TT's Lost in Tokyo

[Note: Stephan Kinsella tells me he has NOT put my posts on his thread on moderation.  I believe him, and so (even as I fail to understand why I was unable to post a particular comment after a number of attempts), as noted I would in my original post, I withdraw my charge that he put my comments on moderation, and offer my sincere apology to Stephan (and to LvMI readers) for my mistake and for the offense that I imagine I may have caused to his sense of fair play. I am happy to do this, though of course I deeply regret my mistake.

Stephan, I`m sorry. I take your word that the conclusion I jumped to was wrong.

I am still trying to puzzle through what happened; below I have restored an edited version of my prior post, with the unjustifed portions deleted.

Meanwhile, the discussion continues at the Mises Blog, at the above thread.]

In my preceding post I commented on Austrian (dis)engagement on climate issues, as exemplified by Stephan Kinsella`s Mises Blog post, "Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims".

[clip]

Instead of the usual cheerful message LvMI provides when comments are accepted ("Confirmation...  Your comment has been submitted!)", my attempts  to comment are now met with the message, "Thank you for commenting.  Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner."

While there are times that this message is automatically served up for technical reasons, such as not providing proper email address (i.e., by accidently typing in ".comh" instead of ".com") or providing too many links (which may trigger a spamblocking feature), this [seemed to me] to be fairly clearly NOT one of those occasions - I had just successfully posted a couple of comments that included links, and my "failed" post included my usual email address (properly formatted, as I can confirm simply by backing up) and no links.

[clip]

I copy below the comment that I [had supposed] turned his playful non-responsiveness (see his comment to my prior post) into stony silence/silencing:

• Published: October 31, 2009 1:00 PM

• TokyoTom

  Stephan, if I may, I am appalled and offended by your shallow and fundamentally dishonest engagement here. That there are a string of others who have preceded you in this regard is no excuse.

  You: (i) post without significant comment a one-page letter from a scientist - as if the letter itself is vindication, victory or a roadmap for how we should seek to engage the views and preferences of others,

  (ii) refuse to answer my straightforward questions (both above and at my cross-linked post, which you visited) on how we engage others in the very active ongoing political debate, in a manner that actually defends and advances our policy agenda, (putting aside the insulting and disingenuous "Tokyo asked me to respond" and "it's so rambling I am not sure what to respond to"); and

  (iii) then proceed to present your own view of the science, the motives and sanity "watermelons" (as if they`re running the show), a few helpful, free-market libertarian "solutions", like open-air explosion of nuclear weapons to bring about a "nuclear winter" effect!

  And my attempt to bring your focus back to the question of how we actually deal with others in the POLITICAL bargaining that is, after all, underway is met with silence - other than your faithful report back from your trusty climate physicist expert policy guru friend about .... science (all being essentially irrelevant to my question, not merely the cute little folksy demonstration about how the troubling melting and thinning of Antarctic ice sheets actually now underway simply CAN`T be occurring, but also a further failure to address the very rapid ocean acidification our CO2 emissions are producing)!

  Maybe it`s me, but I find this type of insincere and shallow engagement on such a serious issue to be a shameful discredit to the Mises Blog (even if it does cater to those who prefer to think that the big to do about climate - which may very well result in a mass of ill-considered, costly and counterproductive legislation - is really groundless and so can simply be ignored, aside from a bit of internal fulminations here).

  If you are not actually interested in discussing policy on a serious issue, then consider refraining from posting on it.

  Maybe it`s not my position to expect better, but I do.

  Sincerely,

  Tom

[Note: I had intended to excise the following from my comment, but it`s just as well that it slipped in, as it serves to illustrate what productive Austrian approaches to climate issues might look like. I`ve added a link to Roy Cordato.]

Roy Cordato (linked at my name) said this:

“The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute plans within the context of their goals. … ocial welfare or efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. that similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being captured by prices.”

“Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal plan formulation and execution.”

“The focus of the Austrian approach to environmental economics is conflict resolution. The purpose of focusing on issues related to property rights is to describe the source of the conflict and to identify possible ways of resolving it.”

“If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist. This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998; Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective on pollution from one of “market failure” where the free market is seen as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced property rights, is not in place.”

The Road Not Taken III: Stephan Kinsella plugs his ears on the Austrians` obstinate, willful irrelevancy in the climate debate