I just commented on that post, and without even reading the other comments, I have to say, you probably deserve it.

Let's not forget the shameful op-ed you wrote. And before you strawman me yet again, let's go over what was wrong with it: First of all, you were *of course* right to note that politicians screw things up. But then, you had to go a few miles beyond that to say such dishonest, asinine things as:

- Even if all the science is right, carbon caps can't possibly reflect genuine scarcity.

- A *true*, free market solution should be based on property rights -- even though you would *also* oppose any kind of atmospheric property rights division that would make your gas just a little more expensive.

- Cap-and-trade "is not a market solution", solely because you disagree with it, even though it does use markets and quasi-ownership.

And then remember how on David_Zetland's blog you listed the things that would make you characterize a government proposal as a "market solution", and when describing it, you referred to a situation in which a property owner would decide "whether or not to let CO2 on his property"? LOL!!! I should go find the link for that, assuming you haven't (wisely) erased it already.
 

Okay, I actually went and found it. You guys are going to love this. Here's what Bob_Murphy said about *real* market solutions:

If the government wanted to auction off property rights to the atmosphere, the way they auction off spectrum, I would be more sympathetic to calling it a market solution. Then the actual owners could decide what price to charge for a ton of CO2 being pumped into their property etc. (emphasis added)

What a howler! Yeah, let's just have a neat little division of the atmosphere where I can keep all that CO2 from entering my property and making my Bengali home of 40 generations flood under rising sea levels, while other people don't keep the CO2 out, and *their* land gets flooded instead.

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Bob_Murphy: Do you have any plans to take back that remark, or do you want to leave your foot at its present mouth depth?

Also, here's another howler (from the same comment):

...RealClimate people can still bombard the public with warnings, and consumers can boycott companies that don't reduce emissions etc. You can start the Silas Carbon Rating agency to give consumers information about where to spend their money.

Yeah, what a rockin' idea! I'll tell people where to spend their money, and anyone who doesn't listen to me will get to sweep up all that oil on the cheap, causing no reduction whatsoever in oil use, nor any damage to Bob_Murphy's lifestyle!

What? You mean we can't solve the Economic Calculation Problem with haphazard, optional boycotts? We have to have actual, well-defined property rights? Aw, shucks!
 

Oh yeah, we're going ot love it. No one cares what you say and no one knows what you are talking about with your super clever inside jokes.

Go away.
 

Sure thing, Stephan_Kinsella the non-stalker!
 

There are some rather strong comments regarding the intelligence and integrity of libertarians who oppose government caps on carbon emissions.

Yes, Bob, many of them don't really have clue to real libertarian concerns, due in no small part to a reflexive refusal to engage by "libertarians" who like to call Greens "envirofacists", misanthropes and "watermelon" commies.

Rather than adding to the echo-chamber effect of libertarians dissing Greens (instead of arguing with them), why don't you go over to Yglesias' place and engage them?
 

I just commented on that post, and without even reading the other comments, I have to say, you probably deserve it.

Even I don't know what you're talking about on this one, Silas. A few posts earlier, I had talked about someone claiming libertarians being the rudest a**holes on the internet. So I explained that they weren't.

So for this post, I am linking to some seriously rude a**holes ripping on some guy that Yglesias links to. Has nothing to do with me.

Last thing, I don't think Stephan is the person commenting on this thread.
 

"There are some rather strong comments regarding the intelligence and integrity of libertarians who oppose government caps on carbon emissions."

Okay, so those people weren't referring to you. So what? Do you really think they'd read all the stuff I mentioned and form a *higher* opinion of you?