Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

What proposals can libertarians make that would lead to cleaner energy / lighter CO2 footprints?

rated by 0 users
This post has 63 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

TokyoTom:

ls, I`m afraid I don`t really get what`s with you. I`ve really treated you rather nicely, but you seem to want to have an enemy.  Sorry, but I don`t really want to play..

your time here will be short.

The snappy answer, of course, is that this is MY line, but then I`m one of those rational, caring and sensitive people who doesn`t hide his lack of self-confidence with threats.  FYI, I`ve been commenting at LvMI for 5 1/2 years.

In this forum community, the standard of discourse is sincerity.  If you are going to strawman, to the point where it becomes obvious lying, you can go back to commenting elsewhere.  This is not a unique standard for you, it is community norm.  If you want to discuss facts and ideas, that is wonderful.  If you are here to mis-characterize and be anti-social, then save us all the trouble and back off.

TokyoTom:

Where are the non-libertarians?

Um, the ones who read my blog.

You are aware this is not your blog, but the forum community, yes?

TokyoTom:
For REAL libertarians, their beliefs are not an echo chamber.

And pray tell, what is a real libertarian?

TokyoTom:
Instead, they try to persuade other people.

Perhaps you are unaware of the body of work of many libertarians here.

TokyoTom:
That seems to be beyond your ability to conceive.

Not at all.  But your premise requires everyone to buy into CC, and I think you have seen there is a fair amount of skepticism here.  Next, you want us to buy into the notion that the best way to deal with CC is to work with the government, rather than against the government.  If you spent some time following the tenor and direction of conversations here, you would find that there is a strong sentiment that directing government is immoral.

So it seems to me, that if you want to have an honest discussion, with many very intelligent and thoughtful libertarians here in this community, you may need to stop assuming that climate change is in fact, a done deal, and then you may need to stop assuming that everyone who is not pursuing your agenda, your way, is doing absolutely nothing.

Libertarian philosophy is not centered on the right policy or effective government planning via tariffs, taxes and regulation but rather a complete approach to property and life.

No one here will disagree with you on the correctness of reducing taxes, but the point is that there should be no taxes at all.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 985
Points 17,110
Stephen replied on Fri, Nov 6 2009 1:29 PM

TokyoTom:
But what are your thoughts about dealing with public utilities?

The utilitarian argument is fairly straight forward.

Interventions within the public sector implies a redistribution of public property from some public servants to others. This encourages a higher time preference and short sighted over-utilization of resources on the part of public servants. The greater the level of state intervention internally, the greater it's external level of exploitation. Insofar as there are public utilities at all, they should be left unregulated.

TokyoTom:
And wouldn``t insisting that citizens get a per capita cut of royalties be a good step on the way to privatization?

No. Citizens in general do not own public utilities. One class of citizens, the taxpayers, owns the public utilities. Paying royalties to citizens would be redistributive. If anyone deserves royalties, it's the taxpayers, and in proportion to the taxes they've paid plus interest from the time they paid them. What would be even better, is giving the taxpayers shares of the company, in proportion to the taxes they've paid. That would be the proper step toward privatization.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Fri, Nov 6 2009 2:31 PM
I thought that bigger SCAMS had overshadowed the environmental SCAM, but it seems that some people are still true believers...

Welcome back TT.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 747
Points 19,425

ls, I`m afraid it``s not me who`s the weird one.

In this forum community, the standard of discourse is sincerity.

great standard, but I have hard time seeing it in your posts.

If you are going to strawman, to the point where it becomes obvious lying,

I have no CLUE as to what you think you`re talking about. Try being a little more frank about tell me HOW you think I`ve transgressed. The fact that I`m still here while several who have called me a liar are gone ought to tell you something - chiefly, that you`re shadow boxing with demons of your own making.

If you want to discuss facts and ideas, that is wonderful. 

Great,

If you are here to mis-characterize and be anti-social, then save us all the trouble and back off.

Well said, but take a look at the man in the mirror, man!

You are aware this is not your blog, but the forum community, yes?

You seem to have problem figuring out what for anyone else is obvious context. I live where people are a quite a bit more adept at figuring out what others mean. If you can`t follow me, I guess that must make me a liar, or something.

your premise requires everyone to buy into CC

No, it doesn`t; it merely requires people to assume what is obvious; namely that OTHERS believe in CC.

you want us to buy into the notion that the best way to deal with CC is to work with the government, rather than against the government.

No. I want you buy into the notion that ONE way work against the government is to find other people who will agree with you to cut it back.

there is a strong sentiment that directing government is immoral.

Great; but when did PARING BACK government become "immoral"?

you may need to stop assuming that climate change is in fact, a done deal

You tire me, ls, as I`ve made no such assumption; in fact, my argument revolves around the notion that warmers can`t get what they want, and so might be interested in listening to a saner pro-freedoom policy.

if you want to have an honest discussion, with many very intelligent and thoughtful libertarians here in this community

You`ve just about convinced me that you are NOT one of those people.

Libertarian philosophy is not centered on the right policy or effective government planning via tariffs, taxes and regulation but rather a complete approach to property and life.

Thanks for stating the obvious. Too bad that means for you anyone who is interested in exploring HOW to cut back on government planning via tariffs, taxes and regulationis evil.

 

No one here will disagree with you on the correctness of reducing taxes, but the point is that there should be no taxes at all.

Only you, apparently.  And find ways to move TOWARDS ending taxing is evil because it`s a half-way measure?  Thanks for your sincere, intelligent and thoughtful engagement.

I think I`ve had about all of the intelligent and thoughtful engagement I can take for now now, thanks.

 

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."

-- Richard Feynman

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 470
Points 7,025
Vitor replied on Sat, Nov 7 2009 8:03 AM

In a libertarian society, where a lot land would be private, the energy source to prevail would be the one who occupied the smallest terrain possible, so it wouldnt be stupid wind farms, dams would be in a disadvagent too. Nuclear that would have the uphand, and nuclear is an extremely clean energy.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

TokyoTom:
I have no CLUE as to what you think you`re talking about.

This

TokyoTom:
but you guys, like liberty student, all "sincerely" set on the "modest" policy of hoping that the state will simply wink out of existence

Am I set on the modest policy of hoping the state will wink out of existence?  If so, prove it.  If you can't, it is a lie.

TokyoTom:
No, it doesn`t; it merely requires people to assume what is obvious; namely that OTHERS believe in CC.

And we should care why?

TokyoTom:
No. I want you buy into the notion that ONE way work against the government is to find other people who will agree with you to cut it back.

When has that ever worked?  Are the incentives of a politician to cut back?

TokyoTom:

there is a strong sentiment that directing government is immoral.

Great; but when did PARING BACK government become "immoral"?

Did you mean "Great" when you wrote it?  Because you're asking a question that you just agreed to an answer on.

TokyoTom:
You tire me, ls, as I`ve made no such assumption; in fact, my argument revolves around the notion that warmers can`t get what they want, and so might be interested in listening to a saner pro-freedoom policy.

What is pro-freedom about advancing your agenda using the state?

TokyoTom:
You`ve just about convinced me that you are NOT one of those people.

But I don't care what you think.  As I've said earlier in this thread when you questioned my sincerity, my peers will judge.

TokyoTom:

Libertarian philosophy is not centered on the right policy or effective government planning via tariffs, taxes and regulation but rather a complete approach to property and life.

Thanks for stating the obvious. Too bad that means for you anyone who is interested in exploring HOW to cut back on government planning via tariffs, taxes and regulationis evil.

If it is obvious, then you agree it is evil.  This is the second time you agreed with me, then disagreed with what you just agreed with.

TokyoTom:
Only you, apparently.  And find ways to move TOWARDS ending taxing is evil because it`s a half-way measure? 

No, not because it is a half measure.  Because it isn't a half measure.  A 1% tax is no closer to no tax than a 50% tax.  Ron Paul talks about how the principle of taxation means the state owns 100% of your production, and lets you keep a share.  And he is correct.  So don't tell me about tax cuts.  That's LP/minarchist/Objectivist/conservative fantasy.

And to boot, cutting taxes is meaningless in an economy run by fiat.

TokyoTom:
I think I`ve had about all of the intelligent and thoughtful engagement I can take for now now, thanks.

You'll be back.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 130
Points 1,585
G8R HED replied on Sun, Nov 8 2009 9:31 AM

TokyoTom:
No. I want you buy into the notion that ONE way work against the government is to find other people who will agree with you to cut it back.

 

This is a populist intervention, not libertarian cooperation.

 

 

TokyoTom:
Thanks for stating the obvious. Too bad that means for you anyone who is interested in exploring HOW to cut back on government planning via tariffs, taxes and regulationis evil.

 

The notion of using government to cut back it's "own  planning via tariffs, taxes and regulationis" is a delusion. The only inducement for government to 'pare back' itself is to enhance it's own influence, that is, to create the illusion of cutting back in order to increase it's own wealth and power.  

"Climate change' and 'global warming' are monikers of force, not science - collectivist illusion.

 

Collectivist solutions presume a universal problem which only the use of force can solve. GW is just one of any number of  supposed universal problems. 

What next? Collectivist 'policy' which insures against catastrophic anthropologic asteroid impacts?

Is it not possible that so-called "science" can achive 'concensus' that anthropologic space interventions create gravitational asteroid hazard? - thus justifying collectivist solutions which only the use of force can solve......(.but, oh, by the way, 'libertarian policy' will work better to solve this forboding threat to humanity and that's really not using force.)  What recourse is there to prove or dis-prove societal threat from anthropologic space interventions?

GW and CC are Malthusian fantasy veiled in science for the purpose of transferring wealth and power from society to government.  

 

The libertarian solution to GW and CC is first and foremost to discern actual from imagined threat.

 

 

 

 

"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 747
Points 19,425
TokyoTom replied on Sun, Nov 8 2009 11:46 AM

KCF: "If you want to push for incremental freedom, by all means do so, but leave all the environmentalist crap out of it because you're only empowering the other side to achieve their own objectives - which have absolutely nothing to do with the environment."

This is just wrong, and confuses the agenda of the statists who use enviros and the enviros themselves.  The push on climate change is what political scientists call a "Bootleggers & Baptists coalition", with the enviros and a wide swath of people very much caring about the environment. Explaining a better way to lessen environmental impact will lessen their eagerness for the statist agenda. Many are already getting fed up with the cap and trade pork, and are looking for alternatives.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."

-- Richard Feynman

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 747
Points 19,425
TokyoTom replied on Sun, Nov 8 2009 11:50 AM

I note for readers` interest  that I found another one of my evil, it`s-okay-to-try-to-find-allies-to-roll-back-government types on the Mises Blog front pages:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/010986.asp

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."

-- Richard Feynman

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 238
Points 3,960
Cork replied on Sun, Nov 8 2009 12:40 PM

Privatize the roads!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

TokyoTom:

I note for readers` interest  that I found another one of my evil, it`s-okay-to-try-to-find-allies-to-roll-back-government types on the Mises Blog front pages:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/010986.asp

Appeal to authority?

Mises supported second bests as well in the form of a night watchman state.  That doesn't mean the opinion is valid.  Kinsella is wrong here.

Tom, do you think that tax is legitimate?

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

TokyoTom:

While complete elimination of pollution laws in favor of enforcing property rights is desirable, and I have suggested elsewhere that many enviros would take in exhange for carbon taxes, it simply won`t happen, largely because INDUSTRY likes the barriers to entry and the dirtier plants like their grandfathering.

slippery slope already?  "enforcing property rights is desirable... simply won't happen..."

ok then - since it won't happen - case closed.

TokyoTom:

Eliminating corporate welfare in agriculture we can do unilaterally; we`re better off even if there are subsidies elsewhere.

"are subsidies elsewhere."  so more government spending, policies, programs...

i understand the intent as it showed it's faced with rarity in the thread, but i see a terrible outcome.  a mix of defeatism with advocation of government subsidies, frankly, stinks.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 985
Points 17,110
Stephen replied on Sun, Nov 8 2009 8:39 PM

TokyoTom:
Many are already getting fed up with the cap and trade pork, and are looking for alternatives.

Like the carbon tax? C'mon. Imo a free market legal system would tend to adopt a 'cap and trade' solution to pollution problems. 'Capping' would just be know as getting an injunction. Trading would be contractual trading of one's homesteaded easement share of the environment's pollutant absorption capacity. The problem isn't w/ cap and trade. The problem is w/ gov. cap and trade, especially w/ a non problem like AWG.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 747
Points 19,425

wilderness, you missed the thread; I`m not referring to adding subsidies, but to ending them/corporate welfare at home, w/o worrying whether anyone follows our example abroad.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."

-- Richard Feynman

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 747
Points 19,425

Stephen, on alternatives, you seem to have missed the whole point of my thread.

In addition to trying to pare back the state, of course we should also be pointing out what can be done without the state: prizes for carbon-capture tech, green rankings of businesses, voluntary trading/offsets, etc.

But there`s no way we`d see cap and trade outside of govt, because even though the atmosphere and oceans have absorption capacity limits (CO2 isn`t pollution per se, but simply initiating rapid change), none of us has any way to exclude others, thus none of us can really homestead it.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."

-- Richard Feynman

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 494
Points 6,980

TokyoTom:

KCF: "If you want to push for incremental freedom, by all means do so, but leave all the environmentalist crap out of it because you're only empowering the other side to achieve their own objectives - which have absolutely nothing to do with the environment."

This is just wrong, and confuses the agenda of the statists who use enviros and the enviros themselves.  The push on climate change is what political scientists call a "Bootleggers & Baptists coalition", with the enviros and a wide swath of people very much caring about the environment. Explaining a better way to lessen environmental impact will lessen their eagerness for the statist agenda. Many are already getting fed up with the cap and trade pork, and are looking for alternatives.

Supporting their so-called efforts to find environmental solutions does two things.  First, it permits the statists to control the dialog and opens the door to more government intervention.  Second, it undercuts the libertarian position, as well as the position of real scientists, that there is no environmental problem.  Why not expose the liars for what they are rather than pussy-foot around with it?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 747
Points 19,425
TokyoTom replied on Mon, Dec 7 2009 12:52 PM

Don`t look now, but Jeffrey Tucker also thinks I`m a lyiing sack of sh*t who should not be given the time of day.  Thanks for doing such a good job of exposing me, guys!.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/011176.asp

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."

-- Richard Feynman

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095

TokyoTom:

ls:  "be a sincere libertarian, one has to be unambitious politically" AND "Why not just end the state?"

Not to be too snarky, but are you sincere?

Aren`t some of the pragmatic steps I`m suggesting quite a bit more modest?

Why would we want to be modest when talking about mass slavery,  theft, and death?

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

TokyoTom:
Don`t look now, but Jeffrey Tucker also thinks I`m a lyiing sack of sh*t who should not be given the time of day.

I didn't see that in the article. He did link to your comments about climategate. I was actually wondering what your stance was on the issue but never got around to asking it.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

TokyoTom:

Don`t look now, but Jeffrey Tucker also thinks I`m a (...) who should not be given the time of day.  

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.  If not, then explicitly enjoining thousands of readers to read your post would seem to run entirely counter to the above assertion.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 747
Points 19,425

Actually, my earlier comment was overly snarky and out of line; I certainly did and do appreciate what constructive engagement I received here.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."

-- Richard Feynman

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 341
Points 6,375

Eliminate all the silly regulation and barriers of entry to nuclear power.

 

Nuke power ftw!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,485
Points 22,155
Kakugo replied on Tue, Dec 8 2009 9:50 AM

While I think this discussion has gotten way out of hand and it turned in something very akin to Byzantine monks fighting to the death over high theology while the Turkish guns were battering the walls, I'll try to lend a hand to get this discussion back on tracks because it does have some points.

I personally believe a great deal in solar power as an energy source for household and other small consumers: my beliefs are more economical than environmental in nature but it matters not. The problem is the endless flow of subsidies into the solar power industry are effectively holding back development of a very promising technology. What's the point in offering a better product when a good chunk of the purchasing price will be forked by taxpayers? How are manufacturers supposed to be spurred to build better, cheaper products when in the end it matter not if your product is good value for money? How are they supposed to compete between themselves when they are all generously subsidized? I want the best for my money not some overpriced unreliable trinket like the equipment they sold to my hometown school which broke down after a few months of operation and won't probably be repaired anytime soon (despite being fully covered by warranty). Would you buy a motorcycle or a TV set from an obscure manufacturer that cannot even honor a warranty contract? End the subsides (as Tom said) and let the manufacturers really compete between themselves. On this point I think we'll all agree.

Together we go unsung... together we go down with our people
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 318
Points 4,560

Quit subsidizing oil, allow more nuclear powerplants to be created, cut down on government spending (certainly the government uses a lot of energy...).

Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

Thomas Jefferson

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (64 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS