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

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#71

Post by throwaway2016a »

JustUhThought wrote: post #5

"Libertarian" and "tax" in the same sentence. How does that even work?

Libertarians are not anti-tax. This is a common falisy.

Libertarians are anti-income and sometimes property tax but not anti-consumption tax. Basically the government cannot take "by force" the money that an individual earned or forcefully levy a tax on property they own. But taxing someone for polluting the atmosphere? Sure.

Carbon tax is actually very Libertarian. Greenhouse gasses pollute the commons which deprives other's of their right to quality air. I think many Libertarians would be for the government stepping in to end pollution of the commons and making companies pay for their own pollution is a fair way to do it.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#72

Post by throwaway2016a »

"[Libertarians] are actually opposed to government intervention because it causes false pricing. "

No, Libertarians are opposed to government intervention because it forces individuals to give up liberties. It's right there in the name of the party. You have a right to keep what you earn and choose where you want to spend it.

Now if you were to argue that polluting the environment deprives others of their right to breath clean air and that the government should tax carbon in order to protect the rights of the people who want clean air then THAT is a Libertarian argument for carbon tax.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#73

Post by ancap »

fncndhdhc wrote: post #42
ancap wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

...until the interested business parties band together to form a government of sorts for their own benefit.

Any ruling order, whether it be a government or something else, requires at least the tacit consent of the majority. I believe it would be much more difficult to take over an area lacking a strong centralized government as opposed to an area with one. Militaristic efforts in Afghanistan being a prime modern example.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#74

Post by throwaway2016a »

fncndhdhc wrote: post #8

More like Elon Musk points out by example why libertarianism is an oxymoron. As soon as all restrictions are lifted on businesses and a totally "free" market is created, business interests move to enact new regulations that entrench their positions.

And those new regulations in favor of business would be vetoed under a Libertarian government. It works both ways.

Also, Libertarians are in favor of regulating business if the business is depriving others of their rights. For example, their right to breath clean air.

Well, many are. I believe enough are that pro-environmental policies would still get voted up in a Libertarian system.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#75

Post by throwaway2016a »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #37
ancap wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly! I hope this is what the op meant. If you are a True Libertarian you should be in favor of the Government regulating air polluters because there is no way to pollute the air (or ocean) without depriving others of their rights.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#76

Post by fweespeech »

nickff wrote: post #68
fweespeech wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may be 'nicer', but is not Liberty. So if I reduce the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years, I am simply exercising my liberty?

You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. There are a great many works on this type of issue, and if you are looking for a complete answer, I suggest you read them. If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone else.

> You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it.

And if you know its a common tort or trespass, it is simpler to tax that tort/trespass rather than require every individual to sue every other individual.

> If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone els

I don't really care. I just find your doublethink curious and wanted to confirm it was what I thought it was.

I find Doublethink in general a very interesting subject.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#77

Post by antisthenes »

throwaway2016a wrote: post #74
fncndhdhc wrote: post #8

More like Elon Musk points out by example why libertarianism is an oxymoron. As soon as all restrictions are lifted on businesses and a totally "free" market is created, business interests move to enact new regulations that entrench their positions.

And those new regulations in favor of business would be vetoed under a Libertarian government. It works both ways. Also, Libertarians are in favor of regulating business if the business is depriving others of their rights. For example, their right to breath clean air. Well, many are. I believe enough are that pro-environmental policies would still get voted up in a Libertarian system.

> And those new regulations in favor of business would be vetoed under a Libertarian government. It works both ways.

Wait, what? Vetoed by whom?

> Also, Libertarians are in favor of regulating business if the business is depriving others of their rights.

Who would be doing the regulating exactly? Wouldn't the regulations be seen as oppression by other businesses? Wouldn't they be challenged in a court of law, which is a part of the government?

I'm honestly amazed at the required amount of self-delusion required to believe that some form of libertopia is possible by simply removing some regulations and cutting down government agencies left and right. It then turns out that to arbitrate selfish interests of business and handle other edge cases in conflicts of interest you need certain agencies to act as arbitrators and in order to have a functioning society you start adding those agencies back 1 by 1 until you end up at the current form of government with all of its "overhead"

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#78

Post by vinaybn »

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.

Quite the mental gymnastics. "If we magically enacted perfectly libertarian business policies overnight" <- this assumes we have SOME way to get there. "business would immediately get to work creating new regulations because they're still self-interested like they were before." We would then use that same MAGICAL way to get back to ancapistan. No contradiction at all.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#79

Post by dpark »

merpnderp wrote: post #69
dpark wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about the Earth is warming, we don't know by how much, but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought This is a bold claim completely unsupported by your link.

"If ancient cloud cover was closer to today’s levels, the increase in the cloud-cooling effect due to human pollution could also be smaller—which means that Earth was not warming up so much in response to increased greenhouse gases alone. In other words, Earth is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, and it may warm up less in response to future carbon emissions, says Urs Baltensperger of the Pa…

Still not supporting your claim.

> we don't know by how much

This is a measurable (and measured) thing. We know exactly how much the Earth has already warmed. We do not know exactly how much it will warm in the future, but we know how much it has warmed. And the articles are also not nearly as pessimistic about how good our estimates are. You're acting as if we're flying blind just because our models are imperfect.

> but likely not nearly as much as we previously thought

FTA: "He says that the current best estimates of future temperature rises are still feasible, but "the highest values become improbable.""

So no. The current best estimates are still the best estimates. This does not jive at all with your assertion that it's "likely not nearly as much".

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#80

Post by nickff »

fweespeech wrote: post #76
nickff wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. There are a great many works on this type of issue, and if you are looking for a complete answer, I suggest you read them. If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone else.

> You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. And if you know its a common tort or trespass, it is simpler to tax that tort/trespass rather than require every individual to sue every other individual. > If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone els I don't really care. I just find your doublethink curious and wanted to confirm i…

What doublethink are you talking about? There is no internal inconsistency in my position, I just disagree with you.
Post reply on HN