41–50 of 115 posts
> People sometimes ask me, “What is the most important concept in political economy?” The answer is easy, but subtle: permissionless innovation, a strong presumption in favor of allowing experimentation with new technologies and with new business platforms that use those technologies.
Surely the ideas of capital, labor, markets, property, etc. are more important concepts in political economy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must find the easy libertarians to debate. The answer is that maximizing liberty involves minimizing net aggressions, and externalities are aggressions. Therefore, a society is more free if the government proactively prevents/taxes/regulates certain types of externalities that are impractical to deal with in individual lawsuits (non-localized pollution fits this bill perfectly). In the case of smog, the most comm…
I've literally never heard a libertarian argue that before.
A Randian objectivist is also not the same thing as a Libertarian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must find the easy libertarians to debate. The answer is that maximizing liberty involves minimizing net aggressions, and externalities are aggressions. Therefore, a society is more free if the government proactively prevents/taxes/regulates certain types of externalities that are impractical to deal with in individual lawsuits (non-localized pollution fits this bill perfectly). In the case of smog, the most comm…
> And yes, the carbon tax is a libertarian concept. Actually, it's not. Pretty much everything I've read by the libertarians (Rothbardians really) about carbon taxes either call it a wealth redistribution scheme (which the original inventor[0] intended it to be) or a case illustrating how the true tragedy of the commons is the fact that the commons exist at all. So, for your mercury example, the libertarian solution…
No True Scotsman! Just like you are closely aligned with Fidel Castro and other autocrats on all issues, because you probably believe in socializing certain things, right? :)
Libertarians are extremely intellectually diverse in their politics -- anecdotally, much more so than conservatives and progressives combined (population size adjusted). Old school Libertarians -- the ones often associated with the birth of the movement (and the ones quoted by Democrats to avoid intellectual debate) -- tend to lean heavily conservative and have an oversimplified view of either the non-aggression principle, the imperfect nature of the world, or both. Milton Friedman is an example of one of the first prominent libertarians to start considering alternative approaches for externalities.
Do I care who first coined the term carbon tax? Nope; it's not about scoring points for your team. The fact of the matter is that the idea of a carbon/pollution/externality-offsetting tax arises naturally from the non-aggression principle, as I described.
> So, for your mercury example, the libertarian solution would be for the owner of the polluted water supply to hunt down the source of the contamination and seek restitution for the damaged caused.
I didn't realize you spoke on behalf of true libertarians!
Tell me, what would you do today if someone dumped mercury in your yard? The same thing -- just because there are laws, does not mean you don't have to deal with people breaking them. And regardless, no, mercury has non-localized and criminal effects (poisoning is a form of assault). If someone threw a couch or some other localized non-poisonous pollution in their neighbor's yard, then yes, that is generally a matter for the civil courts. As it is now, even though littering is illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must find the easy libertarians to debate. The answer is that maximizing liberty involves minimizing net aggressions, and externalities are aggressions. Therefore, a society is more free if the government proactively prevents/taxes/regulates certain types of externalities that are impractical to deal with in individual lawsuits (non-localized pollution fits this bill perfectly). In the case of smog, the most comm…
> And yes, the carbon tax is a libertarian concept. Actually, it's not. Pretty much everything I've read by the libertarians (Rothbardians really) about carbon taxes either call it a wealth redistribution scheme (which the original inventor[0] intended it to be) or a case illustrating how the true tragedy of the commons is the fact that the commons exist at all. So, for your mercury example, the libertarian solution…
These are two different philosophies, in the same way that communism is completely different from Bernie sanders style "democratic socialism".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about you explain it? Obviously I don't understand what he's saying.
He's just pointing out that more innovation happens when people don't have to seek permission (from the government or from other companies) in order to innovate, and uses some examples to illustrate the point. Twitter is just one valid example among many that have emerged in the internet era; the whole reason we've seen so much innovation in internet-related technologies in the past 20 years is that the innovation co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about you explain it? Obviously I don't understand what he's saying.
A fruitless exercise. The same pathology that prevents you from understanding his article, would prevent you from understanding further explanation. Go back. Read the article again. Multiple times. And TRY to do it fairly. TRY to recognise your biases and presumptions. If you are incapable of doing that, then what chance would other people have of successfully explaining it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's just pointing out that more innovation happens when people don't have to seek permission (from the government or from other companies) in order to innovate, and uses some examples to illustrate the point. Twitter is just one valid example among many that have emerged in the internet era; the whole reason we've seen so much innovation in internet-related technologies in the past 20 years is that the innovation co…
I still don't think he is doing anything other than stating the obvious. He is not addressing any difficult issues.
It reminds me of an article I read years ago in a magazine about solar power. A guy decided to go off grid with solar panels and battery back up. He was living in Chicago. He called around to find out who regulated this sort of thing, where he needed to apply for permits or whatever. He learned that there wasn't a governing body. So he realized that as long as he didn't do anything stupid (a la burn the building down…
I think the canonical example is something like the Wright Brothers first flight in Kitty Hawk, NC. Of course living in more agrarian times helps when you have an impromptu airport runway in your backyard. But the "permissionless innovation" theory probably concludes the reason we are not driving around in flying cars just yet is precisely due to government hamstringing the great inventor.
Particularly with strong AI the proposal comes up often: why not create a sandbox? Let the risk takers run their experiments and insulate the general public from their consequences. Allocate a few abandoned oil rigs off the coast of Venezuela and let anyone with a rocket design attempt a launch ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And yes, the carbon tax is a libertarian concept. Actually, it's not. Pretty much everything I've read by the libertarians (Rothbardians really) about carbon taxes either call it a wealth redistribution scheme (which the original inventor[0] intended it to be) or a case illustrating how the true tragedy of the commons is the fact that the commons exist at all. So, for your mercury example, the libertarian solution…
> No True Libertarian No True Scotsman! Just like you are closely aligned with Fidel Castro and other autocrats on all issues, because you probably believe in socializing certain things, right? :) Libertarians are extremely intellectually diverse in their politics -- anecdotally , much more so than conservatives and progressives combined (population size adjusted). Old school Libertarians -- the ones often associated…
Which begs the question on how one collects taxes without aggression?
> And regardless, no, mercury has non-localized and criminal effects (poisoning is a form of assault).
So you criminalize the "assault" then you don't need gov't watchdogs tracking all uses of mercury to ensure it doesn't end up on some poor sap's lawn because once you give them the power to outlaw one thing you give them the power to outlaw whatever they want.
The Road to Serfdom as they say...
It reminds me of an article I read years ago in a magazine about solar power. A guy decided to go off grid with solar panels and battery back up. He was living in Chicago. He called around to find out who regulated this sort of thing, where he needed to apply for permits or whatever. He learned that there wasn't a governing body. So he realized that as long as he didn't do anything stupid (a la burn the building down…
Without some risk, however. You may never succeed in breaking the binds that keep us in the dark. I think the canonical example is something like the Wright Brothers first flight in Kitty Hawk, NC. Of course living in more agrarian times helps when you have an impromptu airport runway in your backyard. But the "permissionless innovation" theory probably concludes the reason we are not driving around in flying cars ju…
Ultra-light aircraft is very much regulated under philosophy of "if you aren't endangering others, well, it's your funeral".
Source: I've halfway convinced myself to shell out the $10k or so for a motorized paraglider rig + lessons. Pretty much what I'd need to do is sign up for lessons, buy gear, and make sure I stay out of the way of big planes and protected wilderness areas. I don't technically need to sign up for lessons, but, well, it's my funeral.