41–50 of 112 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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/...
Also, per the chart you've linked, India's CO2 production looks quite low. Not sure why you're lumping them in with China.
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?
This would be the argument for creating more of a structured market approach to assigning the costs of these externalities: courts are inefficient and plagued with problems when there's a power difference between the parties, so creating a market structure allows those externalities to be compensated in a more efficient way, while still allowing market pricing to incentivize industry to resolve the externality in the most efficient way available.
The libertarian's argument against this (I imagine) is that any government market scheme will screw it up more, though I don't know why so much faith is placed in the court system as a magically efficient system that resolves property disputes fairly and cost effectively in cases like diffused externalities.
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".
I think most political arguments happen over how you decide who or what fits into this group of parties incapable of speaking for themselves. Some say 3-year olds should represent themselves in immigration court while others say even adult consumers aren't capable of adequately representing themselves and need protections. I don't believe it's inconsistent libertarianism to say that some groups with no independent legal voice should get public protection. Libertarians draw that line in different places, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. It's an argument for indirect subsidies to his company on top of the direct subsidies he already receives. Elon Musk is hardly a libertarian. He's just another crony capitalist.
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?
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.
"Free" markets vary by degree - nobody says there must be no rules, no rule of law. Taking it back to Adam Smith, he's simply arguing against Mercantilism. So any rules that entrench an incumbent could ( possibly ) be considered a degree of Mercantilism. But the context matters because of specialization and inertia/momentum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
More foam-at-the-mouth anarchists tend to be empty vessels - louder, so they attract the disenchanted.
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…
Because global warming will probably kill us before oxygen deprivation or the health impact of reduced oxygen.
Also, this is perhaps nitpicky, but O2 does not burn.