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

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#101

Post by nickff »

tzs wrote: post #97
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.

• Scenario 1 I build my factory next to your land. A byproduct of my factory is a bunch of polluted water, which drains strait onto your land, causing much damage. The tort system could deal with this fine [1]. You can easily prove that it was the pollution from my factory that damaged your land. This may not be a good way to deal with it, because (1) it takes effort to take someone to court, which many small landown…

I agree that your "Scenario 2" is a good case against using torts to correct large, widespread pollution problems, but there are other ways of dealing with those issues in a manner consistent with libertarianism.[1][2]

My original point was not that Pigouvianism was ineffective, but that: "Pigouvianism is inherently intolerant and totalitarian, not libertarian, as it relies on imposing one's value judgements on others. Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may be 'nicer', but is not Liberty."

[1] http://www.libertarianprepper.com/air-pollution-and-its-unex...

[2] https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#102

Post by tzs »

mrsteveman1 wrote: post #14
unprepare wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not at all familiar with the law in this area, but what stands in the way of doing that right now?

One big problem is proof. In a civil suit plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was responsible for the harm. Our water systems and our atmosphere are large, very effective mixers, and pollution injected at one point can travel hundreds or even thousands of kilometers before ending up on someone's land and causing damages. An emission of pollution from one polluter and another of the same kind and amount emitted at the same time from a second polluter a few kilometers away could end up taking very different paths and end up causing harm to people thousands of kilometers apart.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#103

Post by greglindahl »

nickff wrote: post #100
greglindahl wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you're saying there's no intellectually-consistent reason that anyone would oppose depending on Russian rocket engines for national security-related launches, while being for more competition in the rocket launch market? Also, you should note that the entire point of a carbon tax is to replace everything in your middle paragraph with something that's more intellectually-consistent. Telling someone else that they…

There are intellectually consistent frameworks which could justify most of Musk's beliefs, but he doesn't appear to abide by any such framework. He has changed his tune on many issues, and his policy positions always seem to be advantageous to his investments; he probably believes in his arguments, but we should be sanguine about their origins. I happen to agree with him that fuel cells are a bad idea, but I also thi…

Thanks for doubling-down on your original comments -- still not having a productive discussion.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#104

Post by nickff »

greglindahl wrote: post #103
nickff wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are intellectually consistent frameworks which could justify most of Musk's beliefs, but he doesn't appear to abide by any such framework. He has changed his tune on many issues, and his policy positions always seem to be advantageous to his investments; he probably believes in his arguments, but we should be sanguine about their origins. I happen to agree with him that fuel cells are a bad idea, but I also thi…

Thanks for doubling-down on your original comments -- still not having a productive discussion.

I didn't 'double-down'; for instance, I agreed with you that "[t]here are intellectually consistent frameworks which could justify most of Musk's beliefs".

I also agree that 'just the carbon tax' would be more intellectually consistent than the myriad of other automotive propulsion policies Musk has advocated, but he happens to have advocated all those policies in addition to the carbon tax.

What are you looking for in a productive discussion? An apology because I might have offended the great Elon?

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#105

Post by fweespeech »

nickff wrote: post #98
fweespeech wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists' The only way you'd be consistent was if you had imo. YMMV. Now, all you've established is my original belief was correct. > You've changed this post at least two times since I first tried to respond to it; I can't write a coherent response if you keep on deleting your post and re-writing it. You rewrote your post after I posted the first one. Pot meet ke…

It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad.

> It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad.

You advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else which could be simplified and applied consistently by a tax.

The fact you don't understand that is, effectively, a very inefficient tax is confusing.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#106

Post by nickff »

fweespeech wrote: post #105
nickff wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad.

> It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad. You advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else which could be simplified and applied consistently by a tax. The fact you don't understand that is, effectively, a very inefficient tax is confusing.

I didn't "advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else". I said that one might be subject to a tort or trespass lawsuit "if [one] reduce[s] the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years..."

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#107

Post by throwaway2016a »

ancap wrote: post #99
throwaway2016a wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to answer your flamebait with a real answer: Because no one can own the air and you do not have a right to pollute something you do not own... further more if you pollute on land you do own you cannot guarantee the pollution will go to land owned by other people. And if you can guarantee that it will stay on your property, win win, we solved global warming!

I disagree that no one can own the air. To clarify, airspace can be homesteaded like any other piece of property. Obviously this is not necessarily the ownership of every air molecule in a given airspace as that would be quite impractical. But just the same, no one can pollute someone else's airspace.

Airspace is not air. Air flows freely across airspace. How can you guarantee that your air will not flow into my property?

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#108

Post by throwaway2016a »

ancap wrote: post #96
throwaway2016a wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> there is no way to pollute the air (or ocean) without depriving others of their rights I mostly agree with this part, > If you are a True Libertarian you should be in favor of the Government regulating air polluters but take issue with this part. As others have pointed out the libertarian position on air pollution, and similarly on other kinds of pollution, is it is a tortious trespass on property and is dealt with…

Ok, good point. I should have probably said protected by the government not regulated.

But with that said, regulation is more efficient than going after every polluter on a case by case basis. Legislation can at least be used to set the guidelines so everyone knows what rules they are playing by. Either that or you're just replacing law with case-law which would have relatively the same effect. A rose by any other name...

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#109

Post by jimmytidey »

nickff wrote: post #64
jimmytidey wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously you can question his motives, however this is not an indirect subsidy if you consider the emission of carbon dioxide an externality - which I presume he does. Instead it would represent the levelling of the playing field. Oil companies do get direct subsidies through tax breaks, so no mater what you think is going on here, energy is not pure market. In practise, how often do you see a pure market anyway?

Something can be an indirect subsidy and a Pigouvian tax at the same time; they are non-exclusive options. I see the carbon tax as both, and am opposed to both. There are no 'pure market[s]', and there never have been. The 'pure market' was a straw-man invented by anti-market people.

It seems to me that subsidies and Pigouvian tax are exclusive if they are to mean anything. Perhaps I'm wrong?Can you point me at a discussion of this?

I think you are right that few people explicitly say that pure markets exist. But implicitly many people make arguments based on some kind of some unregulated state of nature, for example on this thread.

Re: Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax

#110

Post by jimmytidey »

merpnderp wrote: post #47
jimmytidey wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously you can question his motives, however this is not an indirect subsidy if you consider the emission of carbon dioxide an externality - which I presume he does. Instead it would represent the levelling of the playing field. Oil companies do get direct subsidies through tax breaks, so no mater what you think is going on here, energy is not pure market. In practise, how often do you see a pure market anyway?

To be fair, in the US almost zero companies pay the corporate tax rate of 35%, the highest in the industrialized world. Thus anyone can point at any industry and point a finger at it in disgust at its "tax breaks".

Fair point.

Still, means a carbon tax is just more of the same, not some evil infringement of liberties.

Post reply on HN