Defending against a meteor

Reply

DanielMuff replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 4:41 PM

rated by 0 users

Eugene:

In an anarchical society, why should people devise ways to defend against a meteor hit? There are huge positive externalities in this case. If you developed a nuclear bomb that will strike a meteor and divert it from its orbit, everyone on earth will benefit.

Armageddon? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120591/

So there are extremely weak incentives to do this without taxes. It might cost 1 billion to develop such weapon. Why would anyone want to be the sucker who does it for the sake of everyone else?

Why would Warren Buffet do so? Wouldn't want to protect his interests on Earth? Why would a bunch of billionaires do to protect their interests? If billionaires have an incentive to pledge half their wealth to charity, why wouldn't they put in $1 billion to protect Earth? Why wouldn't Wal-Mart put in the $1 billion to protect their $400 billion a year business?

Libertariranism relies on of selfishness (See Ayn Rand: The virtue of selfishness). So if we assume selfishness, how can we assume people will be charitable enough to raise the huge funds needed to divert meteors?

See above.

Reply

Michael J Green replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 4:46 PM

rated by 0 users

Student:

i mean, this essentially why nothing is being done about global climate change--even though it may threaten the survival of the human species (or at the very least the wealth enjoyed by the west), very very little is being done about it. why? externalities combined with very large transaction costs.

And perhaps because people believe such problems can only or should only (or will only, in spite of private efforts) be addressed through the ineffective machine of the state. This is similar to saying, "If private schools could be so affordable and efficient, why aren't they ubiquitous right now?"

Externalities and transaction costs may hamper voluntary action, but let's not ignore the serious problems of using politics to address issues - which is currently responsible for a military industrial complex that releases far more carbon into the atmosphere than any other industry could scarcely touch.

Reply

filc replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 4:47 PM

rated by 0 users

Student:

a lot of ad campaigns, but few people are dramatically changing their behavior. you mention car manufacturing and it is true that there are more fuel efficient options. but what is adoption rate? and even once people buy these new cars, how do we know that they are not simply driving more (leaving their total "carbon footprint" unchanged)?

Your focusing on consumer products. I wasn't talking about cars when I said car manufacturing. I was talking about actual factory practices, pollution control, recycle practices amongst the manufacturing industry which has literally taken a 180 degree turn in the past two decades. Even before the green movement this had already started to be the case.

Though I suppose superifcially you can pretend that nothing has happened. Having a history in manufacturing I know how it used to be, in comparison to how it is now. 

But even in consumer products. Do you go to starbucks often? Companies like this use everything recycled, everything is "Green". Shit I can't even buy a harddrive for my PC without it being some kind of "Green Technology" that uses less energy.

Student:

like i said, there is very very little being done about climate change (both at an individual and a political level).

If it's true then perhaps you have to concede the point that you've yet to convince people that it's an actual issue(Or at least one we can actually control). I would say impending doom by way of gigantic meteorite, and controversal global warming which may or may not effect is in 100 years is a BIG difference. So comparing the two is just silly.

Reply

Eugene replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 4:50 PM

rated by 0 users

Naturally when everyone knows a meteor is going to hit, most people will donate money. However when the chance is very small that a meteor would hit, everyone will say "Well, surely Wal-Mart will deal with it to improve their public image". I am not as rich as Wal-Mart, so I'm not going to help. Can you really put all your hope in what can potentially be the only way to save the human race into Wal-Mart?

Regarding global warming. Libertarianism teachers people to be responsible for their actions, not to constantly count on others to provide them with "safety nets". But factories that generate climate change do not take responsibility for their actions. It is extremely likely that they change the climate and thus hurt many people, but they are absolved from the consequences of their actions, just like the banks are absolved from the consequences of their failures with all the government bailouts.

Reply

DanielMuff replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 4:55 PM

rated by 0 users

Eugene:

... Can you really put all your hope in what can potentially be the only way to save the human race into Wal-Mart?

Can you really put it into the hands of government, who have murdered hundrends of millions of people in the past couple of hundred of years?

Reply

Student replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 4:58 PM

rated by 0 users

well, im sure your personal experience in manufacturing is just fine and dandy. but the eia tells me that co2 emissions form energy and industry in 2008 were less than 1% lower than what they were in 2000 and 14% higher than what they were in 1990.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/environment/data.cfm#summary

is that 180 degree turn you were talking about over the last 2 decades? 

anyways, i will concede that people are not adequately convinced that climate change is an important issue. but i don't think the comparison is silly at all. it is a very real possibility that a meteor could be headed for earth right now. yet, we would have no idea because only a very small percentage of the sky is being tracked due to lack of funding. i'm sure you can guess why i think that is the case (externalities. why should the u.s. pay for it when if france or some other country does it we would get the benefits too). 

Reply

krazy kaju replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 5:02 PM

rated by 0 users

1. The answer to your question is simple - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract

2. Libertarianism doesn't rely on selfishness. Where did you come up with this ridiculous assumption? Have you ever even read The Virtue of Selfishness, or anything else by Ayn Rand for that matter? Ayn Rand explicitly stated that she was not a libertarian - though her philosophy of Objectivism proposed a somewhat libertarian "night watchman" state. Rand - being a minarchist - would have relied on government to solve this problem. Many libertarian thinkers - e.g. Rothbard - don't buy Rand's egoist philosophy.

Reply

SirThinkALot replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 5:02 PM

rated by 0 users

Incidently, Robert Murphy wrote an article on exactly this:

http://mises.org/daily/5065/Empirical-Evidence-That-Brad-DeLong-Is-Completely-Obtuse

But it would most likely be done by pooling capital together, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and various other super rich people would put large sums of money towards stopping the meteor, because, even they will be better off if its stopped than if it isnt.....

Reply

Phaedros replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 5:21 PM

rated by 0 users

Dear Student,

Even if everyone stopped emitting CO2, including breathing, would that accomplish anything in stopping global warming, if it really is going to be catastrophic, at this point?

Reply

filc replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 5:44 PM

rated by 0 users

Eugene:

Can you really put all your hope in what can potentially be the only way to save the human race into Wal-Mart?

A) Why do you assume it will just be walmart? Perhaps Walmart, Exxon Mobile, and Sprint will all donate on a single project. You know how major sports events have multiple sponsors?

B) Can you really put all your hope in an organization that has never proven its competency in that situation? What happens if they fail? Are there other alternatives readily prepared?(Likely not if it's state run. The follow solutions are only second best, where on the market every person pushing a solution thinks his/her solution is the best)

C) Your going to force massive taxation over the global populous over a hunch that there might be a meteorite?

This is the most backwards libertarian position I can imagine.

In choosing between a firm that might have some competency in the issue and a firm thats never had any, I'd rather have a firm that MIGHT succeed be the one I support. In addition I'd like to see competing alternatives. In the market should one solution fail there are immediate alternatives competing to win historic positive reputation paramount to any brand, good, service.

Furthermore if you truely believe that the state is the best solution in this situation then why do you believe the market is a better solution at delivering milk? Why do you believe in the state on the one hand then contridict yourself on the other? If the state can better save us from astroids then they should also just as well be better at providing our milk, food, healthcare, vehicles, our everything.

How can you hold this paradoxical belief?

Reply

filc replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 5:46 PM

rated by 0 users

Student:

well, im sure your personal experience in manufacturing is just fine and dandy. but the eia tells me that co2 emissions form energy and industry in 2008 were less than 1% lower than what they were in 2000 and 14% higher than what they were in 1990.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/environment/data.cfm#summary

is that 180 degree turn you were talking about over the last 2 decades? 

As I said before you've failed to convince the masses that this is the cause of global warming. At best most people just superifically go along with it just to keep some type of social status quo. Either way Its hard to tell whether global warming would stop, even if we did stop our carbon emmision output. Global warming, and the 1970's global cooling is more likely a statistical phenomena and less likely a concern that humans have any control over.

Reply

filc replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 5:49 PM

rated by 0 users

Student:

it is a very real possibility that a meteor could be headed for earth right now. yet, we would have no idea because only a very small percentage of the sky is being tracked due to lack of funding.

Well I suppose we should all stop what were doing and starve ourselves in preperation of what might happen. Fear mongering at it's finest. A discipline held by both the right and the left.

With the right it's terrorists, drugs, and crime. With the left it's all kidns of environmental disasters. People eat this garbage up.

Reply

Student replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 7:51 PM

rated by 0 users

flic, 

you were the one that said that people would act differently toward the threat of a killer meteor than they do toward climate change. i was just pointing out that they don't. 

of course, you're hopping arguments like a frog with a fever blister on its behind. so im not sure where to go from here. 

i think eugene makes a good point. positive externalities would prevent us from dealing with asteroids, just like it prevents us from dealing with climate change.
"man you're crazy!! look around you!! industry has seen an environtal 180 over the past 2 decades!!" 
no they havnt, here's evidence
"yah, well, why are we talking about global warming, people would act differently toward an asteroid!"
i don't think so. here's evidence.
"haha so now you're saying we should starve ourselves to protect ourselves from asteroid!! wow you left wing wackos!!"

let's just let by gones be by gones.  

Reply

liberty student replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 8:19 PM

rated by 0 users

Student:

but, i keep forgetting "oh you iz so wrong, its all a scientific conspiracy to get grant funding" because lord knows scientists *want* to spend their lives getting grants researching problems they know don't exist.

Great logical fallacy bro!

Student:

i mean, this essentially why nothing is being done about global climate change--even though it may threaten the survival of the human species (or at the very least the wealth enjoyed by the west), very very little is being done about it. why? externalities combined with very large transaction costs. 

The people who feel threatened by it ARE doing something.  Where do you think all the funding comes from?

Reply

liberty student replied on Mon, Mar 7 2011 8:24 PM

rated by 0 users

Student:

i think eugene makes a good point. positive externalities would prevent us from dealing with asteroids, just like it prevents us from dealing with climate change.

Eugene made an assertion. Did he prove that we are prevented by positive externalities?