Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

rgj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 112 posts

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#31

Post by ancap »

fncndhdhc wrote: post #17
ancap wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How was this an example of how restrictions were lifted and a free market created?

You're missing the point. If we magically enacted perfectly libertarian business policies overnight, business would immediately get to work creating new regulations because they're still self-interested like they were before. This is what they do now, this is what they would do then, and this is also why anarcho capitalism is a contradiction.

Anarcho capitalism, which is not necessarily the view of every libertarian (some being "minarchists"), would be the absence of any government authority. Without a government the regulation you speak of is non-existent. There is no contradiction.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#32

Post by wlesieutre »

elgabogringo wrote: post #29
bergie wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case it is not about indirect subsidies to his company, but about removing indirect subsidies from the combustion engine industry. Their "freely available externalities" are polluting the place.

Uh huh. Funny how a billionaire has so easily convinced you that adding costs to his competitors (and consumers) is really "removing a subsidy".

When we tell coal plants "Hey, you can't dump unlimited amounts of particulate pollution into the air," would you characterize that as an "indirect subsidy for solar power"?

Or would you call it "not letting coal plants externalize their costs on everyone else"?

Why are carbon emissions any different?

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#33

Post by binarymax »

I feel the argument was muddled by the libertarian clauses. It would have been more concise and poignant to make the same argument while leaving that out. He is completely right, that carbon not being taxed like other regulated substances, the fossil fuel businesses have the best subsidy possible, and the economics are completely misaligned.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#34

Post by jcfrei »

unprepare wrote: post #9
vorotato wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume by arguing the personal liberty cost of emissions outweighs the personal liberty gained by tax reduction.

wouldnt the libertarian reaction to emissions be to sue the emitter for the lowered quality of air?

That's already happening. Ie. ExxonMobile: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/03/exxonmobil-sued-po... or Volkswagen: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/us-civil-sui... But as another commentator pointed out that's a very inefficient process because courts generate a huge overhead. And the US already spends way too much on lawyers imho.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#36

Post by dharmon »

startupdiscuss wrote: post #7

This is a good argument. It is also a basic economic argument about a market externality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality I am not sure you even need to characterize it as a libertarian argument.

Agreed. If anything, and if I'm reading it correctly, he's actually trying to explain why libertarians would be opposed to this:

> "For people that have a sort of libertarian bent they get a little confused because they need to appreciate the high level principle of why they are opposed to government intervention."

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#37

Post by erikpukinskis »

ancap wrote: post #13
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #3

It's fairly easy to spot ideologically consistent libertarians if you ask them about climate change, carbon tax etc. Unfortunately, it turns out that they don't really exist in any great numbers.

Can you expound on this ideologically consistent view?

If you are going to destroy the oceans that we all rely on for fishing, you should pay for them. You break it you buy it. The idea that someone can just come onto your property and destroy your land, as long as they do it with toxic gasses, is not very libertarian.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#38

Post by ArkyBeagle »

elgabogringo wrote: post #22

If he/we really cared about CO2 production and Global warming externalities, we'd put a massive tax on service/product from China or India, whose CO2 production continues to grow: http://blogs.nelson.wisc.edu/es112-304-4/wp-content/uploads/...

In the larger picture, we hope that as standards of living rise in China and India, carbon use will improve ( decline ).

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#39

Post by merpnderp »

startupdiscuss wrote: post #7

This is a good argument. It is also a basic economic argument about a market externality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality I am not sure you even need to characterize it as a libertarian argument.

You're right, back when carbon credits versus taxes were being argued for, economists seemed to all agree taxes were the far superior choice. But credits allowed businesses and politicians to hand out favors, cut deals, and generally wallow in corruption and graft.

Thus credits won out over taxes.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#40

Post by hartator »

Random thought: Why are we communicating almost only on the release of CO2 and not of the burning of O2?

It's easier to communicate that's O2 being reduced is problematic for human beings as our bodies perform worst even with slight reductions in O2 levels. O2 levels have a more direct impact on humans. Plus, O2 concentration levels are actually being reduced faster than CO2 levels are rising. CO2 is not a toxic gas by itself and climate sciences that show CO2 is bad for the planet are hard. It would seem easier to convince people burning O2 is harmful. It's true and easy to demonstrate.

> Evidence from prehistoric times indicates that the oxygen content of pristine nature was above the 21% of total volume that it is today. It has decreased in recent times due mainly to the burning of coal in the middle of the last century. Currently the oxygen content of the Earth’s atmosphere dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major cities. At these levels it is difficult for people to get sufficient oxygen to maintain bodily health: it takes a proper intake of oxygen to keep body cells and organs, and the entire immune system, functioning at full efficiency. At the levels we have reached today cancers and other degenerative diseases are likely to develop. And at 6 to 7% life can no longer be sustained.

Ref: http://www.ebooks.com/113897/macroshift/laszlo-ervin-clarke-...

Post reply on HN