"Man is clever but not wise ("homo sapiens" is a misnomer)"
True. But humanity is wise. Men create cultures, economies and law.
Man's flaw is that he is over confident of his own intelligence. He tries to control things he doesn't understand, like culture, economies, and law.
You have just made an excellent case for why government involvement will not improve the environment. Because governments, like man, are not wise.
Jon, thanks for the comments. A response is here: mises.com/.../sophmoric-optimism.aspx
"This is too simple, as well as self-contradictory. Humanity is wise because he collectively (but non-deliberately?) creates "cultures, economies and law" (let's not forget governments), but individuals are foolish when they seek to use institutions to achieve particular purposes?"
Yes, humans do create these collectively and non-deliberately. Economies are many individuals pursuing their own interests. By acting upon only local knowledge, many simple beings can create complex systems.
Most importantly economies are not beings of themselves, they are only a network of many simple actions.
Government does not belong among culture, economies, and law. Government is the opposite of the spontaneous order found in the other three. It is not the result of simple actions forming a complex whole, it is centrally planned.
Individuals are foolish to believe they can create institutions able to centrally plan decentralized spontaneous systems.
As Mises proved, human institutions do not have the knowledge to centrally plan markets. Societies only function because of antonymous units acting on local knowledge.
Sound Law is developed through the course of human (inter)action, not introspection. Because, as you said, humans are clever, not wise.
Sorry, but not only have governments also evolved, continue to evolve and can be consciously shaped, but it behooves us to understand them and try to consciously shape them, if only to minimize the damage that they do.
all the coins have two sides, man is not perfict.
So I am agree men is clever but not wise.
Men always do something wrong.
"Sorry, but not only have governments also evolved, continue to evolve and can be consciously shaped, but it behooves us to understand them and try to consciously shape them, if only to minimize the damage that they do."
Governments do evolve. They evolve as a matter of self defense, they change their organization and role in order to maintain a justification for existence.
Of course governments can be consciously shaped, they are institutions, not societies. Governments can be controlled, but they do not control.
Jon, I afraid I don't follow your last comments.
No, citizens are not wrong to seek to counterbalance corporations, but the govt is a poor counterbalance to corporations.
Lets not forget that the 800 lb. gorilla in the room grew to be that big mainly because of the welfare it keeps getting from the Govt. It is the nature of corporations (and individuals) to be rent seeking. But rent seeking is useful only when the govt is powerful enough do any favours. If you weaken the govt, or better still eliminate it, you make rent-seeking unprofitable. That IMHO is a better counter-balance.
Cheers!
MCLA
Governments do not achieve their ends. They are not able to control economies as they desire.
When they seek to control people, they end up destroying human productivity.
Governments operate with negative sanctions. But violence is not a productive force.
There is no animating spirit controlling societies that governments can manipulate. That is a pagan myth.
Governments can impede, but they can not control.
MCLA, I agree completely that the best way to lessen rent-seeking is to reduce the rents that are available through government.
This implies smaller government, but also suggests that we can make progress by focussing on breathing more life into the federalist structure of power-sharing with the states, the checks and balances between the branches of government, by limiting the ability of either political party to get a local lock on power by gerrymandering.
I appreciate the agreement that citizens are not wrong to seek to counterbalance corporations, but you've missed a point. Corporations are the 800 lb. gorilla not because of ongoing corporate welfare - that's simply the effect. Their powerful advantages over citizens comes from their size and financial power, which derives from legislative grants of unlimited life, unlimited purposes and limited liability for their investors. To reduce government, some effort must be made to moderate these advantages.
<i>I also realize that for certain cases our shared tool of government may serve productive or even essential purposes. </i>
So, you believe that government is needed to 'fix' the enviromental 'problems' ???
I always thought that to be a libertarian, one needed to understand that the only legitimate function of government is to protect individual rights.
Also, libertarians usually realize that monopolic government can't really protect individual rights because it is...a monopoly.
You on the other hand, don't realize this, and also believe that government is essential to deal with polution ?
Juan, thanks for your visit.
I am certainly in favor of radical envrionmental deregulation domestically, but believe a more nuanced position is required for problems that are outside or extend beyond our borders. In any case, I don't expect our government will voluntarily disappear, so I am in favor of incremental changes that shift towards a greater reliance on property rights, markets and voluntary cooperation.
I hope you will browse through my other posts to get a better picture of what I think. In addition, you might try this comment thread on the main Mises blog:
blog.mises.org/.../007152.asp
I'm more or less familiar with your position, I think ?
You believe that 'science' has declared that GW is a fact - is real - is objective - etc ?
You say that property rights are needed to address the problem ?
I believe that government is not needed for domestic pollution problems, but for climate change and the oceans, which involve resources nobody owns, there is an imprtant role for government.
I don't really understand what you mean by your last paragraph. Corporations are groups of willing participants. I don't see what is inherently bad about that. When they lobby government to give them special privilages, they are no worse than the poor family begging the government for welfare. Corporations just illuminate the corruption of our system better than anything else. In the end, being an 800 lb gorilla isn't a bad thing in itself; you can't blame things for being what they are. It's when they have a tool that allows them to silently hurt people that they become dangerous.
That tool is a corrupt, powerful government. Take away that tool, take away the threat.
So, you're not advocating the privatization of the sea, but rather that world-government control it ? Same thing for the atmosphere ?
Contumacy, those who get the greatest gains from government are not particularly interested in loosening their grip.
Yes, corporations are "voluntary" asociations but think back a bit. Aren`t they creatures of the state? Are their state-given advantages to corporations that partnerships and other busiesses created under common law don`t have? Have those advantages grown? And - apart from competition from upstarts - don`t they have more powerful levers over government than individuals?
Juan, your presumptive strawman is offensive, so you hardly invite me to bother with you further.
No, I don`t advocate world government.
I`ve already given you a thread that spells out more of what I think. You can take a look, or wait until I post more here. Your choice.
In what ways Ron "has underestimated the seriousness of the climate change problem" in your opinion?
Do you think climate change problem is serious and real?
I've seen you're quite interested in environmental issues, I guess you'll have some scientific knowledge about this...
It's allright Tokyo. Your claim that 'libertarians' deny I don't know what , sounds offensive to me. And the claim that man is clever, but not wise, sounds also offensive.
And let me ask, If man is not wise, we should we listen to your 'arguments' ?
we should we listen to your 'arguments' ?
I meant :
Why should we listen to your 'arguments' ?
Martin, man's activities - GHGs, soot, tropical deforestation, albedo changes) - are very clearly forcing the climate (even if we do not know with certainty what other facors are at work) and oceans is a geologically rapid way and with effects that are already evident in advances of the seasons/climate zones/growing days in the US and in the much higher temps and thawing of the Arctic. This is having a big impact on natural systems, as well as human systems. Moreover, there is a huge amount of inertia in the system, so we will see increasing impacts for some time, even if we were to do the impossible by stopping at GHG emissions tomorrow.
Here is a decent summary: www.carbonequity.info/.../Arctic.pdf. The IPCC summaries are also useful, but are already out of date due to rapid changes.
If one country controlled the world's thermometer and was cranking it up, you can bet many people would be upset, and those adversely affected demanding compensation. But the fact fo the matter is that as nobody owns the atmpsphere, we simply have no control mechanism, so we face a tragedy of the commons situation and complex, difficult negotiations about what to do. Opposition comes various sources: those who benefit most from the status quo (free GHG emissions and freedom to pass costs on to others), thos who oppose ANY government meddling in the economy or, worse, the creeping creation of a world government (even though internationally there simply is no government fiat, but voluntary multiparty negotiations), and those who enjoy the partisanship (hating socialists, enviros etc.) and as a result have a hard time seeing the real facts.
Juan, who's saying you should listen to me? I've made arguments above about what I see are problems - feel free to argue them directly.
You can think and engage in discussion, or you can prove my point for me. The reflexive prickliness is an inherited tribal cognitive mechanism that gets in the way of thinking clearly. Have you noticed this? There are still an awful lot of Bush supporters who think the the Iraq invasion and subsequent war conduct were all the morally right thing to do - and they typically think those who disagree with them are insane or liberals or both.
Pingback from rent » Blog Archive » Too Many or Too Few People? Does the market provide an answer?
Pingback from rent » Blog Archive » Libertarian reticence to save the world
Pingback from country » Building property rights for common resources
Actually, the Ropers were banned because they behave in juvenile internet spamming.
Brett, tell me more. My own experience has been that Republicans when criticized tend to view the critics as enemies and thus, ipso facto, liberals.
This statement by Leon is par for the course: "a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans"
Pingback from photowinks » Blog Archive » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach
Pingback from portalhg » Blog Ar??ivi » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach
Pingback from zenmeme » Blog Ar??ivi » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach
Pingback from Dating Sites » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach
Pingback from quote » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach
Pingback from system of a down » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach
Pingback from dating » Blog Archive » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach
Pingback from all event » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach
Pingback from dating site » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach
Pingback from Levmonetary.Com » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach
Clearing the Air About Genesis
No one else, presently walking on this Earth, is an expert on Genesis. Do not even listen to anyone else trying to expound what Genesis is saying, or what "creationism" is, for they do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. There is no "creation account" in Genesis. There is no such thing as a "creation/evolution" contest. It is "evolution" verses the "Observations of Moses ", given to Moses by God in 1598 BC, in biblical order, as revealed by the Living Word in the Gospels.
The world of theology (and creationism) has never understood Genesis, so of course they would not have told us the truth, since they never did their "homework". Each day in Genesis, from Gen. 1:2 thru 2:3 was a 24-hr day , shown to Moses, taken from seven different weeks (1 day from Creation Week, 6 days from 6 restoration weeks), and each week was from a different geologic age. The seven days conveyed to Moses were not linear.
Genesis chapter two covers about a 200 yr period, starting in about 7200 BC, and has nothing to do with chapter one. There was no "evolution". There was Creation, followed by extinction, then six periods of restorations, with five more extinction events in between, ending each era of mankind. With the third era of mankind (the second restoration), God "redesigned" mankind to be in His image, after His likeness, in about 64 Million BC.
If you have comments, issues, or questions, direct them to me (ephraim7@aol.com), or read the book "Moses Didn't Write About Creation!". Have I made myself clear?
Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
Ephraim7@aol.com
Pingback from Yawfood.Com » Refuse to trade with China and India?
Pingback from Whoeke.Com » Get behind Ron Paul`s American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007!
Pingback from depotab » Blog Archiv » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach
Pingback from rock » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach
Pingback from Standabell.Com » Can Enviros Manage Land? Give ANWR to the Nature Conservancy!
Pingback from Levmonetary.Com » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach (update)
Pingback from photowinks » Blog Archive » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach (update)
Pingback from portalhg » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach (update)
Herman, thanks for your comment. Please feel free to comment directly to "Fundamentalist" on the relevant thread(s).
TT
Pingback from quote » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach (update)
Pingback from system of a down » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach (update)
Pingback from depotab » Blog Archive » Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach (update)
Pingback from Segtext.Com » The Arch-Warmer, James Hansen
New paper!
Is this the science that proves climate change wrong?
geoclimaticstudies.info/benthic_bacteria.htm
Carbon dioxide production by benthic bacteria: the death of manmade global warming theory?
Daniel A Klein*, Mandeep J Gupta*, Philip Cooper**, Arne FR Jansson**.
*Department of Climatology, University of Arizona; **Department of Atmospheric Physics, Göteborgs Universitet (University of Gothenburg, Sweden.)
Received: 18 February 2007 / Accepted: 9th August 2007 / Published online: 3rd November 2007
©Inst Geoclimatic Studies 2007
Pingback from common » Building property rights for common resources
Pingback from Sophomoric optimism? - TheTokyoTominator
Pingback from War-profiteering and "Parasitic Imperialism" at Web Page Financial Content
While this is tangential to his central theme, Hossein-zadeh is far too generous in that first paragraph you have quoted. Does he offer any evidence to support those claims (of the economic benefits of imperialism in the past)?
You can't just say they were experiencing rapid economic growth at the same time they were pursuing imperial policies. Correlation does not imply causation.
The question is: was the economic growth greater than, the same as, or less than would have occurred in the absence of the imperial policies (all else being equal)?
Todd, of course I'm not offering him to discuss the point that concerns, nor have I don't the legwork to give you and answer.
However, if you think about it, I think that you'd agree that he is probably right - that in the past imperialism and aggression were substantially motivated by gains to elites from theft from other countries (and such wars/empires were sustained by resources and spoils from the countries invaded) but now, at least in the case of the US empire, the motivations are much less about spoils abroad than about gains elites get by milking the US state.
Pingback from Economics Topics News » Blog Archive » Hysteria from McKinsey: Costs of Reducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Pingback from Economics Topics News » Blog Archive » Murdoch & 149 Other Top Vile Collectivists/Capitalists Call for …
Is there no room between global warming is a farce and global warming will be catastrophic?
Sun Microsystems' opinion carries no weight with me. These are the goons that wrote Orin Hatch's anti-trust suit against Microsoft for him, claiming that Microsoft was harming consumers by giving away a free web browser which was eventually taken down by open-source competitors of all things (and has any company actually committed the second stage of predatory pricing?).
Some of the largest energy companies welcome the regulation as increased (imposed) operating costs will bar new competitors from entering the market.
There is a lot of hysteria that comes from the environmentalist crowd's desire to have all bow to their larger wishes--the founder of Greenpeace quit the organization saying that it had been hijacked by political interests using the evironment as a tool for other aims.
Al Gore won a nobel prize for a making a film claiming ocean levels would rise 20 feet in the next hundred years, while the IPCC's report gives a 95% chance of a one foot rise over that time span with a worst-case scenario of two feet. With many in the international community, and especially the NGOs that represent no constituency in particular and their enormous influence in the U.N., celebrating such hype as a step in the right direction, instead of properly treating it as a step backwards that complicates a rational solution to the problem, I don't think distrust of the U.N. is unwarranted.
Pingback from Natural Cures for Indigestion, Heartburn, and Nausea by Health Tips
Wow I almost wrote a post on the exact same article. The difference is that I was going to point out what rent-seeking bastards the business leaders are.
Local governments won't stop people from competing with you? No problem! At least not when you have a socialist world state that (you hope) can stop new competition everywhere!
I also appriciated their use of the broken window fallacy. Sure action would create business opportunities...but along comes at least 10x as much cost. Just think of all the good could be done with the money fed to the global warming gods.
I put these men on the same level as military industries pushing for war so they get more business.
but what these collectivists are really saying is that they want a global tax on individuals so that their costs in reducing GHG. They make themselves look good for "caring" about the environment and yet we pay for their ability to carry out and take credit for saving the planet.
Kyle, I agree that we should have our eyes open on the points you mention. But we should certainly not close our eyes either, and pretend that this all a perfect storm of idiots, collectivists, misanthropes and the misuinformed.
The people who signed this statement are obviously well-informed and while some may have rent-seeking purposes tha`s a hard sale to say of all of them.
Contumacy and Stephen:
Thanks for your comments. I am sorry if I have misled you with my snark. I actually think the issue is quite complex. You might try taking a look at my comments on Sean Corrigan`s recent post, "Carbophobic Socialism",
blog.mises.org/.../007482.asp, and then some of my earlier posts on my blog.
Pingback from ron paul concentration
Fascinating! Good eye.
Pingback from The Political News You Need to Know » Update: Greenwald on Ron Paul and the “corruption and complicity of Democrats”
Pingback from US Political News » Update: Greenwald on Ron Paul and the “corruption and complicity of Democrats”
Pingback from Ron Paul Re Elected
Tom, the first time I read this post, I had a hard time seeing your point through the heavy fog of sarcasm. Writers of think that sarcasm makes their writing more biting in some way, but it really doesn't work. I don't know if it is the venue of the web or if it is a general principle. In case case, it is bad form if your goal is to be understood.
Many thanks, Jeff. I have responded to you directly by email.
Funny post, it had me laughing out loud. I do hope you realize I was kidding though.
Apologies for the lack of clear organization. Maybe later, as time allows. http://jolt.law.harvard.edu
Like a magician Connaughton is forcing a card. To see how, just look up how many power plants are under construction today.
Eli, Connaughton is talking about the anticipated need for energy/CO2 capture globally. How far off is this gross estimate?
Only a moving universe of opportunity plus choice enables
the present reality.
Each individual human being possesses a unique, highly
developed, and sensitive perception of variety. Thus
aware, man is endowed with a natural capability for enact-
ing internal mental and external physical selectivity.
Quantitative and qualitative choice-making thus lends
itself as the superior basis of an active intelligence.
Human is earth's Choicemaker. His title describes
his definitive and typifying characteristic. Recall
that his other features are but vehicles of experi-
ence intent on the development of perceptive
awareness and the following acts of decision and
choice. Note that the products of man cannot define
him for they are the fruit of the discerning choice-
making process and include the cognition of self,
the utility of experience, the development of value-
measuring systems and language, and the accultur-
ation of civilization.
The arts and the sciences of man, as with his habits,
customs, and traditions, are the creative harvest of
his perceptive and selective powers. Creativity, the
creative process, is a choice-making process. His
articles, constructs, and commodities, however
marvelous to behold, deserve neither awe nor idol-
atry, for man, not his contrivance, is earth's own
highest expression of the creative process.
Human is earth's Choicemaker. The sublime and
significant act of choosing is, itself, the Archimedean
fulcrum upon which man levers and redirects the
forces of cause and effect to an elected level of qual-