Donny with an A:You made the point that under some alternative system of dealing with climate change, insurance and legal firms would have incentive to figure out the precise nature of the climate change phenomenon in order to best serve their clients. But I see no reason that such research couldn't be done now (unless you're suggesting that the IPCC is crowding out private research).
In Walter Block’s “Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights” published in Journal of Business Ethics 17: 1887-1899, 1998 endnote 16, he states
It is only because murder and rape are illegal that there was a call for a forensic industry, capable of determining guilt based on semen, blood, hair follicles, DNA, ect. If these activities were legal, these capabilities would not have developed. Similarly, when one can sue for pollution, it is of the utmost importance to determine guilt or innocence; hence, the establishment of environmental forensics.
I think the point he makes here applies to the issue of anthropogenic global warming(AWG) as well. The precedent of governments treating air pollution in general as a legislative-regulatory issue, rather than a common-civil legal issue ensures that AWG will be treated the same. And because it would be virtually impossible to sue anyone, even if there were undeniable evidence available, there is no market for any kind of climate forensics which could link back specific damage to specific CO2 emission. If AWG is existent, there would be no market to prove a causal relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperature. There is no reason why such research couldn’t be done, but there is also no profit incentive to do it.
I wasn’t suggesting, nor do I see how the IPCC could crowd out private research. The incentives simply exist for state funding and scarcely do for private funding.
Donny with an A: If we knew that anthropogenic climate change were occurring, and that it was going to cause damage, but didn't know exactly what the damage would be, we would likely not be able to hold anyone to account in court with our current standards of proof. But we know that damage will be done, and who would be doing it! I'm just uncomfortable saying that in such a case, we should be restricted from any sort of intervention.
I agree. If it can be demonstrated that an activity will cause damage, we should be allowed to get an injunction to force the activity to stop.
Donny with an A:However, one thing you said puzzled me: that it is impossible to know that someone will commit a crime in the future, and so people should not be held accountable for future damage. It seems to me that in talking about committing a crime, one is referring to the action which brought about a particular rights violation. In the case of climate change, the question seems to be about whether a rights violation will occur, and what the precise nature of that violation will be. The action, on the other hand, has already occurred. If climate change will violate rights, then it seems that in regards to a given contribution, the crime has already been committed.
I think our differences here come from the fact that I’m trying to apply sort of a Rothbardian-Blockean ethical framework to the problem, while I think (but I’m not 100%) yours is Lockean. The only way to resolve these differences is to get into homesteading theory and the foundations of our ethical positions.
If you and TokyoTom have convinced me of anything, it is that Libertarians shouldn’t be avoiding the ethical issues surrounding climate change and just dismissing the science. This is what I was doing before, because the ethical issues seem really difficult to figure out. AWG seemed like a tragedy of the commons problem without the possibility of the usual solution of homesteading. I look back on my previous position and it just looks like a major cop-out. And I’m sure it does to many outside observers as well when the more well known Libertarians do it.
In terms of strategy, it would be better for Libertarians to put their main efforts into solving the ethical dilemma, rather than dismissing the science. First of all, it’s Libertarian’s main strength. If Libertarians can prove that the market can do a better job, at producing sound climate science (if there is a good reason to even produce it), that it can supply higher quality justice than the state, and combine that with the proof that the market can provide better cheaper solutions than massive government regulations (George Reismann), than it doesn’t really matter if the IPCC is right or wrong.
Ego, I already addressed your proposal regarding children - did you miss it? Anyway, it's hard to take it seriously - state-imposed limits on numbers of children is not consistent with libertarian or Austrian views. The fact that people largely bear their own costs for their children is what has led to the demographic shift in the developed nations.
Austrian approaches to environmental issues focus on improving property rights (or other cooperative mechanisms that better internalize external costs), in order to enable people to make transactions based on their preferences.
I think your final sentence is largely a strawman, but so what? Do we get more trackion demonizing those with disagree with, or by accepting that there is a problem with property rights that doesn't force people to bear all of their own costs and frustrates the ability of people to express their preferences?
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
-- Richard Feynman
TokyoTom: Ego, I already addressed your proposal regarding children - did you miss it? Anyway, it's hard to take it seriously - state-imposed limits on numbers of children is not consistent with libertarian or Austrian views. The fact that people largely bear their own costs for their children is what has led to the demographic shift in the developed nations. Austrian approaches to environmental issues focus on improving property rights (or other cooperative mechanisms that better internalize external costs), in order to enable people to make transactions based on their preferences.
Yes, I missed that response.
For others who are reading, my post was this:
TokyoTom, here's the problem I have. Let's assume the following 2 things: Humans are the main cause of global warming We can determine the point at which one's "carbon output" is a violation of others' rights (let's assume it's 10 tons per year) If we were to be consistent in our views (and we must be), we must ban having children. At the very least, we must limit the number of children one can have. If I'm violating your rights by emitting 11 tons of carbon per year as opposed to 10, then I'm certainly violating your rights by emitting 10 tons of carbon and "emitting" 5 children, each of whom emit 10 tons per year, for a total of 50. I don't like that path at all. In order to maximize rights and liberty, we shouldn't focus on something as nebulous as "global warming". Should we combat "global cooling" for people who plant too many trees? Our environmental efforts should focus on combating carcinogenic emissions instead.
Let's assume the following 2 things:
If we were to be consistent in our views (and we must be), we must ban having children. At the very least, we must limit the number of children one can have. If I'm violating your rights by emitting 11 tons of carbon per year as opposed to 10, then I'm certainly violating your rights by emitting 10 tons of carbon and "emitting" 5 children, each of whom emit 10 tons per year, for a total of 50.
I don't like that path at all. In order to maximize rights and liberty, we shouldn't focus on something as nebulous as "global warming". Should we combat "global cooling" for people who plant too many trees? Our environmental efforts should focus on combating carcinogenic emissions instead.
You responded with this:
Ego, I would say that Austrian thinking doesn`t lead at all to your conclusions, even given your premises. If there were clear and enforceable rights relating to the atmosphere then the enforcement of those rights and the differences in preferences among bpeople would lead to changes in economic behavior, including voluntary transactions, investments in technology that reduces how one`s activity infringes on others, etc. Finding ways to enclose various commons and to minimize inefficiencies inherent in externalities to private behavior are what have driven the success of man, from an evolutionary perspective and up to the present. (See Yandle and Ostrom) I see no reason why figuring out how to establish rights and rules realting to our use of various commons - from the oceans and regional ecosystems to the atmosphere means anything like a restriction of choice.
Ego, I would say that Austrian thinking doesn`t lead at all to your conclusions, even given your premises.
If there were clear and enforceable rights relating to the atmosphere then the enforcement of those rights and the differences in preferences among bpeople would lead to changes in economic behavior, including voluntary transactions, investments in technology that reduces how one`s activity infringes on others, etc.
Finding ways to enclose various commons and to minimize inefficiencies inherent in externalities to private behavior are what have driven the success of man, from an evolutionary perspective and up to the present. (See Yandle and Ostrom)
I see no reason why figuring out how to establish rights and rules realting to our use of various commons - from the oceans and regional ecosystems to the atmosphere means anything like a restriction of choice.
I am not saying that my proposal is Austrian! Definetly not. I was saying that my proposal follows logically from setting a criminal-level of carbon output.
Oh, I was just responding to your point about the origins of the environmental movement (aside from the fact that it's suspicious).
Again, I'm not opposed to stopping any pollution that violates rights; I'm just worried about violating others' rights in the name of something as murky as this.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
It might be beating a dead horse at this point, but I figured this might be of some interest: http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-does-it-mean-to-advocate-market.html
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
TokyoTom:Sure, I see similarities between the calls to "fight global terrorism" and the calls to "fight global warming" - but they seem to be rather shallow similarities to me. Is it the same set of elites that are behind both?
I don't think it matters one lick whos behind the calls, what matters is what they want us to do about their respective drummed up crises. Again the solutions to both are pretty simple and pretty much the same:"Give up certain individual rights and freedoms for the sake of the greater good"
TokyoTom:The first case seems to involve a narrow set of US interests aligned with US and ME fossil fuel interests and defense contractors that appeal to US patriotism and exceptionalism; the second is global and says that the US needs to cooperate with the rest of the world in addressing shared problems realting to shared resources (the atmosphere, oceans etc.) and the problem of poor governance and development in the poorer areas of the world.
I don't care what either phony crises appeals to. Just because fighting global warming appeals to "good hearted left wingers" such as yourself doesn't make it any more righteous. And what is this bit about poor governance? Is there good governance?
TokyoTom: Is there a serious problem with terror, other the one we helped to create and can't resolve by the use of military force? Are there serious issues relating to the demands that modern markets and technology place on shared but unowned open-access resources, or with respect to poverty in the third world resulting from corrupt governance and thievery that benefits partiicular elites and ethnic groups?
Well first, yes there certainly are real problems with terrorists! I find it laughable that you completely dismiss terrorism as if it doesn't exist but your willing to wage jihad on the sun beacuse Al gore says it's given are planet a "fever".
TokyoTom: Are you seriously suggesting that appeals to "fight global warming" are really just disguised attempts by everybody - those who hate our freedoms and our economy - to take over the US?
Wow don't believe I said that now did I? I believe the appeals to fight global warming are for the most part sincere just like the appeals to fight global terror. What I object to is fighting them at the cost of my own rights. I fail to see any difference in giving up these rights to kill Osama or to kill off Co2.
Ego, it doesn't sound like in principle we are so far apart - but floating non-Austrian proposals about limiting children seems a bit extreme.
I share your reluctance to "violate others' rights in the name of something as murky as this." What have I advocated here, other than changes in government policy to INCREASE individual and corporate freedom? But let's not ignore that in the absence of property rights and enforcement mechanisms in important shared resources like the atmosphere means that costs are being shifted involuntarily, for the gains of a few.
Copperhead, you won some points (particularly with hjmaiere) with your initial post comparing AGW and terrorism, but you just lost plenty by mixing up your own legitimate views with fairly trollish nonsense.
If you don't like my hyperbole in trying to show what I see are the clear differences between the rent-seeking behind AGW and terrorism, it's fair to say so, but it's something else to then come back (i) slinging around unfounded conclusory terms like "good hearted left wingers" and (ii) finding "laughable" the offensive strawmen that you set up ("you completely dismiss terrorism as if it doesn't exist but your willing to wage jihad on the sun beacuse Al gore says it's given are planet a "fever").
Our discussion was simply about rent-seeking - where do you come up with "left wing"? As I specifically noted, I'm a right-winger. Call me good-hearted if you wish, or too statist for your satisfaction, but please try to base your conclusions on what I've said, and not your preconceptions of who cares about climate change - or terrorism.
And of course I have NOT "completely dismissed terrorism as if it doesn't exist" - rather, I've indicated that if it's serious, it's because we "helped to create [it] and can't resolve by the use of military force". See the difference between your black and white strawman and my important nuance? I believe that my position is the considered conservative and libertarian one.
And where do you get off laughing at the offensive claptrap that I want to "wage jihad on the sun beacuse Al gore says it's given are planet a 'fever'"? Al Gore doesn't pull my strings, I am concerned about climate change for the same reason practically all scientific bodies (and a lomg, long list of others) are, I see (as I specifically noted) an obvious problem in Austrian terms with the atmosphere and other important open-access resources that lack clear or enforceable property rights, and I acknowledge (as I also specifically noted) and remain concerned by the inevitable rent-seeking that also accompanies the "government action" case.
Dolt. Just because you can't walk or chew gum at the same time doesn't mean others can't. Get yourself some nuance and some basic civility.
Ironically, can't you see that your willingness to so quickly stereotype those you disagree with is the very type of shallow, reflexive tribal reaction that hjmaiere writes about? Let's rush off an attack enviros! Too much fun letting your unearned hostility and contempt flow (and too much hard work exercising a little self-control)?
Of course, if you want to persist, you're in good company with the lovers of reason at Mises, sadly:
http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/19/cool-rationalists-or-conservatives-and-neocons-on-the-environment.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/24/george-reisman-or-how-i-learned-to-hate-enviros-and-love-tantrums.aspx
http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx
Sorry, but I just have no appetite to respond to you further. Funny how that works.
TokyoTom: And where do you get off laughing at the offensive claptrap that I want to "wage jihad on the sun beacuse Al gore says it's given are planet a 'fever'"? Al Gore doesn't pull my strings, I am concerned about climate change for the same reason practically all scientific bodies (and a lomg, long list of others) are, I see (as I specifically noted) an obvious problem in Austrian terms with the atmosphere and other important open-access resources that lack clear or enforceable property rights, and I acknowledge (as I also specifically noted) and remain concerned by the inevitable rent-seeking that also accompanies the "government action" case.
Well its fine for you to be concerned about global warming just as its fine for george bush to be concerned about global terorrism. What concerns me is that you seem to be trying to conjure up instances where libertarian principles cannot apply(in your mind) as an excuse to support "government action".
TokyoTom: Dolt. Just because you can't walk or chew gum at the same time doesn't mean others can't. Get yourself some nuance and some basic civility.
Okay way to show me your civility tom! I didn't think my post would be taken as so offensive by you and frankly I think your overreacting a great deal. Not to mention your the one who completely twisted my original post into something I clearly did not say.
TokyoTom: Ironically, can't you see that your willingness to so quickly stereotype those you disagree with is the very type of shallow, reflexive tribal reaction that hjmaiere writes about? Let's rush off an attack enviros! Too much fun letting your unearned hostility and contempt flow (and too much hard work exercising a little self-control)?
Well perhaps if enviromentalists such as you, weren't always attacking mankind itself, folks like me wouldn't take such offense to your ramblings.
TokyoTom:Of course, if you want to persist, you're in good company with the lovers of reason at Mises, sadly:
Yes there are lots of folks out there who just aren't as concerned about the enviroment as you are, so what? And theres nothing like the self righteousness and arrogance of enviromentalists like you to encourage that.
CooperHead:
I'm just reacting to you, and justifiedly. You didn't think I would find your patently offensive remarks to be offensive? Or was it that you just didn't think I would care? In either case you deserve to have a pissed-off reaction. If you want to comment here in a civil manner, then people are happy to have a conversation, regardless of how much you disagree with them.
Frankly, if you're serious about commenting here, you'll take responsibility for your own behavior, instead of trying to cover up what's indefensible with more weak, irrelevant and offensive justifications - like somehow I provoked your offensiveness with my "ramblings" and because I must be one of those "enviromentalists [who are] always attacking mankind itself", or that it is the "self righteousness and arrogance of enviromentalists like [me]" who are really the problem. Get real - how you feel about "environmentalists" generally is no excuse for your own rudeness.
It's your tone, and not my response, that's the problem. If that's how you want to be, take it somewhere else. Or you can prove yourself worthy of having a serious conversation. Your choice.
Juan: I am not sure whether you want a real conversation, but given your persistence, I'm willing to take the chance.
Was what your score on the Austrian quiz? Mine was 95%. Not that it's that important; it just means I have some idea of what Austrian views are.
The Austrian test "answer" on property is quite brief; my views are more nuanced:
Property is a naturally arising relationship between human beings and material things. Property and enforceable property rights make possible economic calculation, a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of prosperity. Indeed, civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property. Any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity.
Property doesn't exist by in nature, but is a relationship created by man - and meaningful only to the extend that it is mutually erspected by others (i.e., "enforceable"). It is certainly not the only relationship by man and material things - there are no property rights in some things and shared property rights in others, and men also often take things that others say belongs to them (viz., a denial of or indifference to "property" of others).
"Property" as we know it is a human institution, but it is hardly unique to man. Other animals also try to capture and defend resources - treat them like personal property - often very effectively, but it does require diligence and expenditure of energy. But cooperation (and some reciprocal recognition of "pecking orders", rules of priority and use developed in animals because it provided some advantages over a constant, no-holds-barred squabble over resources.
Does property require law? If you mean written law, then of course not. Humans had recogizable property rights land before we had written language. But property of course requires relatively clearly understood and accepted rules, and social mechanisms to enforce those rules - both to allow those whose rights are violated to seek redress and to provide disincentives to violations. Written law of course is certainly created by elites, and used to enforce property rights. These laws are in some ways simply codifications of common, unwritten rules, but they also involve some element of deliberate choice and decisions that elites were in a position to manipulate in their favor. Is written law still useful? Yes. Is written law complete and satisfactory as is? Read Mises.
You might recalled that I previously discussed Mises and Yandle, in the context of explaining exactly these points earlier.
Do "property and enforceable property rights make possible economic calculation, a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of prosperity"? Yes, indeed.
Is "civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property"? This is certainly a rather broad and vague statement. Have we had a spectrum of societies, some of which, for one length of time or another, did not officially recognize private property, or considered most property to be "collectively" owned or owned by the state? Sure, but to the extent that internally they did not acknowledge private property they had severe problems with economic calculation, a productive division of labor, and increasing levels of prosperity. Some of these groups are still around, starting with various religious sects. But even the societies that declaimed private property still acted as if the state owned property, and would defens such property against outsiders, and in any event, as human nature has evolved to include a concept of property, even in the radically communistic societies a fairly large streak of private property was respected as a practical matter, and helped these societies to function.
Does "any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity"? Well, encroachment by whom? Without a state, the effectiveness of "property" is entirely dependent on the ability of the one claiming it to defend his position, which ability depends to a large extent on the willingness of others to accept his claim. As the material environment continually changes, so too will "property" change in societies - with or without laws. If the encroachment is by the state, then I pretty much agree - and am worried about theft and manipulation by elites. All taxation may reduce freedom, and is likely to reduce prosperity, but besides that, are state actions with respect to resources that are not owned "encroachments on property"?
Is TokyoTom a radical, man-hating enviro fascist commie? Who knows; but he's certainly a snake in the grass who can't be trusted, that's for sure.
Hope the above is useful as a place for further discussion. Forgive the arrogant sarcasm at the end.