Did you see this comment to John's post "one"? (emphasis mine):

I'm not crazy enough to think it's 5 million jobs gained and none lost, but frankly, I desperately want to put coal miners out of work (no disrespect to the coal miners, but don't they wish there was some way they could make a living that you could feel good about, or at least better about?).

For me, if it takes telling people that we get 5 million jobs for free to invest heavily in conservation - I'm all for it. ...
Still, if 1000 weatherstripping installers were able to eliminate the need for 2000 domestic oil rig workers and coal miners, I'm still on board.

and John's response:

That's a comment I can live with! I hope you are right.

So certain people's incomes are somehow less important than others'? And outright lies to promote an agenda are okay?

Actually, it's kind of refreshing to see an environmentalist openly admit their support for tyranny.
 

So certain people's incomes are somehow less important than others'?

Kathryn, there's a reason people don't like coal miners, and it has nothing to do with wanting to put people out of work. Can you figure out what that might be?

If you can't, here's a hint: there's a reason I don't like muggers, and it has nothing to do with wanting a higher unemployment rate.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

If you don't like muggers, why do you like environmentalists?

And by the way, I think the intent of that comment was clear:

I desperately want to put coal miners out of work
 

Jay_Chambers: If you don't like muggers, why do you like environmentalists?

I *don't* like "environmentalists", at least if we're looking at a typical one. I do like "environmentalists" if we're talking about the free-market, property-rights centered kind: TokyoTom, Ron Bailey, David Zetland, and others.

And by the way, I think the intent of that comment was clear: "I desperately want to put coal miners out of work"

Yes, it was: "no disrespect to the coal miners, but don't they wish there was some way they could make a living that you could feel good about, or at least better about?"

Seriously guys, I would appreciate it if you would at least acknowledge the existence of legitimate concerns about coal. Even Bob_Murphy has had trouble with that.
 

It takes one pretentious SOB to write both

"I desperately want to put coal miners out of work"

and

"no disrespect to the coal miners, but don't they wish there was some way they could make a living that you could feel good about, or at least better about?)."

You don't need to disagree about the "problems" of coal to acknowledge that. Why not rebuke such malice towards people who do so much for the American economy and focus on the science (or lack thereof) of global warming?
 

Jay_Chambers: Replace "coal miner" with "telemarketer" instead and see if the answer is clear.
 

The answer to what, exactly?
 

The question you asked in your post.
 

I was being rhetorical more than anything else.

I still don't see your point if you substitute telemarketers.

Why are telemarketers in existence? Because someone values their service enough and gets enough of a return from employing them in the marketing or advertising of their product or service to make a profit.

Just because you or I should find them annoying doesn't mean that we should hope that they are "put ... out of work." That's the type of authoritarianism free-marketers should oppose. Isn't it?

Though I would guess that you would oppose most such authoritarianism given your interest in free market oriented environmentalism, which I mostly share.

But for someone in that comment section to attack people who provide a service to others at a profit in an industry that receives no outside help from any federal or state planners seems grotesque, I think.
 

Kathryn,

Yes I saw that and was floored by it. What was really amazing was that no one even called the guy on it until the next page, like 30 comments later.

And I'm talking about the open willingness to lie to the public, Silas. I get why the person wants coal miners to be put out of work.
 

Jay_Chambers: It's quite clear we are coming from very different premises. I had assumed, incorrectly, that you see what is wrong with telemarketers, or at least the electronic version, known as spammers.

Specifically, they make use of your property without your consent, be it an email server or telephone. The users of these communicate what are acceptable uses of their property and then the spammers/telemarketers violate those standards. That -- not the annoyingness as such -- is what is wrong with them.

I didn't think this was a particularly controversial position. It's something both libertarians and non-libertarians agree on.

So your reasoning: "Why are telemarketers in existence? Because someone values their service enough and gets enough of a return from employing them in the marketing or advertising of their product or service to make a profit."

either doesn't hold, or proves too much. You could, for example, say the exact same thing about hitmen.

So, now I understand why the comparison to telemarketers doesn't convince you. So, let's go to an even less controversial example: hitmen. If someone said about hitmen, what environmentalists say about coal workers, would you agree? Or at least sympathize with the basic reasoning?
 

Green Jobs an ongoing debate pre and post Presidential election of USA. Lets get to know what the experts, green companies and individuals from US and other countries are saying on this... On JustMeans site, JustMeans the only platform for everyone to discuss green, social and environmental issues and educate everyone about the advantages related to these sectors. Many experts, energy environmental and social companies and individuals in these sectors share this site to express their thoughts and debate; they are using this site at large. If you would like to discuss and learn more on the topics of Green Jobs, Corporate Social Responsibility, Development, Energy and the Environment, Ethical Consumption, Politics and Governance, Social Investment, Social Media and Sustainable Business, then please do visit JustMeans site. I thank you for highlighting this issue on your blog.
 

Jay: an industry that receives no outside help from any federal or state planners

Did you really mean that, Jay? Coal is very wrapped up with federal and state planners, in many ways. Most of the Western coal comes from federally owned land, with states like Wyoming depending on a cut from Uncle Sam to run their governments. And coal firms in Appalachia likewise have governments in their pockets. Coal firms have long had a rather cozy relationship with government, and typically win regulatory battles about the environmental costs they (and their consumers, the pwoer companies) are allowed to pass on to others.
 

Silas-

I see what you are saying, but I think Jay, you, and I have overlooked the elephant in the room. A couple of things:

1) My understanding is that coal mining, in and of itself, is not seen as particularly environmentally destructive. It is the burning of coal that is seen as a bigger problem.
2) This person is calling for the lowest paid people in the coal industry to lose their jobs - ie, not the CEOs of coal mining companies, but the miners themselves.

So, to tie this in to your "hitman" example:
1) A hitman is an aggressor and therefore violating property rights. (I disagree that a telemarketer is doing so, by the way). The coal miner is not aggressing against property, so long as he has the permission of the mine owner. Environmentalists are probably not going to buy that one - but looking at their own ranking of environmental evils, it is (relatively) not the mining that is a violation, but the use of the coal. So in this way, the hitman's income is not legitimate, but it is arbitrary to say that the coal miner's is illegitimate while the green worker, who will have a > 0 carbon footprint, has a legitimate income.
2) The hitman in a mafia organization, while a bad person, is certainly no more culpable than the guy who ordered the hit (and perhaps less so if he was coerced into doing the hit). Likewise, the coal miner is lowest on the totem pole. If you assume that this environmentalist is a bleeding-heart, then it is very hypocritical to want to put the blue-collar workers out of work.

It would be much more consistent to say that you want them to have a new job that "they can feel good about". This poster does not imply that they want the same people who are put out of work to get new jobs that are better - the coal miners and oil riggers are lesser people and should just be out of work.
 

Silas,

I agree with the idea of your post; I was going to voice my objections but Kathryn summed them up pretty well (better than I could have).

The hitman violates another's property rights. I can see your argument for whether a telemarkter may be doing the same on a smaller scale, though I'm not quite sure if he is.

But in terms of coal, I just don't see how coal miners / users of coal are violating property rights. Maybe that's because I think the claims of environmentalists overreach.

But on another (non economic) note, I have to second Kathryn's comments that it's just not "nice" to pick on these folks; maybe particularly b/c I don't see the argument that they themselves damage property rights.
 

Kathryn and Jay_Chambers: Let me see if I can respond to the general points you two made:

1) The criticism of the coal miners does not in any way imply approval of the CEOs. Nor does it take away from the wish of these environmentalists for the coal miners to have less "evil" jobs. That's a red herring.

2) Since at least one of you seems to be unaware of it, coal actually pollutes other people's property, above and beyond the mine, so no, you don't just need the approval of the mine owner. (Like Walter Block argues, there needs to be some mechanism by which a coal burner can see a benefit to using significantly-cleaner but slightly-more-expensive coal.) There is pollution well beyond the debatable global warming claims: coal is physically very dirty and does give small children asthma.

Also, there is environmental damage from the mining itself, such as in strip mining.

3) When environmentalists say they want these people put out of work, it is because they don't see a way it could be profitable if they had to buy out the victims of the pollution; just like how most people don't think telemarketing could be profitable if they had to pay for your time in answering the phone and dealing with them.

Overall, you two seem to have a sort of denial about the very real harms of coal. Like Bob_Murphy, you delete all legitimate concerns about coal, act like it doesn't give small children asthma, and then respond as if its critics just arbitrarily chose coal miners for the heck of it. That is extremely unfair and shows ignorance of the issues.
 

Silas-

I thought it was clear in my post that I acknowledge 1) coal mining itself has environmental consequences and 2) that coal burning has environmental consequences. My point was that point #1 seems to be much less of a concern than point #2. Yet the coal miners themselves are not any more guilty of point #2 than you and I and any green workers, etc - they are only guilty of point #1.

I don't think it is a red herring - this person wishes ill-will to the miners themselves. And I do think your asthma argument is a red herring. The motivation for this is Climate Change, not some kids' asthma - the asthma is just a way of humanizing the former threat.

I think the poster is intentionally placing blame for the future negative uses of the product on the miners. It is like blaming the assembly-line worker at the munitions factory for the most recent gun-powered homicide. They probably also hate coal-mine owners/CEOs, but I argue that the poster is putting disproportionate blame on the miners since they actually wish the miners are put out of work. Actually, that's wrong - this poster is using the active voice and expresses a deep desire to put the miners out of work himself. This is not an abstract "I wish the world were a better place" type of statement. This, to me, is anti-human and that's my problem.
 

You're right, I'm just a "denier."

Doesn't that ever get old?

You can't question the orthodox environmental rhetoric without being told that you "act like it doesn't give small children asthma."
 

I mean honestly dude, I'd love to have a serious discussion of the issues with you. But please tell me if this:

Overall, you two seem to have a sort of denial about the very real harms of coal. Like Bob_Murphy, you delete all legitimate concerns about coal, act like it doesn't give small children asthma, and then respond as if its critics just arbitrarily chose coal miners for the heck of it. That is extremely unfair and shows ignorance of the issues.

is meant to be serious or merely a satire of far-Left environmentalism. If you're serious, I think I know where the "ignorance" lies.
 

Bob, I agree with you that it`s nice to see Whitehead and Haas make the point that generally green jobs simply replace other jobs, but what about Thoma`s point?

I also agree with your intimation that with a government green jobs program we are going to get alot of political favorism, pork, and poor choices. That, of course, is precisely the reason why POLITCIANS prefer green jobs programs over Pigouvian taxes (particularly both raising taxes on bads AND lowering tax revenues on labor and capital).

My guess is that the better educated greens would also prefer that government not runs green jobs and investment programs, but they`re also cynical enough to believe that the government will never take its thumb off the scale that it`s had so long in favor of fossil fuels, and they and the rest of the tyranny-loving enviros (as Kathryn would have them) appear to have concluded that a green jobs program, especially in recession times, is a good second-best policy that looks like a winner right now.

While I strongly disagree with those who favor jobs programs and massive government investments in green technologies, I think that libertarians ought to understand the roots of the cynicism of enviros, which Rothbard, Block and others have acknowledged lies in the refusal of courts to use the common law to protect individuals and property from environmental harms, as well as in the long favoritism that government has given to corporations (including limited liability to shareholders for corporate torts).

While we can disagree with enviros about policy, we shouldn`t be surprised that they think they need to fight over government as one of the chief ways of seeking to change things. After all, government is still very clearly in the way of solving many problems.
 

Kathryn:

So certain people's incomes are somehow less important than others'? And outright lies to promote an agenda are okay?

Actually, it's kind of refreshing to see an environmentalist openly admit their support for tyranny.

I`m not okay with outright lies either. In fairness, it`s not clear what Whitehead is agreeing to, and as noted above, I think enviros (as well as those who want to protect their personal property from the depredations of the state) have a legitimate basis for griping.

My own view is that a sympathetic ear but an insistence on explaining why the state is usually NOT the answer is the best approach, but that takes both more patience AND a willingness to learn about the genesis of our messes than many people have.

If you are not one of the patient kind, can I introduce you to some holiday spirit in the form of a tradition enjoyed by some of the lovers of "reason" at the Ludwig von Mises blog: Roasting "watermelons" on an open pyre!

You might be glad to note
 

TokyoTom-

I don't limit my harsh criticism to enviro-tyrants - show me a "pro-business" oil-industry protectionist saying that they want to put the hippies at the green energy plant out of work and that they'll lie to do it, and I'll call them a tyrant, too.
 

Kathryn, anyone who is familiar with the dynamics of politicized control of resources (where private transactions by which people can express their preferences are not possible) can readily see each side demonizing the other (and offering various benefits to decision-makers), in order to win the political debate.

Surely you noticed that this past administration has not only famously catered to fossil fuel interests, but it and its supporters have pursued fear-mongering and deceipt as a chief strategy in policy - fear of Islamofacists, fear of gays, fear of illegal immigrants and fear of envirofacists who want to destroy civilization?

Fossil fuel interests and their spokesmen have continually harped on the "alarmists", their socialist/communist/Nazi nature, and the "religion" that they have fallen under the sway of, all the better to avoid discussing what our science academies, business leaders and others say.

Because of our tribal nature, we all love a good enemy to hate, so we can band together and feel virtuous. Do you think that politicians and monied interests are not aware of this?
 

Kathryn and Jay_Chambers: I confess, you two have lost me. I have explained why your objection to the poster (other than to his advocacy of lying) is ungrounded, and have done so very clearly, and yet you keep going in circles.

If you understand why people would want to "put hitmen out of work" without being anti-human, then you can understand why someone can maintain that position for any occupation predicated on violating others' rights. And if (as you tenuously claim) you understand the environmental harms of coal burning, then you can understand why someone could reasonably believe that coal burning does violate the rights of others, and that they should have to find some occupation that does not support coal burning.

Yet still, you think up reasons why people angry at coal miners must hate people. In other words, you ignore everything that makes coal mining different from other jobs, and -- surprise surprise -- its opponents look anti human. When confronted with the inconsistencies in your position, you both tirelessly hunt for new reasons, trivial if necessary, to criticize opponents of coal mining.

"Oh!!! Oh!!! They didn't also list the CEOs! No, wait! My mind-reading device shows that they are ONLY thinking about global warming when they criticize coal burning, and not about the particulate matter that causes lung problems. No, I got it! My theory of causation miraculously shifts responsibility to others. I mean, I still think hitmen are culpable, not just their employers. Come on, I'm not an idiot. But I have a totally convincing reason why that doesn't apply to coal miners."

Look guys: Anyone can claim to understand why people don't like coal burning, and by extension, the people who facilitate it. The fact that you can type up a sentence or two asserting that, proves nothing. What I'm interested in is whether you can throw off actual reliable evidence that you understand what you claim to.

When I then look at your arguments and notice that they do not take into account the things that people object to about coal, and which are not present in other jobs, that, to me, functions as strong counter-evidence to your sincere promise that you totally understand the other side. Do you see why?

Anyway, I must thank you two: you've given me insight into why people are so resistant to libertarian ideas. If your arguments are what people see when talking to libertarians -- and I strongly suspect you are representative -- then it's understandable why people would perceive libertarians as ignorant and failing to appreciate vital aspects of reality.
 

Anyone can claim to understand why people don't like coal burning, and by extension, the people who facilitate it. The fact that you can type up a sentence or two asserting that, proves nothing. What I'm interested in is whether you can throw off actual reliable evidence that you understand what you claim to.

I got a good chuckle out of that. The problem is that I don't accept the "facts" of the problems of coal as you do; as some kind of theological revelation.

Yes, obviously, if coal is truly a menance then naturally it deprives others of rights and so the state should step in to facilitate one of its sole responsibilities, enforcement of rights.

And yet, for all your protestations, you have merely stated that coal causes problems without even an attempt at "reliable evidence" you seem so concerned by.

You just assume that people are supposed to take it as a matter of faith that coal (etc. etc.) is harming others. And then you get obnoxious and silly and say that people are "deniers" and ignoring kids' asthma.

By the way, I am not a libertarian. An Austrian, likely, but not a libertarian.
 

Silas-

I admit openly that I am assuming this poster's point of view - fending off coal burning because they are concerned about climate change. This is based on experience, yet it may be wrong. Also, in my experience, environmentalists are not concerned about strip mining or asthma from a property-rights point of view. So I am (perhaps incorrectly) dismissing these as irrelevant to this poster's statements; if they were based on property-rights arguments, I would not consider the person a tyrant, of course.

I can't say I "totally understand" the other side (and I don't think I did say that), but I am well-acquainted with many people on "the other side" and I am much less outspoken in person, so I do think that I have some basis for the assumptions I am making. I am willing to accept that these assumptions are wrong, but I have been trying to explain why my initial reaction was disgust.

To repeat myself wrt the relationship to the hitman example: it is not wishing the hitman is put out of business, it is analogous to wishing the munitions factory worker be put out of work because of the hitman's actions. And, again, this person has taken the active voice, which I don't think is insignificant.

Sorry for addressing so many points in each (relatively short) post, as it seems to confuse you into thinking that I can't make up my mind. The previous paragraph is why I don't think the hitman example is directly relevant to coal miners. My point about CEOs is that it is hypocritical to wish harm on the lowest man on the totem pole (again, based on my experience with enviros being pro-working man).
 

TokyoTom-

I'm not sure I know what you're getting at. However, let me clarify what I wrote: I was not implying in any way that the "pro-business" oil-industry protectionist does not exist. I was just saying that if this thread were about a post by such a person, I would still call them a tyrant. I don't consider it name-calling to call a tyrant a tyrant.
 

Kathryn, I`m making a basic point that I made to Bob upthread:

"libertarians ought to understand the roots of the cynicism of enviros, which Rothbard, Block and others have acknowledged lies in the refusal of courts to use the common law to protect individuals and property from environmental harms, as well as in the long favoritism that government has given to corporations (including limited liability to shareholders for corporate torts).

"While we can disagree with enviros about policy, we shouldn`t be surprised that they think they need to fight over government as one of the chief ways of seeking to change things. After all, government is still very clearly in the way of solving many problems."

GIven this understanding, my question to you is whether your are actually interested engaging enviros on the issues that concern them (and that have have at their roots grants by the state to corporations and the subversion of common law property rights protections by courts), or do you simply prefer to hate the frustrated and intemperate enviros who mistakenly think that more government is the solution?
 

Here's some Free Advice:

Don't engage s*las. He trolls the internet and can't believe people can't read his mind as he makes inside *clever* observations to insiders (mostly himself).

You won't change his mind. Ignoring him is the best way to go.
 

This is Bob Murphy posting; I'm at my parent's house and not logged in...

Hey Silas, notice I zapped the person above who calld you a d-bag. Well by the same token, this is getting pretty close to "the line" (which defies definition but I know when it's crossed):

Anyway, I must thank you two: you've given me insight into why people are so resistant to libertarian ideas. If your arguments are what people see when talking to libertarians -- and I strongly suspect you are representative -- then it's understandable why people would perceive libertarians as ignorant and failing to appreciate vital aspects of reality.

Kathryn is too polite to toot her own horn, but she has a PhD in a natural science (unless I am confusing her with someone else at Mises U?) and, as anybody besides you can see, she is bending over backwards to be polite in this exchange. Chill out. She hasn't been calling you a socialist over and over, even though that would be the logical implication from her understanding of your position. So by the same token you don't need to keep calling her ignorant, an embarrassment to libertarianism, etc.
 

ha ha I guess I *am* logged in. SkyNet wins again.
 

Bob_Murphy: I can add some sugarcoating, but the fact remains: if people see the kinds of things that Kathryn and Jay_Chambers are saying when they encounter libertarians, it is *perfectly* understandable why libertarians get the reputation that they do.

Somehow, people have equated libertarianism with "complete dismissal of the relevance of pollution [and other externalities]" and it's our job to figure out why. When libertarians call someone antihuman merely for objecting to the harms coal miners cause, that provides a partial answer, and we are foolish to ignore it.

I think a lot of your work, too, Bob_Murphy, does give off the impression that libertarianism can't handle massively complex externalities, and that forces you to trivialize their magnitude, and imply that victims should have to buy off aggressors. This is the kind of thing I'm referring to when I talk about "failing to appreciate vital aspects of reality".

She hasn't been calling you a socialist over and over, even though that would be the logical implication from her understanding of your position.

That is a fact about her state of mind, not a fact about my ideology. You do not become a socialist when you decide that, "Hey, maybe jamming toxic chemical into others' lungs after the government has intervened in favor of polluters in liability cases, might be a violation of others' rights."

Kathryn is too polite to toot her own horn, but she has a PhD in a natural science

*caring*

I'm not interested in laurels, except to the extent that I'm deciding who to spend time reading, and I already decided to read Kathryn's posts. I'm interested in results. And when Kathryn sees nothing but antihumanism in the environmentalist's post, despite the parenthetical, and despite all the points I brought up, and despite her unwillingness to say the same thing in any other context, that deletes what credibility she earned by getting a PhD in a natural science, and it doesn't change my opinion of the merit of her argument.

Likewise, when you denied the connection between scarcity and CO2 emissions *while* conditionally accepting the IPCC's claims, I did not decide that your PhD let you get away with it.

***

Anyway, I appreciate you deleting blatantly rude, content-free posts, and I hope you maintain objectivity in the future by deleting posts based on that criterion rather than some other criterion, such as how much they embarass you.