Monday, August 24, 2009
I'm Starting With the Man in the Mirror
OK I must confess that this Wonk Room hit piece on my compatriots really ticked me off. I had originally wanted to blog it with the title, "Definition" and the comment, "If you want to know what 'ad hominem' means, just check out this Wonk Room piece on the AEA bus tour."
But then I calmed down a bit, realizing that the Wonk Room piece is really just the mirror image of what Glenn Beck did with Goldman Sachs, which I praised.
So if you truly believed that the Waxman-Markey bill was the last hope for averting global disaster, then yes I can understand that you would think the Wonk Room piece was just adding useful knowledge about your enemies...as opposed to a complete hit piece that has no substantive arguments at all. Because I must admit, Glenn Beck's hit piece on Goldman didn't have any arguments at all; it was just giving the biographies of the various players. At other places Beck of course gave his substantive objections to TARP etc., but then again the Wonk Room people would say the same thing about cap and trade.
Now that I'm preaching, let me generalize it a bit: Earlier I mocked Paul Krugman for actually claiming that senior citizens were rioting. But since then, I've come to realize that Krugman really doesn't understand the people at these Town Hall meetings, or the tea parties. After all, Krugman doesn't get goosebumps thinking about property rights or checks on government power. So when he sees a bunch of angry people mouthing such concerns, he is suspicious and thinks they're either a bunch of racists or paid stooges of the health insurers.
So, by symmetry, I think people on "our side" should realize that the great masses of Americans who are for health care reform and climate legislation (and it pains me to not put scare quotes around those phrases) aren't actually closet socialists who want to bring America to its knees. Don't get me wrong, it is still perfectly consistent to think the elites in Washington are power-hungry liars. I'm just saying that, as ridiculous as Krugman's paranoia over old people is, that's how ridiculous some of our side's rants against Obama fans must seem to people who know that they are really just trying to stem abuses they perceive in the health care system and so forth. They know they're not socialists, just like we know "our guys" aren't Nazis.
Ah, and the ultimate irony is that actual socialists (and the particular offshoot of Nazism) were real, and actually did seize control of governments and kill millions of people. Isn't life funny.
But then I calmed down a bit, realizing that the Wonk Room piece is really just the mirror image of what Glenn Beck did with Goldman Sachs, which I praised.
So if you truly believed that the Waxman-Markey bill was the last hope for averting global disaster, then yes I can understand that you would think the Wonk Room piece was just adding useful knowledge about your enemies...as opposed to a complete hit piece that has no substantive arguments at all. Because I must admit, Glenn Beck's hit piece on Goldman didn't have any arguments at all; it was just giving the biographies of the various players. At other places Beck of course gave his substantive objections to TARP etc., but then again the Wonk Room people would say the same thing about cap and trade.
Now that I'm preaching, let me generalize it a bit: Earlier I mocked Paul Krugman for actually claiming that senior citizens were rioting. But since then, I've come to realize that Krugman really doesn't understand the people at these Town Hall meetings, or the tea parties. After all, Krugman doesn't get goosebumps thinking about property rights or checks on government power. So when he sees a bunch of angry people mouthing such concerns, he is suspicious and thinks they're either a bunch of racists or paid stooges of the health insurers.
So, by symmetry, I think people on "our side" should realize that the great masses of Americans who are for health care reform and climate legislation (and it pains me to not put scare quotes around those phrases) aren't actually closet socialists who want to bring America to its knees. Don't get me wrong, it is still perfectly consistent to think the elites in Washington are power-hungry liars. I'm just saying that, as ridiculous as Krugman's paranoia over old people is, that's how ridiculous some of our side's rants against Obama fans must seem to people who know that they are really just trying to stem abuses they perceive in the health care system and so forth. They know they're not socialists, just like we know "our guys" aren't Nazis.
Ah, and the ultimate irony is that actual socialists (and the particular offshoot of Nazism) were real, and actually did seize control of governments and kill millions of people. Isn't life funny.
Comments:
I think people on "our side" should realize that the great masses of Americans who are for health care reform and climate legislation (and it pains me to not put scare quotes around those phrases) aren't actually closet socialists who want to bring America to its knees.[lb]
Wow! Does this mean you're going to take back your claims that my positions related to climate change are "socialist", or at least give *some* justification for that claim?
Relax, I'm just messin' with ya, I know you'd never be that reasonable.
Wow! Does this mean you're going to take back your claims that my positions related to climate change are "socialist", or at least give *some* justification for that claim?
Relax, I'm just messin' with ya, I know you'd never be that reasonable.
Silas, can you remind me where I said that? I want to see the context. I know I said it as a joke after you complained about it; I want to see what I initially said that started this notion.
I don't know how the climate change crowd can call the other side political. Not only are they the ones who are arguing for government policies, they have been able to get parts of their agenda passed. It seems if anyone is political it is the side that is using politicians to create policies.
It is also great to see someone be accused of lying or distorting the truth with no example given. I guess it should just be obvious that anyone that doesn't get on the band wagon of global warming, wait its climate change now because temperatures have been going down, is a liar and heartless beast.
It is also great to see someone be accused of lying or distorting the truth with no example given. I guess it should just be obvious that anyone that doesn't get on the band wagon of global warming, wait its climate change now because temperatures have been going down, is a liar and heartless beast.
Sure, Bob, here's one place:
"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." -- no explanation given to date of how someone could read my position as "socialist" except by your usual reasoning of "any concern about pollution is socialist".
(Btw, you managed to miss a very important lesson there about how others see libertarians, and how you make them look bad.)
And another. That's the post where you equate any capped, tradeable right to pollute with admitting Lange was right, even though you admitted that such caps can be libertarian. And it's also where you lied that your op-ed was only criticizing bureaucratic allocations, when it was clearly not.
Wow, it's kind of crazy the things we end up saying in defense of our inalienable right to cheap oil, isn't it? (By "we", I of course mean "you".)
"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." -- no explanation given to date of how someone could read my position as "socialist" except by your usual reasoning of "any concern about pollution is socialist".
(Btw, you managed to miss a very important lesson there about how others see libertarians, and how you make them look bad.)
And another. That's the post where you equate any capped, tradeable right to pollute with admitting Lange was right, even though you admitted that such caps can be libertarian. And it's also where you lied that your op-ed was only criticizing bureaucratic allocations, when it was clearly not.
Wow, it's kind of crazy the things we end up saying in defense of our inalienable right to cheap oil, isn't it? (By "we", I of course mean "you".)
Silas said...
"no explanation given to date of how someone could read my position as "socialist" except by your usual reasoning of "any concern about pollution is socialist"."
I read the articles and blog posts where there this argument started from and I'm not sure why you make such claims? As far as I read Bob said that even if you suppose your theories of CO2 emissions that cap and trade would not be likely in a free market. Obviously he went into detail explaining why and giving alternatives but he never made a statement resembling "any concern about pollution is socialist"
"And another. That's the post where you equate any capped, tradeable right to pollute with admitting Lange was right, even though you admitted that such caps can be libertarian. And it's also where you lied that your op-ed was only criticizing bureaucratic allocations, when it was clearly not."
He wrote that he if the free market developed a system of cap and trade voluntarily that would be libertarian, but he also explained why that would not be likely and would be inefficient.
The only thing you could say he was critical of besides bureaucratic allocations was why cap and trade would be inefficient even if done in the free market.
As far as I have read from Bob Murphy, he has been very courteous
with you. He posted a blog and dedicated his time to trying to address your critiques of his previous op-ed, and I have heard of few others like him who would do such a thing. It seems that he has only tried to convince you of his beliefs. Why such hostility?
"no explanation given to date of how someone could read my position as "socialist" except by your usual reasoning of "any concern about pollution is socialist"."
I read the articles and blog posts where there this argument started from and I'm not sure why you make such claims? As far as I read Bob said that even if you suppose your theories of CO2 emissions that cap and trade would not be likely in a free market. Obviously he went into detail explaining why and giving alternatives but he never made a statement resembling "any concern about pollution is socialist"
"And another. That's the post where you equate any capped, tradeable right to pollute with admitting Lange was right, even though you admitted that such caps can be libertarian. And it's also where you lied that your op-ed was only criticizing bureaucratic allocations, when it was clearly not."
He wrote that he if the free market developed a system of cap and trade voluntarily that would be libertarian, but he also explained why that would not be likely and would be inefficient.
The only thing you could say he was critical of besides bureaucratic allocations was why cap and trade would be inefficient even if done in the free market.
As far as I have read from Bob Murphy, he has been very courteous
with you. He posted a blog and dedicated his time to trying to address your critiques of his previous op-ed, and I have heard of few others like him who would do such a thing. It seems that he has only tried to convince you of his beliefs. Why such hostility?
Bob, on Goldman Sachs, you might enjoy this piece by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print.
Bob, I appreciate your attempt at even-handedness, and your implicit acknowledgment of how we are all plagued by problems of self-deception and confirmation bias, particularly with the context of battle with ideological enemies.
I hope you will continue the effort, even though it may come at a cost to effectiveness - sometimes there`s nothing like a broader understanding of the truth to get in the way of a good rant about the Truth.
The problems of self-deception, tribal division/conflict and their roles in rent-seeking are deep indeed, and you`ve barely scratched the surface.
I note, for example, that even though you try to be even-handed, you ironically identify those listed in the Wonk Room piece as your "compatriots"; if by implication the Wonk Room writers and others who support climate change action are NOT your compatriots, what country then are they citizens of?
I also note that those you call compatriots are officers of the Rob Bradley-founded American Energy Alliance, which is clearly an energy industry pressure group (and Republican-linked). You work at the free-market IER that Rob also founded, but apparently self-identify yourself with a group of fairly naked rent-seekers.
While it`s in our human nature to fall into partisanship, what`s more disturbing is the ways that rent-seekers deliberately try to take advantage of this penchant by fanning the flames of partisanship as a means of masking their own agendas while attacking others with competing preferences. This has been very clearly at work in battles over energy and environmental issues, where influence over government is the battleground.
I have made the point a number of times previously that such rent-seeking deserves much more attentions, but you have always professed puzzlement: what, ME, Bob Murphy, involved in a rent-seekers game?
To refresh your recollection, here are links to our previous discussions:
Bob Murphy, the Heritage Foundation and "green jobs" - ignore coal! We only pay attention to rent-seeking from greens/the left; and
In which I try to help Bob Murphy figure out just what the heck I`m talking about (when I say he`s entangled in a partisan, rent-seeking game).
I'm just saying that, as ridiculous as Krugman's paranoia over old people is, that's how ridiculous some of our side's rants against Obama fans must seem to people who know that they are really just trying to stem abuses they perceive in the health care system and so forth. They know they're not socialists, just like we know "our guys" aren't Nazis.
Well said. Now how about acknowledging how the rent-seekers are busy at work trying to manipulate our partisan impulses to take everyone for a ride?
Bob, I appreciate your attempt at even-handedness, and your implicit acknowledgment of how we are all plagued by problems of self-deception and confirmation bias, particularly with the context of battle with ideological enemies.
I hope you will continue the effort, even though it may come at a cost to effectiveness - sometimes there`s nothing like a broader understanding of the truth to get in the way of a good rant about the Truth.
The problems of self-deception, tribal division/conflict and their roles in rent-seeking are deep indeed, and you`ve barely scratched the surface.
I note, for example, that even though you try to be even-handed, you ironically identify those listed in the Wonk Room piece as your "compatriots"; if by implication the Wonk Room writers and others who support climate change action are NOT your compatriots, what country then are they citizens of?
I also note that those you call compatriots are officers of the Rob Bradley-founded American Energy Alliance, which is clearly an energy industry pressure group (and Republican-linked). You work at the free-market IER that Rob also founded, but apparently self-identify yourself with a group of fairly naked rent-seekers.
While it`s in our human nature to fall into partisanship, what`s more disturbing is the ways that rent-seekers deliberately try to take advantage of this penchant by fanning the flames of partisanship as a means of masking their own agendas while attacking others with competing preferences. This has been very clearly at work in battles over energy and environmental issues, where influence over government is the battleground.
I have made the point a number of times previously that such rent-seeking deserves much more attentions, but you have always professed puzzlement: what, ME, Bob Murphy, involved in a rent-seekers game?
To refresh your recollection, here are links to our previous discussions:
Bob Murphy, the Heritage Foundation and "green jobs" - ignore coal! We only pay attention to rent-seeking from greens/the left; and
In which I try to help Bob Murphy figure out just what the heck I`m talking about (when I say he`s entangled in a partisan, rent-seeking game).
I'm just saying that, as ridiculous as Krugman's paranoia over old people is, that's how ridiculous some of our side's rants against Obama fans must seem to people who know that they are really just trying to stem abuses they perceive in the health care system and so forth. They know they're not socialists, just like we know "our guys" aren't Nazis.
Well said. Now how about acknowledging how the rent-seekers are busy at work trying to manipulate our partisan impulses to take everyone for a ride?
cotterdan: Are you reading the same things I am? Bob's first op-ed, which started all of this, simply assumed away the possibility that the atmosphere's capacity for CO2 is scarce, which is the very reason people disagree with him in the first place. Even if he admitted that problem later, he didn't do it in the original op-ed, which is why TokyoTom and I accused him of such rhetorical excess.
Then in the long blog post purporting to "answer" me, you're wrong about Bob's position on cap and trade. Please refer to this part of his post:
"...as Silas correctly notes, if James Hansen and the guys at RaalClimate are right, then CO2 emissions affect others just as conventional pollution does. If one agrees that one can have property rights to a clean stream etc., then in principle one could have a property right to the atmosphere and this could spawn a market in which the right to inject CO2 into this property is sold."
Did you miss that part? So he agrees free markets can have cap-and-trade systems. And I don't know what you mean by a "voluntary cap-and-trade" system, as opposed to just a "cap-and-trade" system. My guess it's just a weasel word for "system where you have to pay me to stop dumping my pollution on you".
So yes, Bob does have some hyper-technical reasons that you have to squint to see, about why a free market, as he envisions it, would have the right to pollute, and you'd have to pay people to stop.
But that's different from saying that he's said anything responsive to my actual arguments, or that he hasn't called me a socialist. He has called me a socialist, and he's very rarely said anything responsive, and when he is responsive, he pretty much drops his pretense of libertarianism in favor of a "right to cheap oil".
Take a closer look, if you would.
Then in the long blog post purporting to "answer" me, you're wrong about Bob's position on cap and trade. Please refer to this part of his post:
"...as Silas correctly notes, if James Hansen and the guys at RaalClimate are right, then CO2 emissions affect others just as conventional pollution does. If one agrees that one can have property rights to a clean stream etc., then in principle one could have a property right to the atmosphere and this could spawn a market in which the right to inject CO2 into this property is sold."
Did you miss that part? So he agrees free markets can have cap-and-trade systems. And I don't know what you mean by a "voluntary cap-and-trade" system, as opposed to just a "cap-and-trade" system. My guess it's just a weasel word for "system where you have to pay me to stop dumping my pollution on you".
So yes, Bob does have some hyper-technical reasons that you have to squint to see, about why a free market, as he envisions it, would have the right to pollute, and you'd have to pay people to stop.
But that's different from saying that he's said anything responsive to my actual arguments, or that he hasn't called me a socialist. He has called me a socialist, and he's very rarely said anything responsive, and when he is responsive, he pretty much drops his pretense of libertarianism in favor of a "right to cheap oil".
Take a closer look, if you would.
Silas said...
"Did you miss that part? So he agrees free markets can have cap-and-trade systems. And I don't know what you mean by a "voluntary cap-and-trade" system, as opposed to just a "cap-and-trade" system. My guess it's just a weasel word for "system where you have to pay me to stop dumping my pollution on you"."
Listen if you even want to have a conversation with me you better show me the same respect I show others. Don't ask me a question and then make an accusation such as me using a "weasel word" without waiting for my response. Just because these posts are on the computer doesn't mean that you can be so disrespectful to people. If you were in my presence I would not allow you to talk to me like that.
Voluntary means that I voluntarily give my money to the cap and trade system. This is opposed to the government cap and trade where they steal my money to pay for it. I wasn't trying to speak in codes.
"Did you miss that part? So he agrees free markets can have cap-and-trade systems. And I don't know what you mean by a "voluntary cap-and-trade" system, as opposed to just a "cap-and-trade" system. My guess it's just a weasel word for "system where you have to pay me to stop dumping my pollution on you"."
Listen if you even want to have a conversation with me you better show me the same respect I show others. Don't ask me a question and then make an accusation such as me using a "weasel word" without waiting for my response. Just because these posts are on the computer doesn't mean that you can be so disrespectful to people. If you were in my presence I would not allow you to talk to me like that.
Voluntary means that I voluntarily give my money to the cap and trade system. This is opposed to the government cap and trade where they steal my money to pay for it. I wasn't trying to speak in codes.
cotterdan: You just admitted what I accused you of. You admit that your idea of a "voluntary" cap and trade means that you chose to obey its rules. By that definition, no property right is voluntary -- when did anyone choose to obey your property claims rather than you enforcing them against violators?
In that case, what's the point? Yes, cap and trade, free market or not, would require you to pay for your share of the total right to pollute. If you want it to be voluntary, you want it not to exist. Simple as that.
Now, give it another go, and this time, interpret your own code before posting.
In that case, what's the point? Yes, cap and trade, free market or not, would require you to pay for your share of the total right to pollute. If you want it to be voluntary, you want it not to exist. Simple as that.
Now, give it another go, and this time, interpret your own code before posting.
Silas posted this from Bob Murphy...
"...as Silas correctly notes, if James Hansen and the guys at RaalClimate are right, then CO2 emissions affect others just as conventional pollution does. If one agrees that one can have property rights to a clean stream etc., then in principle one could have a property right to the atmosphere and this could spawn a market in which the right to inject CO2 into this property is sold."
Does he anywhere in that statement say that it would be mandatory to buy the right to inject CO2 into the atmosphere? Unless you are arguing that I would have to pay to breath out.
Now I do also want to point out that I think the whole CO2 global warming issue is nonsense. There is not even close to a consensus view that humans are destroying the planet or that the planet is even being destroyed. First it was global cooling, then global warming, and now climate change but every time it is the same bad science.
My definition of property rights is the homesteading principle. If you google it you will find plenty of info to explain it to you.
Who would own the atmosphere and how would you decide these property rights?
"...as Silas correctly notes, if James Hansen and the guys at RaalClimate are right, then CO2 emissions affect others just as conventional pollution does. If one agrees that one can have property rights to a clean stream etc., then in principle one could have a property right to the atmosphere and this could spawn a market in which the right to inject CO2 into this property is sold."
Does he anywhere in that statement say that it would be mandatory to buy the right to inject CO2 into the atmosphere? Unless you are arguing that I would have to pay to breath out.
Now I do also want to point out that I think the whole CO2 global warming issue is nonsense. There is not even close to a consensus view that humans are destroying the planet or that the planet is even being destroyed. First it was global cooling, then global warming, and now climate change but every time it is the same bad science.
My definition of property rights is the homesteading principle. If you google it you will find plenty of info to explain it to you.
Who would own the atmosphere and how would you decide these property rights?
@cotterdan: Does he anywhere in that statement say that it would be mandatory to buy the right to inject CO2 into the atmosphere?[lb]
Irrelevant. The point was that Bob agrees in principle that a free market can have a "property right" to a limited amount of pollution of type X, and thereby a market in tradeable permits to emit a portion of the limit X. Therefore he cannot simply dismiss cap-and-trade type policies as *inherently* anti-market and *inherently* dealing in non-scarce resources.
Unless you are arguing that I would have to pay to breath out.[lb]
Cotterdan, this remark, and the rest of your comment, suggest to me that you haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with the issue. Don't think that's something you should do before taking a position? Please, follow any of the links I've been posting, where all of your seeminly novel ideas have been addressed repeatedly.
I really don't think it's fair for you to expect others to hold your hand through this when the information's already out there. That would mean repeating the whole debate for every newcomer.
But, just to show I'm not trying to give you the run-around, I'll answer just the comment above: nothing in the scientific assertions about CO2 would ever imply a need to restrict breathing, for the simple reason that breating is CO2-neutral. You only breathe out CO2 that you got from food, which in turn got it from some plant (or was a plant), which got its CO2 recently from the atmosphere. You're only returning to it the CO2 that you took, which doesn't increase the total atmospheric CO2 on net.
This is in contrast to releasing carbon that has been stored in the earth for millions of years, in a relatively short time.
Even if the above reasoning were not true, humanity has collectively "homesteaded" a "breathing easement" with a much longer, unbroken pedigree than that of more recent industrial activities and so clearly requires a stronger justification to restrict. But yes, in theory, someone could capture their exhalations and bury them, and thereby claim a credit for taking *in* CO2 through food but not returning it to the atmosphere. However, any one person's exhalations are too small relative to the value of the damage of CO2 per unit mass (by any estimate) to be worth the effort.
Let me know how your research goes!
Irrelevant. The point was that Bob agrees in principle that a free market can have a "property right" to a limited amount of pollution of type X, and thereby a market in tradeable permits to emit a portion of the limit X. Therefore he cannot simply dismiss cap-and-trade type policies as *inherently* anti-market and *inherently* dealing in non-scarce resources.
Unless you are arguing that I would have to pay to breath out.[lb]
Cotterdan, this remark, and the rest of your comment, suggest to me that you haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with the issue. Don't think that's something you should do before taking a position? Please, follow any of the links I've been posting, where all of your seeminly novel ideas have been addressed repeatedly.
I really don't think it's fair for you to expect others to hold your hand through this when the information's already out there. That would mean repeating the whole debate for every newcomer.
But, just to show I'm not trying to give you the run-around, I'll answer just the comment above: nothing in the scientific assertions about CO2 would ever imply a need to restrict breathing, for the simple reason that breating is CO2-neutral. You only breathe out CO2 that you got from food, which in turn got it from some plant (or was a plant), which got its CO2 recently from the atmosphere. You're only returning to it the CO2 that you took, which doesn't increase the total atmospheric CO2 on net.
This is in contrast to releasing carbon that has been stored in the earth for millions of years, in a relatively short time.
Even if the above reasoning were not true, humanity has collectively "homesteaded" a "breathing easement" with a much longer, unbroken pedigree than that of more recent industrial activities and so clearly requires a stronger justification to restrict. But yes, in theory, someone could capture their exhalations and bury them, and thereby claim a credit for taking *in* CO2 through food but not returning it to the atmosphere. However, any one person's exhalations are too small relative to the value of the damage of CO2 per unit mass (by any estimate) to be worth the effort.
Let me know how your research goes!
Silas said...
"Irrelevant. The point was that Bob agrees in principle that a free market can have a "property right" to a limited amount of pollution of type X, and thereby a market in tradeable permits to emit a portion of the limit X. Therefore he cannot simply dismiss cap-and-trade type policies as *inherently* anti-market and *inherently* dealing in non-scarce resources."
Irrelevant? Didn't like that I corrected on you why it would have to be voluntary to be considered free market?
Just because something could exist in a free market does not mean that it would be the best idea. Mr. Murphy pointed out that although a cap and trade could technically exist in a free market, it would not likely survive competition. There are better ways to do things than a cap and trade system.
I also have researched the whole issue of global warming or climate change, whatever you want to call it. One of my good friends is a firm believer that CO2 is destroying the planet and we have consistently argued back and forth on this. He is able to argue his side quite well. I think the error in his view is that he will simply dismiss everyone on the other side of the issue as some shill for the oil companies. He doesn't see the fact that it is the political elite pushing for his ideas. I find the arguments on your side are just full of computer models and bad science. It reminds me of mathematical economists.
I don't mind what ideas you have on saving the planet. I just don't want to pay for them. If you have a valuable role to play for society then people will willingly pull the money out of their pockets and give it to you. I'm tired of hearing ideas from men who insist that we are in great peril and if he could just take a little money from everyone he could save the planet. If your ideas can't stand free competition then how strong are they really? If you have such a majority of people on your side then it should be easy to get people to donate. I voluntarily donate to the ideas that I believe in like mises, lewrockwell, and campaignforliberty. You and everyone who believes you can do the same. Just stay out of my pocket.
"Irrelevant. The point was that Bob agrees in principle that a free market can have a "property right" to a limited amount of pollution of type X, and thereby a market in tradeable permits to emit a portion of the limit X. Therefore he cannot simply dismiss cap-and-trade type policies as *inherently* anti-market and *inherently* dealing in non-scarce resources."
Irrelevant? Didn't like that I corrected on you why it would have to be voluntary to be considered free market?
Just because something could exist in a free market does not mean that it would be the best idea. Mr. Murphy pointed out that although a cap and trade could technically exist in a free market, it would not likely survive competition. There are better ways to do things than a cap and trade system.
I also have researched the whole issue of global warming or climate change, whatever you want to call it. One of my good friends is a firm believer that CO2 is destroying the planet and we have consistently argued back and forth on this. He is able to argue his side quite well. I think the error in his view is that he will simply dismiss everyone on the other side of the issue as some shill for the oil companies. He doesn't see the fact that it is the political elite pushing for his ideas. I find the arguments on your side are just full of computer models and bad science. It reminds me of mathematical economists.
I don't mind what ideas you have on saving the planet. I just don't want to pay for them. If you have a valuable role to play for society then people will willingly pull the money out of their pockets and give it to you. I'm tired of hearing ideas from men who insist that we are in great peril and if he could just take a little money from everyone he could save the planet. If your ideas can't stand free competition then how strong are they really? If you have such a majority of people on your side then it should be easy to get people to donate. I voluntarily donate to the ideas that I believe in like mises, lewrockwell, and campaignforliberty. You and everyone who believes you can do the same. Just stay out of my pocket.
cotterdan: I think the error in his view is that he will simply dismiss everyone on the other side of the issue as some shill for the oil companies. He doesn't see the fact that it is the political elite pushing for his ideas.
Can you see that you and your friends have mirror positions and each think the other is wrong, when in fact it is pretty clear that you are BOTH right - and that there are rent-seekers behind each position?
Of course the firms and investors that have been able to use the atmosphere as a free GHG dump don`t want to start paying for the privilege (to the extent that they have invested very heavily in protecting their current position), and of course there are others who think that this poses risks to them and what they value (and some who want government to make markets for them).
I think we all share your reluctance to see government do anything coercive, and we share your reasons. Most commons problems are actually much more susceptible to local solutions that would occur if governments got out of the way and just let resource users come to terms on them, but given that that the atmosphere is shared globally AND there are countless other state actors that we just can`t force from the table, there is simply no possibility of entirely voluntary approaches arising (even though one could imagine them). Further, even while each government will act by force of law at home, make no doubt that any global agreements on climate change policy are in effect large-scale Coasean bargains.
While libertarians may be entirely unwilling to accept any state action, unfortunately the rest of the country (and the world) does not share their compunctions. As a result, it seems to me that the effect of a libertarian NO! is not simply to defend the status quo ante (which in my view wrongly allows once group of powerful rent-seekers to shift costs to the rest of society; YMMV), but to enable the adoption of overly-costly approaches; viz., cap-and-trade w/ vast pork, versus rebated carbon taxes w/immediate capital write-offs.
Can you see that you and your friends have mirror positions and each think the other is wrong, when in fact it is pretty clear that you are BOTH right - and that there are rent-seekers behind each position?
Of course the firms and investors that have been able to use the atmosphere as a free GHG dump don`t want to start paying for the privilege (to the extent that they have invested very heavily in protecting their current position), and of course there are others who think that this poses risks to them and what they value (and some who want government to make markets for them).
I think we all share your reluctance to see government do anything coercive, and we share your reasons. Most commons problems are actually much more susceptible to local solutions that would occur if governments got out of the way and just let resource users come to terms on them, but given that that the atmosphere is shared globally AND there are countless other state actors that we just can`t force from the table, there is simply no possibility of entirely voluntary approaches arising (even though one could imagine them). Further, even while each government will act by force of law at home, make no doubt that any global agreements on climate change policy are in effect large-scale Coasean bargains.
While libertarians may be entirely unwilling to accept any state action, unfortunately the rest of the country (and the world) does not share their compunctions. As a result, it seems to me that the effect of a libertarian NO! is not simply to defend the status quo ante (which in my view wrongly allows once group of powerful rent-seekers to shift costs to the rest of society; YMMV), but to enable the adoption of overly-costly approaches; viz., cap-and-trade w/ vast pork, versus rebated carbon taxes w/immediate capital write-offs.
What I am saying about my friend is that he only will look at his side of the issue and labels all counter positions as shills. I have looked at what he sends me but I was not convinced. It seemed like the same bogus info presented to people about global cooling. What I am saying is that I have looked at both sides and felt that the global warming side was wrong. You assume that your view of the world needing saving is correct but I don't buy it.
So if you can convince people to voluntarily give up their money to support your ideas then have at it. Just don't try to justify stealing from others for your cause as being ok because it is some noble cause.
So if you can convince people to voluntarily give up their money to support your ideas then have at it. Just don't try to justify stealing from others for your cause as being ok because it is some noble cause.
cotterdan:
To be sure, there are "shills" all around, on all sides.
Our scientific understanding will always be imperfect. Regardless of one`s views of science, clearly we are facing a collective (domestically and internationally) risk management decision - including the costs and risks of potentially bad policies. This is what the our analysius should focus on.
You assume that your view of the world needing saving is correct but I don't buy it.
Feel free to make your own decisions, of course, as I do mine. But when you have all of the world`s national science academies and firms like Exxon saying we ought to do something, I listen.
So if you can convince people to voluntarily give up their money to support your ideas then have at it. Just don't try to justify stealing from others for your cause as being ok because it is some noble cause.
Noble sentiments that I share, but isn`t your view of the political/policy options rather impoverished?
Have you ever troubled yourself to think of policies that you would AGREE with that would also help address the concerns of others?
Here are a few links that might be helpful:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/17/iain-murray-another-libertarian-makes-climate-policy-proposals.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/08/28/margo-thorning-accf-to-w-va-conservative-foundation-policies-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-are-warranted-and-a-carbon-tax-is-strongly-preferable-over-cap-and-trade.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=kiesling
Finally, don`t ignore my earlier point: refusing to engage in politics means those that do get to choose the policies. Are carbon taxes better or worse than cap and trade?
To be sure, there are "shills" all around, on all sides.
Our scientific understanding will always be imperfect. Regardless of one`s views of science, clearly we are facing a collective (domestically and internationally) risk management decision - including the costs and risks of potentially bad policies. This is what the our analysius should focus on.
You assume that your view of the world needing saving is correct but I don't buy it.
Feel free to make your own decisions, of course, as I do mine. But when you have all of the world`s national science academies and firms like Exxon saying we ought to do something, I listen.
So if you can convince people to voluntarily give up their money to support your ideas then have at it. Just don't try to justify stealing from others for your cause as being ok because it is some noble cause.
Noble sentiments that I share, but isn`t your view of the political/policy options rather impoverished?
Have you ever troubled yourself to think of policies that you would AGREE with that would also help address the concerns of others?
Here are a few links that might be helpful:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/17/iain-murray-another-libertarian-makes-climate-policy-proposals.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/08/28/margo-thorning-accf-to-w-va-conservative-foundation-policies-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-are-warranted-and-a-carbon-tax-is-strongly-preferable-over-cap-and-trade.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=kiesling
Finally, don`t ignore my earlier point: refusing to engage in politics means those that do get to choose the policies. Are carbon taxes better or worse than cap and trade?
like the same bogus info presented to people about global cooling
Sorry, but what bogus information was that, BTW? The media may have exaggerated as usual, but to my understanding the scientists were careful to say that IF we did not get a handle on sulfate and particulate emissions, fossil fuel use could produce a cooling - of the kind we still see when there is a Pinatubo. We of course did subsequently drastically did lower air pollution, all without destroying civilization.
The point remains valid, as scientists think that pollution is Asia IS measurably lowering the amount of sunlight that hits the earth, which is ｗｈy some "skeptics" say we need to pollute more to balance out global warming!
Sorry, but what bogus information was that, BTW? The media may have exaggerated as usual, but to my understanding the scientists were careful to say that IF we did not get a handle on sulfate and particulate emissions, fossil fuel use could produce a cooling - of the kind we still see when there is a Pinatubo. We of course did subsequently drastically did lower air pollution, all without destroying civilization.
The point remains valid, as scientists think that pollution is Asia IS measurably lowering the amount of sunlight that hits the earth, which is ｗｈy some "skeptics" say we need to pollute more to balance out global warming!
Tokyo Tom said...
"Feel free to make your own decisions, of course, as I do mine. But when you have all of the world`s national science academies and firms like Exxon saying we ought to do something, I listen."{
This is the kind of bs I'm talking about. Not even close to all agree with you. I linked an article on the 7th post on this site that completely disagrees with what you say and I could provide many more articles if you want. This is a guy that has been doing this kind of stuff for 40+ years. The fact that you say all, shows that you don't even look at the other side of the argument.
Just stay out of my pocket unless you want to admit it is stealing to say I should support your theories with my money without my consent.
The last comment you made is why I say that your views have no scientific value. I don't feel I have to prove my view because I'm not trying to steal money from people. You should have to prove your views beyond a reasonable doubt before you even have the balls to justify theft. Even then I think all thieves are morally repugnant.
"Feel free to make your own decisions, of course, as I do mine. But when you have all of the world`s national science academies and firms like Exxon saying we ought to do something, I listen."{
This is the kind of bs I'm talking about. Not even close to all agree with you. I linked an article on the 7th post on this site that completely disagrees with what you say and I could provide many more articles if you want. This is a guy that has been doing this kind of stuff for 40+ years. The fact that you say all, shows that you don't even look at the other side of the argument.
Just stay out of my pocket unless you want to admit it is stealing to say I should support your theories with my money without my consent.
The last comment you made is why I say that your views have no scientific value. I don't feel I have to prove my view because I'm not trying to steal money from people. You should have to prove your views beyond a reasonable doubt before you even have the balls to justify theft. Even then I think all thieves are morally repugnant.
cotterdan:
This is the kind of bs I'm talking about. Not even close to all agree with you.
Spare me your French, and then try to read a little more carefully.
I make no claims that scientists agree with ME, but only that "all of the world`s national science academies and firms like Exxon say[] we ought to do something" - which they certainly do.
Sure, there are scientists who disagree, but that was never my point. Rather, the question is simply how do we individually and as societies respond to these differing opinions on the risk profile that we face?
The fact that you say all, shows that you don't even look at the other side of the argument.
This just shows you aren`t trying to read; certainly my mentioning of a few things I have reviewed tells you nothing about what I haven`t mentioned. There is no "other side", by the way, but as many "sides" are there are scientists doing research and offering opinions, which opinions I make frequent efforts to familiarize myself with (and have explored at length over three years at the Austrian scool Ludwig von Mises blog).
Just stay out of my pocket unless you want to admit it is stealing
Again (like a broken record), I respect that. FWIW, I an NOT trying to get in your pocket (or anyone else`s), but certainly there are others who are (and in the states those include all of the coal companies).
My point is simply whether you want to stand by and be robbed, to trying to talk with the gunman and the various people who have his ear. I and others have certainly argued that there are many libertarian-friendly approaches to climate change (and have even given you a few links) and have spent considerable time arguing against the worst nonsense.
If you don`t wanna trouble to think, be my guest.
The last comment you made is why I say that your views have no scientific value.
I`m not sure what last comment you`re referring to, but if it`s about the "Asia Brown Cloud", please feel free to look it up. In any case, I`m really NOT trying to make any scientific arguments here.
You should have to prove your views beyond a reasonable doubt before you even have the balls to justify theft. Even then I think all thieves are morally repugnant.
I agree, so same to you!
This is the kind of bs I'm talking about. Not even close to all agree with you.
Spare me your French, and then try to read a little more carefully.
I make no claims that scientists agree with ME, but only that "all of the world`s national science academies and firms like Exxon say[] we ought to do something" - which they certainly do.
Sure, there are scientists who disagree, but that was never my point. Rather, the question is simply how do we individually and as societies respond to these differing opinions on the risk profile that we face?
The fact that you say all, shows that you don't even look at the other side of the argument.
This just shows you aren`t trying to read; certainly my mentioning of a few things I have reviewed tells you nothing about what I haven`t mentioned. There is no "other side", by the way, but as many "sides" are there are scientists doing research and offering opinions, which opinions I make frequent efforts to familiarize myself with (and have explored at length over three years at the Austrian scool Ludwig von Mises blog).
Just stay out of my pocket unless you want to admit it is stealing
Again (like a broken record), I respect that. FWIW, I an NOT trying to get in your pocket (or anyone else`s), but certainly there are others who are (and in the states those include all of the coal companies).
My point is simply whether you want to stand by and be robbed, to trying to talk with the gunman and the various people who have his ear. I and others have certainly argued that there are many libertarian-friendly approaches to climate change (and have even given you a few links) and have spent considerable time arguing against the worst nonsense.
If you don`t wanna trouble to think, be my guest.
The last comment you made is why I say that your views have no scientific value.
I`m not sure what last comment you`re referring to, but if it`s about the "Asia Brown Cloud", please feel free to look it up. In any case, I`m really NOT trying to make any scientific arguments here.
You should have to prove your views beyond a reasonable doubt before you even have the balls to justify theft. Even then I think all thieves are morally repugnant.
I agree, so same to you!
TokyoTom said...
"Most commons problems are actually much more susceptible to local solutions that would occur if governments got out of the way and just let resource users come to terms on them, but given that that the atmosphere is shared globally AND there are countless other state actors that we just can`t force from the table, there is simply no possibility of entirely voluntary approaches arising (even though one could imagine them)."
Not everyone agrees we have a problem and many scientist think climate change is bogus. Now if you believe it and want to encourage people to follow you voluntarily then I have no problem with it, but when you make statements that there is no possibility of entirely voluntary approaches arising I don't see that you are against these coercive approaches.
It seems to me that you would rather see something done through coercive State means than nothing at all. It doesn't matter to me if you would prefer voluntary means if you are willing to accept coercive State means.
If I'm wrong and you believe that all State means should be stopped because they aren't voluntary then I'm with you on that and you can go on trying to convince others to voluntarily join you. If you believe in coercive State means over nothing at all then I say again to stay out of my pocket.
Post a Comment
"Most commons problems are actually much more susceptible to local solutions that would occur if governments got out of the way and just let resource users come to terms on them, but given that that the atmosphere is shared globally AND there are countless other state actors that we just can`t force from the table, there is simply no possibility of entirely voluntary approaches arising (even though one could imagine them)."
Not everyone agrees we have a problem and many scientist think climate change is bogus. Now if you believe it and want to encourage people to follow you voluntarily then I have no problem with it, but when you make statements that there is no possibility of entirely voluntary approaches arising I don't see that you are against these coercive approaches.
It seems to me that you would rather see something done through coercive State means than nothing at all. It doesn't matter to me if you would prefer voluntary means if you are willing to accept coercive State means.
If I'm wrong and you believe that all State means should be stopped because they aren't voluntary then I'm with you on that and you can go on trying to convince others to voluntarily join you. If you believe in coercive State means over nothing at all then I say again to stay out of my pocket.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]