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."
Well, technically there always is climate change because by definition a climate is dynamic rather then static. It is always in a state of flux. I know what you meant though. Climate change as apocalypse, at least any time in the near future, is an imaginary threat.
Did you read the post, or did you just hate the title?
If the 'free market' determined that anthropomorphic climate change were a problem 'it' could solve the problem just the same as if 'it' determined that a wheat shortage were a problem.
Consumer preferences would tend to shift to industries that didn't contribute to the problem and if it were severe enough could even spend capital trying to mitigate the past damages.
Same as if the 'free market' determined that having a bunch of poor folks who couldn't afford health care was a problem to be solved...there is only the ability to derive psychic profit from such an endeavor but there is a long history of charity hospitals and free clinics serving that market.
Acting in one's best interest doesn't always mean acting in one's economic best interest.
If you read the post, then I'm confused. I specifically said:
The question should not be, as Reisman seems to want to make it, whether or not the free market is the best system for facilitating adaptation to changing conditions. The question is whether we do something unjust by contributing to climate change. To be fair, Reisman briefly addresses this issue, as I discussed here. But my point is that by glossing quickly over the issue of justice, many libertarians have completely missed the point. If the free market is to be relied on to provide a "solution" to climate change, it must be through a strict adherence to the principles of justice. If we simply ignore injustice, and define fairness in terms of mere participation in the market, then we cannot claim to be advocating libertarianism.
There's nothing in my post which precludes us from saying that there is no injustice involved in contributing to climate change. My only point was that reliance on the free market means taking justice into consideration, and not simply pointing to the market's ability to allocate resources efficiently.
I don't think free market can solve a non-problem.
If a market solution has not already emerge for what you're talking about, it's because:
-the exacte responsability of human activities in the current climate change is far from being established, no matter what all the neo-marxists and akin keep shouting
-the actual bad effects (and their superiority over the good effects) aren't clear too. There was a time when greenland was actually a green land. A time when climate was warmer than now, and it was neither the human fault, nor an apocalypse.
Time will tell
Donny with an A:There's nothing in my post which precludes us from saying that there is no injustice involved in contributing to climate change. My only point was that reliance on the free market means taking justice into consideration, and not simply pointing to the market's ability to allocate resources efficiently.
I liked what you wrote personally. I don't devote much time to enviromental thinking, outside of positive and negative externialities. Its not my thing and I don't worry about it one way or the other too much. People a lot more involved in the debate will come to a solution. If it comes down to me paying for a service (on the free market) that researches that type of thing, I would be more than happy to do it. I know that the enviroment is important and that I want a good one, LOL. I will leave it to someone else to convince me they offer the best service in that regard. But thinking along those lines I DID actually look study up on global warming some. While I was doing that I found this article...
One huge obstacle in this question is drawing a clear cause and effect relationship between the "polluting" action and the effect.
If I have a lake of cyanide (which many metal refiners do), and through carelessness or malign intent let the cyanide off of my land and on to yours, then a clear cause and effect relationship can be drawn between my action and the consequences on yours. I believe that few would argue that a free market justice system can deal with this clear causal link.
The problem with global warming is that there is not a clear causal link. Some people think there is. Some people think there isn't. There is not a clear consensus in the scientific community. Even if there was clear consensus, there is still room for dissent. For a long time the scientific community thought we lived on a flat earth. They also thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. In fact, I think that it is mathematically possible to explain that the Earth is the center of the universe - but the math is far more complicated than the simple gravitatonal mechanics that make the Earth one insignificant speck in a sea of stars.
For a question of property rights law to be adjudicated with justice in either a private court or a state court, a clear causal link must be estabished beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of one property owner violate the property rights of another property owner. This would indeed include air pollution, one a causal link could be established. Anti-statist point out that it is only government protection of the polluters that allow them to get away with it today. If I could sue a metal refinery for putting out acidic emmisions that rusted out my car, then the financial pressure put on the refinery would make them stop polluting. (At least, that is how the theory goes.)
BTW, I am not picking on metal refiners. I just happen to know that they use lots of dangerous stuff in doing what they do.
One hundred trillion Zimbabwe dollar note
Well I think it's fair to ask whether or not climate change is happening, but that doesn't absolve us from a need to decide what we would say if we knew it were happening. I didn't read Callahan's essay in any depth, but it seems like the case he's making is that if climate change were a problem, it would be because atmospheric temperature (or more broadly, climate stability) is a public good, and climate change would represent a market failure. He then points to the Nirvana Fallacy, where the government is seen to be a perfect problem solver, in spite of the fact that its past is riddled with obvious failure to solve even the most basic problems. On the other hand, he points out that wealthy individuals like the ones living in Manhattan would have great incentive to voluntarily negotiate to reduce emissions.
The approach is different from mine because it takes as a premise that the only thing wrong with climate change is that it is contrary to certain people's preferences. Public goods problems are certainly important issues for libertarians to discuss, but it seems much more central to libertarian thinking that injustice must be remedied. If climate change represents injustice, it seems that our obligation to respond would be categorically different than it would be if climate change were simply a market failure.
I agree that even if we say that climate change would be an injustice if we had perfect knowledge of its impacts, it is perhaps true that we could not legitimately hold people responsible for contributing to climate change as we are faced by it. The uncertainties are significant, and if we adhered to the burden of proof necessary in most lawsuits, we would likely fail to establish anyone's guilt. But it's important to note that this kind of thinking would, by default, likely put the entire burden of the harm on the victims, and absolve the rights-violators of all responsibility for their actions.
Yea, I think it should be a priority, because if we don't make it a priority, we're likely to be left out of a conversation that has the potential to fundamentally change the way that governments operate, and the way that society is organized. I agree that there are plenty of other problems that libertarians should focus on. But that doesn't mean that all libertarians have to focus on those problems. Personally, I find climate change to be a much more interesting issue than those because we don't have any ethical theories which can adequately deal with it. It challenges us to come up with completely new ideas, and to reexamine the ideas that we rely on in other contexts in order to understand whether or not climate change demonstrates their inadequacy. I'm not a utilitarian, and it doesn't bother me that certain other problems create more injustice than others, such that my focus would "do more" if directed at them. I don't feel obliged to do the most good; it's my life.
Donny with an A: Yea, I think it should be a priority, because if we don't make it a priority, we're likely to be left out of a conversation that has the potential to fundamentally change the way that governments operate, and the way that society is organized. I agree that there are plenty of other problems that libertarians should focus on. But that doesn't mean that all libertarians have to focus on those problems. Personally, I find climate change to be a much more interesting issue than those because we don't have any ethical theories which can adequately deal with it. It challenges us to come up with completely new ideas, and to reexamine the ideas that we rely on in other contexts in order to understand whether or not climate change demonstrates their inadequacy. I'm not a utilitarian, and it doesn't bother me that certain other problems create more injustice than others, such that my focus would "do more" if directed at them. I don't feel obliged to do the most good; it's my life.
Yes, but Dan, I think the issue for libertarians may be that the libertarian answer is not the answer people want - at least in my views of the libertarian answer as a much more complicated one than what the debate currently facilitates. It seems easier to accept the herd and make it a matter of how to fix the "problem" if such a problem exists - I personally believe it does.
It is interesting to note, however, that much of the "old environmentalists" could have actually been seen as being quite pro-free market - this is why they were called, conservationists. As government is waste, the logical conclusion must be that free markets are conservative - in a resourceful way.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Climate change is a problem? I though increased survivability of the human race - as well as other animal species - due to a warmer climate was a good thing. After all, in a colder climate, it is inevitable that the number of people who die annually of exposure - especially those living in poor regions of the world and those whose employment force them to expose themselves to these new lower temperatures - would increase dramatically. Furthermore, the need to use fossil fuels and other methods for heating would fall off, driving down the demand of such goods without signifiacantly affecting the supply for at least a short amount of time. The net result (at least I would think) would be a fall in the price of fossil fuels, therefore making both common and recreational uses for, say, oil and oil byproducts (i.e. gasoline) more affordable for the average person. This would be a bad thing, how? This is not even beginning to account for the fact that increasing temperature would bring about more surface water evaporation, and therefore more rainfall and mists. This is not even beginning to think of the increase in crops, and therefore increased ability of nations - even poorer nations - to feed themselves. This is not even beginning to think of all of the benefits. When people tout climate change, they are touting one thing: Government control. Climate change will happen with or without humanity, and even if mankind is causing even a little warming, then people need to first demonstrate clearly that it would be a bad thing to begin with.
This thread scares me because it is turning into a Randian viewpoint of "science is bad because it is controlled by the intellectual elite and the government". I doubt any of you here have actually studied the climate change issue from a scientific standpoint, and even if, by chance, you are correct, it is still useless to ignore science; this will only make your opinions seem stupid to everyone else. Neither is it appropriate to dismiss a theory because of the person(s) who have proposed it (allegedly scientists controlled by the government); this idea is Marxist in nature and is contrary to everything we Austrians are supposed to believe in. The only way to possibly refute it is to look at the scientific analysis and find some flaws; I seriously doubt that any of you have done this, other than reading extremely biased Libertarian sources. The truth is that global warming, in the opinions of the people who have studied it the most, is a threat and does exist. I certainly hope that it is untrue, but to ignore the warning because the 'Government' holds the view is foolish and simply shows another Libertarian weakness.
I am not a scientist. From what I have read about global warming, I believe that it is highly probably that it is happening. As soon as I got over being purposefully ignorant on the matter, I found that what they were saying about global warming made sense to me. Every argument I have heard against global warming ususally boils down to, "Hippies want the government to rule the world" and that carries less weight with me than the arguments posed by so many of the leading scientists. My next question was, how can/could the free market address this. I am glad people with more of an interest in the issue are paying attention too it.
Incidentally, I have studied the scientific side of the climate change debate. If you're interested, my go-to post on the issue is this: http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-you-believe-in-global-warming.html
As for whether climate change will be, on net, a good thing, two things should be pointed out. First, such an assertion is necessarily tied to certain assumptions about just how much climate change will occur. At higher temperature increases, more negative consequences will become likely, and positive effects will diminish. Second, libertarians generally aren't satisfied with "net positive" impacts. Producing benefits for some people while harming others is not what we're about.
Agreed with the above. For my part, I only questioned the assertion that it is somehow a bad thing.
miksirhc:This thread scares me because it is turning into a Randian viewpoint of "science is bad because it is controlled by the intellectual elite and the government". I doubt any of you here have actually studied the climate change issue from a scientific standpoint, and even if, by chance, you are correct, it is still useless to ignore science; this will only make your opinions seem stupid to everyone else. Neither is it appropriate to dismiss a theory because of the person(s) who have proposed it (allegedly scientists controlled by the government); this idea is Marxist in nature and is contrary to everything we Austrians are supposed to believe in. The only way to possibly refute it is to look at the scientific analysis and find some flaws; I seriously doubt that any of you have done this, other than reading extremely biased Libertarian sources. The truth is that global warming, in the opinions of the people who have studied it the most, is a threat and does exist. I certainly hope that it is untrue, but to ignore the warning because the 'Government' holds the view is foolish and simply shows another Libertarian weakness.
Why talk about what you don't know? There's for sure a consensus in the media about man-made global warming, but not a scientific one.
Anyway, what you think now is not that important, since 1998 temperatures have plateaued, until last year where they began to seriously decrease. And if indeed solar activity (the real driver of climate) continues to decrease (like it is supposed to), it will become harder and harder to adapt facts to ideology and all this GW hysteria will fall in the trash bin of history.
miksirhc: ... Randian viewpoint of "science is bad because it is controlled by the intellectual elite and the government"....this idea is Marxist in nature and is contrary to everything we Austrians are supposed to believe in. ...extremely biased Libertarian sources. The truth is that global warming, in the opinions of the people who have studied it the most, is a threat and does exist....shows another Libertarian weakness., etc, etc ,etc
miksirhc: This thread scares me because it is turning into a Randian viewpoint of "science is bad because it is controlled by the intellectual elite and the government". I doubt any of you here have actually studied the climate change issue from a scientific standpoint, ...
This thread scares me because it is turning into a Randian viewpoint of "science is bad because it is controlled by the intellectual elite and the government". I doubt any of you here have actually studied the climate change issue from a scientific standpoint, ...
First of all, nobody has taken the stance that "science is bad". (Must avoid sarcastic commentary...) Now, most certainly science can turn bad when controlled by money, as it has in some cases today. That, however, is not the point here, and nor will I go in great elaboratory detail. I will only say this: when research comes out that makes no sense, follow the lines of funding. If the bulk of funding is coming from an activist group, or some other party that has a vested interest in the research turning out a certain way, then chances are that the research is most likely bunk. (The good old 'Cheerios' Test and the "Food Pyramid" are two excellent examples of this.) If, however, the funding is coming from private entities which have no vested interest in the outcome outside of feasible utility of the research, or if the funding is coming from out of the pockets of the researchers (an increasingly rare event), then in all likelihood, the research will be more reliable than if any party were to have vested interest. Regardless of this, any and all scientific research should always be examined in detail from a scientific point of view, especially if the statements made by researchers (or what the media says they say) make no sense.
Second, your assertion (emphasis added) that nobody here has studied the issue from a scientific standpoint is plainly wrong and shows your ignorance and jumping to conclusions quite plainly. I, for my part, have studied the issue from a scientific standpoint, including examing the graphs and mathematics of the change not over the past 100, 200, or even 500 years, but as far back as the past few hundred thousand years. In giving detailed examination of those plots, just like I have done time and again in my college math and signals analysis courses, I have found that there is an overall periodic trend in climate change. Furthermore, a passing examination of the graphs will demonstarte clearly that there are several cycles involved. I came up with this analysis of the available data on my own within a whole five or ten minutes.
miksirhc: ... and even if, by chance, you are correct, it is still useless to ignore science; ...
... and even if, by chance, you are correct, it is still useless to ignore science; ...
Wait, since when is it ignoring science to actually discuss science. Nobody here is saying there's no change. The only questions are 1) whether or not it's a bad thing and 2) whether or not mankind is responsible. Bad thing or not aside, there is little to no evidence of human responsibility. The entire crux of manmade global warming is that the amount of solar energy entering the earth's atmosphere is a constant, which it most clearly is not. Changes in the supposed "Solar Constant" have been measured regularly since the first changes were measured back in the 1970s. It is impossible to say, therefore, that mankind is solely responsible, whilst totally ignoring influx of solar energy. The argument that drastic increases and decreases in solar energy are insignificant is totally assinine.
miksirhc: ...this will only make your opinions seem stupid to everyone else. Neither is it appropriate to dismiss a theory because of the person(s) who have proposed it (allegedly scientists controlled by the government); ...
...this will only make your opinions seem stupid to everyone else. Neither is it appropriate to dismiss a theory because of the person(s) who have proposed it (allegedly scientists controlled by the government); ...
And nobody here has on the sole basis of who has proposed it, but I will be doing so momentarily. On the other hand, the United Nations has repeatedly put scientists names down on their statements regarding manmade GW, even after said scientists withdrew from proceedings, even when they did so under protest. By the way, I recall reading older texts by the exact same "experts" now pushing global warming warning of the "evils of global cooling caused by mankind" and how we were all going to freeze to death. If a scientist can't even make up his mind about what phenomenon he or she is observing, then I think it would be extremely prudent for people to take what they say with a grain of salt.
miksirhc: ... this idea is Marxist in nature and is contrary to everything we Austrians are supposed to believe in. The only way to possibly refute it is to look at the scientific analysis and find some flaws; ...
... this idea is Marxist in nature and is contrary to everything we Austrians are supposed to believe in. The only way to possibly refute it is to look at the scientific analysis and find some flaws; ...
Fully agreed, and many people have done so, only to be met with commentary like this. As soon as a sound refutation is made, we are caled "biased", "unobjective", or even "charlatans" and "liars". Which would you really have it? Sound, scientific refutation (which has already been made) only to be called biased liars? Or conformity to a nonexistent scientific norm?
miksirhc: ...I seriously doubt that any of you have done this, other than reading extremely biased Libertarian sources. ...
...I seriously doubt that any of you have done this, other than reading extremely biased Libertarian sources. ...
In actuality, the Libertarian sources happen to be the least biased of them all. Most of the available so-called sources are owned by organizations such as Green Peace and the Sierra Club, or one of their myriad of sister and daughter organizations. Furthermore, even if it is biased, so what? Is it any different from the United Nations illegally keeping the signatures of some 1200 scientist on their formal disclosures even after being formally ordered by US courts to remove the names. As for why they were supposed to remove the names, the scientists had sued the United Nations after the UN had rejected their petition to have their names removed. They had wished their names removed because the UN documents had misquoted them, had added words they did not say, and had grossly misstated their conclusions.
miksirhc: The truth is that global warming, in the opinions of the people who have studied it the most, is a threat and does exist.
The truth is that global warming, in the opinions of the people who have studied it the most, is a threat and does exist.
Yes, I am supposed to trust the word of great scientists and experts like Leonardo diCaprio and Al Gore. Seriously, most of the so-called experts I have heard speaking out in favor of man-made global warming and its supposed threats have one of two credentials: politicians or actors. The fact is that most real scientists could really care less. Why? Because the threat is blown out of proportion by fools and charlatans. I know people who have mathematically figured out factors such as ocean rise, and I have even reviewed the math. Sorry, but I don't see the Empire State Building sinking under a whole 39 inch rise in water levels when it's ground floor is 15 feet above sea level, unless of course it's just a model or some really poorly done CGI.
However, I should also point out that climate change is it a threat to the current national establisments and potentially to the current way of life for many people. Climate changes cause shifts in weather patterns which in turn cause shifts in the food supply which can cetainly impact an economy. I daresay an economy that no longer feeds itself because it's food supply has moved or diminished is not exactly stable. Perhaps Northern England would have once again been growing large grape crops, and become known for its wine. I should also note that large portions of Norse society had their way of life disturbed and were even displaced by climate change during the late 8th Century beginning into the 9th Century. It was the reason why so many of their youth took to Viking, be it as explorers or raiders. However, climate change is most certainly not a threat to mankind's existence as people have made it look. Things will change, absolutely, but things are always changing.
miksirhc: I certainly hope that it is untrue, but to ignore the warning because the 'Government' holds the view is foolish and simply shows another Libertarian weakness.
I certainly hope that it is untrue, but to ignore the warning because the 'Government' holds the view is foolish and simply shows another Libertarian weakness.
When the major initial pushers of the warning, however, are government officials and supporters of said officials it should be a major red flag. The first major pushers I remember of global warming were the United Nations, Al Gore, and a bunch of people in Hollywood. Naturally, it's going to be red flags for me. I should also point out that the person who initially theorized Global Warming was simply contradicting the "scientific concensus" of the 1970s and 1980s that we were all going to freeze to death due to "greenhouse gases" and he was pointing out that, even though the 1970s had seen drops in average temperatures in some locations, there was still an overall warming trend...a trend which has since broken, and will probably turn to a cooling trend.
Let's assume that their shoddy claim is true: humans are causing catastrophic climate change.
Okay.
Now, which is a larger violation of rights: the temperature increase due to me using a lightbulb, or the government using force to keep me from using a lightbulb?
That's all there is to wonder about!
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Well, if you're acting unjustly by using the light bulb, then obviously that would be the larger violation of rights. That's like asking, "Which is the larger violation of rights? Me stealing something from your store, or you chasing me down on the street and tackling me to get it back?"
Juan:Let me see if I'm getting this right : Institutionalized violence used against people who dare turning on their lights is, according to your book, an instance of 'libertarian justice' ? Perhaps you also think that war is peace and ignorance is strength ?
He is right. If indeed consuming electricity is a cause of harm, then it is right to use force against this. But the consumption of electricity never produces CO2. It is (though not always) its production. So Danny, even if we take the human cause of a harmful global warming for granted, it is not right to prevent people for using electricity. It would be right to prevent them for producing electricity in a way that is proven to cause damages to other people.
Pollution is a form of violence. That's why I precised that turning the light on can not in any way be considered as polluting, but that the production of electricity could.
I apologize if this post is scattered.
Breathing increases global temperatures, too. Same with having children. In fact, the very existence of your living body increases global temperatures!
As a non-believer in "natural"-rights, the way I look at government is this: which policy results in the least control being exercised by one individual over another and his/her property?
If I am using an Edison-bulb, breathing, having children, or living, the resulting increase in temperature increase is much less controlling than you storming into my home with a gun, forcing me stop.
It's impossible to live in a way that has no effect on other people. In fact, if I plant too many trees and produce too much algae, I may end up lowing global temperatures. Should that be stopped? If I breathe directly on someone, even from 4 or 5 feet away, I'm increasing temperatures much more than using a light bulb in my bedroom, as far as they are concerned. Should that be stopped?
However, ff I am billowing out hot, carcinogenic smoke from a factory next to your house, than I am violating your rights more than you if you decided to stop me.
If I rob your store, either by gunpoint or behind your back, than I am absolutely exercising more control over you and your property and person than you if you try to stop me.
The real question is "is CO2 a pollution?" That would mean that just by living you are polluting, that by definition a living being is an agressor. That alone is stupid enough, even without considering the reality of manmade global warming.
tim: The real question is "is CO2 a pollution?" That would mean that just by living you are polluting, that by definition a living being is an agressor. That alone is stupid enough, even without considering the reality of manmade global warming.
Well I'm not sure how right-libertarians would approach the issue, but a left-libertarian could coherently argue that we have a right to a fair share of the atmosphere's capacity to absorb CO2 without any objectionable results, and that anyone using only their fair share would be completely absolved of responsibility for harmful climate change. My intuition is that you have every right to emit a quantity of CO2 such that if everyone emitted that amount, no harm would result. If other people emit more, then that shouldn't mean that you did something wrong. However, that's just an intuition at this point. It's probably the most researched and thought out intuition I've ever held, but I'm not really prepared to defend it yet.
The world couldn't handle everyone having 4-6 kids. Should it be illegal?
I'm sorry, how does that relate to anything?
Donny with an A:Well I'm not sure how right-libertarians would approach the issue, but a left-libertarian could coherently argue that we have a right to a fair share of the atmosphere's capacity to absorb CO2 without any objectionable results, and that anyone using only their fair share would be completely absolved of responsibility for harmful climate change. My intuition is that you have every right to emit a quantity of CO2 such that if everyone emitted that amount, no harm would result. If other people emit more, then that shouldn't mean that you did something wrong. However, that's just an intuition at this point. It's probably the most researched and thought out intuition I've ever held, but I'm not really prepared to defend it yet.
I begin to become weary whenever anyone speaks of a "fair share" to something as abstract as the "environment."
Why stop at the outer-limits of the sky? Why not a fair share of aesthetic cleanliness? Fair share of clean air in the elevator as one stands next to the guy with poor hygiene?
I don't think the terminology of left-libertarian particularly comes in hand at all on this issue. Yes, a left-libertarian would suggest that, as all are equal, all have equal rights. However, he must also differentiate between the need to protect rights and the need to enhance aesthetic enjoyment.
Donny with an A: I'm sorry, how does that relate to anything?
You wrote this:
My intuition is that you have every right to emit a quantity of CO2 such that if everyone emitted that amount, no harm would result.
If the criteria for an action's legality is whether or not any harm would arise if everyone did it, then my children analogy makes sense.
Having 4-6 children would result not only in more CO2, but in likely food and space shortages as well, especially in 2-3 generations. "Harm" would be done if everyone did that, but that doesn't mean it should be stopped by using force.
Why wouldn't my children have their own share? I mean, I agree that the size of shares would be inextricably tied to the number of people who live over the entire time my CO2 would remain in the atmosphere. And I agree that that's a problem. But having children wouldn't be the issue; the difficulty would be in determining the appropriate size of one's fair share in light of uncertainties about future population size.