I don’t think that the Mises-publications on environmentalism can withstand expert attacks. I now give you the *unique* opportunity to train fending of environmentalists by fending of me (I am a rather mediocre environmentalist so this is a good starting point).
Imagine the following problem:
Someone has installed a fish farm in a river. If he was the first to engage in this activity he now has homesteaded the right to operate this farm there.
Later on a nuclear power plant, a paper factory, and two chemical plants install themselves in some distance but alongside the same river. On the sides of the river farms are already in operation (predating the fish-farm).
1. The nuclear power plant rises the overall temperature of the river by discharging hot water from it’s cooling system.
2. The paper factory reduces the oxygen content of the river by discharging organic pollutants.
3. Run-off fertilizers from the farmer’s fields also decrease the oxygen by leading to rapid algae growth.
4. Sewage from the two chemical plants introduces one new chemical per power pant.
Suddenly all the fishes in the fish farm die. Who is going to pay the fish farmer?
Unluckily all the fishes are infected with a virus, so this looks like a natural accident. However although this virus was previously known to kill fish it never killed 100% of them.
If the fish was already weekend by other environmental stresses it might not be in a shape to fend of an infection. The oxygen level in the river is extremely low which can be attributable to activity 2 and 3 causing a process called eutrophication. However eutrophication is not a linear process: Up to a certain level there will be little change to the water body. Indeed it is unclear if the oxygen level would ever have dropped significantly without the extra heat discharged by the power plant (heat speeds up the chemical reactions leading to eutrophication). The two chemical plants might also be suspicious: Non of each chemical itself will harm the fish but in combination they can (this is called “synergist effect” and is similar to “don’t take this drug while you are taking that drug”).
You might now reconstruct who has started what activity first but this misses the point of quantity: All this different activity could have probably existed happily alongside each other if the overall discharge of pollutants where just a bit lower. It will be very difficult to find out who contributed what quantity at what point of time.
Judging who is to pay what damage to the fish farmer will hence be highly arbitrary, even if you have infinite time and resources to compose a model of what was going on (this is not meant as a discussion of bounded rationality). The described uncertainty derives from our inability to measure the initial or actual state the system is in with exactitude - see complex system theory.
If all environmental resources are property of somebody (avoidance of the tragedy of commons) there would ensue a high demand for “expert judgments” to solve such conflicts. This will be an inroad to some kind of technocracy. By the way: They same thing will happen if some government tries to impose Pigou-taxes (taxes based on negative externalities). You either get technocracy - or - if the pigou-taxes are determined by voters, total arbitrariness.
Nadjeschda:You might now reconstruct who has started what activity first but this misses the point of quantity: All this different activity could have probably existed happily alongside each other if the overall discharge of pollutants where just a bit lower. It will be very difficult to find out who contributed what quantity at what point of time. Judging who is to pay what damage to the fish farmer will hence be highly arbitrary, even if you have infinite time and resources to compose a model of what was going on (this is not meant as a discussion of bounded rationality). The described uncertainty derives from our inability to measure the initial or actual state the system is in with exactitude - see complex system theory. If all environmental resources are property of somebody (avoidance of the tragedy of commons) there would ensue a high demand for “expert judgments” to solve such conflicts. This will be an inroad to some kind of technocracy. By the way: They same thing will happen if some government tries to impose Pigou-taxes (taxes based on negative externalities). You either get technocracy - or - if the pigou-taxes are determined by voters, total arbitrariness.
How would things be any better (i.e. less arbitrary and/or complex) under a state, let alone a socialistic state?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Or you could use the Coase theorem to say that the initial distribution of property rights doesn't affect how resources are managed. So if the fisherman can pay any one of the actors to stop doing what they're doing and still make a profit, he'll do it. Regardless, any theory of rights breaks down under scrutiny. What if A's right X conflicts with B's right X? Siamese twins?! Self ownership out the window! The point of rights and laws is to be able to handle normal situations. When you run into wierd cases, you just do the best you can. We're libertarians because statism fails even very simple, day to day tests, while property rights are good at handling most issues. And even if we don't have any clear way to resolve dilemmas like the one above, we still know something is wrong BECAUSE we have a theory of rights. Figuring out something is wrong is the first step to solving it.
Did the fish farmer allow them the right to alter the river by not asserting his right to water of a certain quality (assuming that right can be claimed)? Can he simply allow the river to be altered over a period of time and then all of a sudden (because a certain point is reached) demand that the water be reverted to a certain purity to satisfy his needs.
It seems to me he would have to assert his right to the water quality all along. The responsibility lies on him to claim his rights before they reach this point of killing his fish. I beleive it would be hard to say that you have a right to pristine water after fifty years of changes in the river and then demand that everyone upstream stop all activity. If you dont claim the right from day one then then you dont have that right, you couldnt claim it retroactively.
So to answer your question... If the fish farm never claimed the right to a certain temprature water, certain levels of chemicals, etc. then he never had the right to it. If he did claim the right to it at the start, it would be up to him to enforce his claim against any and all upstream who infringe on that right.
Or you could use the Coase theorem to say that the initial distribution of property rights doesn't affect how resources are managed. So if the fisherman can pay any one of the actors to stop doing what they're doing and still make a profit, he'll do it.
sieben, this is a gross misapplication of coase's theorem. in fact you are forgetting the most essential piece of the theorem--the initial distribution of property rights is only irrelevant when *transaction costs are low*.
if transaction costs are high, the fisherman cannot contract with the other actors to internalize an externality. therefore, the initial distribution of property rights will matter.
i recommend reading the first 4 chapters of david friedman's "law's order" for a basic introduction to the coase theorem and not only how it applies to environmental issues, but how it relates to contract and tort law as a whole.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/laws_order/index.shtml
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Why are environmentalists in attack mode?
"How would things be any better (i.e. less arbitrary and/or complex) under a state, let alone a socialistic state?"
I have exactly the same problem. Normal people have strange ways of assessing risks let alone environmental risks. For example they are very afraid of nuclear power plants but happily board their car when they are hopelessly drunk. If you compare statistics of how many people have been actually killed by these two different types of machines this doesn’t seem quite rational. What I am afraid of is voters using this kind of “gut feelings” to ask for a certain environmental regulation or for quick fixes for conflicts like the one described.
All I don’t like is people who present free markets as a panacea to everything. The tragedy of the commons might not be stoppable by free markets either.
"Why are environmentalists in attack mode?"
I should mention this in my profile, I tend to be a highly ironical person.
Nadjeschda:All I don’t like is people who present free markets as a panacea to everything.
It is actually statists who claim this, and then proceed to attack markets on the basis that they are not so perfect. Talk about the Nirvana fallacy.
Student:sieben, this is a gross misapplication of coase's theorem. in fact you are forgetting the most essential piece of the theorem--the initial distribution of property rights is only irrelevant when *transaction costs are low*.
Student:i recommend reading the first 4 chapters of david friedman's "law's order" for a basic introduction to the coase theorem and not only how it applies to environmental issues, but how it relates to contract and tort law as a whole.
Nadjeschda:I have exactly the same problem. Normal people have strange ways of assessing risks let alone environmental risks. For example they are very afraid of nuclear power plants but happily board their car when they are hopelessly drunk. If you compare statistics of how many people have been actually killed by these two different types of machines this doesn’t seem quite rational. What I am afraid of is voters using this kind of “gut feelings” to ask for a certain environmental regulation or for quick fixes for conflicts like the one described.
It depends on how you define "rational". You understand the Austrian Economics definition of "rational", right? Basically, to be "rational" allows for making mistakes.
The absence of the state would presumably mean the absence of voting, so you wouldn't have to worry about voters and their "gut feelings".
Nadjeschda:All I don’t like is people who present free markets as a panacea to everything. The tragedy of the commons might not be stoppable by free markets either.
What do you mean by "the tragedy of the commons"?
Oh please. I know all about that. Its simply overstated for these kinds of micro problems. If you have thousands of actors and no telephones, fine. If there are 5 people contributing to the problem and you only need to stop 1, you can probably talk to one of them.
so your argument is that you don't believe these costs are high in an example that is itself hypothethical?? *shrug* whatever, i guess.
at the very least it seems like you would at least want to state that assumption explicitly. after all, even in this hypothetical example it isn't obvious to me that contracting with some of these actions (like a frickin' nuclear power plant) would be nearly costless. do you honestly think that you would only need a telephone? what about lawyers for drawing up the contract itself? is their time free? even if we ignored those other considerations, i'm not totally convinced a telephone implies nearly costless transaction costs. it took me almost 3 hours spread over 1 week just to find the right person at timewarnercable to sort out a simple problem with my cable bill...and i wasn't trying to get them to change the way they do business like this fisherman would be.
but who knows, maybe it is a mom and pop nuclear power plant so you wouldn't have to worry about that (just a handshake in the shadow of the cooling tower is all you would need to seal the deal). everything is possible in in a hypothetical example, i guess. still it seems strange you would fail to mention such an essential assumption.
Yeah don't try to school me on the basics. You've run away from practically every argument we've ever had, mostly over business cycle theory. As far as I'm concerned you're just trolling me.
i don't remember having any major arguments with you except once about the plausability of private defense firms (def don't remember any business cycle discussions). *shrug* but that seems to be the popular meme at the moment. "i don't like what you're saying...so you're trolling me". talk about victim mentality.
"If the fish farm never claimed the right to a certain temprature water, certain levels of chemicals, etc. then he never had the right to it."
Put yourself in the shoes of the fish farmer: you invested time and money in building the physical structure of the fish farm, you reared the young fish. The paper factory and the nuclear plant are new arrivals and you didn't foresee that there is any danger in having both of them at the same river. So all future fish farmers will learn from this case:
Be precautionary!
When I install a fish farm than(from now on) I automatically claim that the river water might not be altered in any physical, chemical or biological sense from the state I found it in, because I can never be sure that this will not interfere with the operation of my fish farm.
In this sense even feeding the ducks is forbidden. I have a strong feeling that such precautionary claims would stall economic development.
"What do you mean by the tragedy of the commons?"
- Overexploitation of an ecosystem because it belongs to no one but is used by everyone. You might solve some environmental problems by privatisation of land and resources but this is not a panacea to all environmental problems.
Cost of the damage done:
as someone pointed out the (low) costs of damage in this example are entirely hypothetic. In a similar example the activities alongside the river could have contributed to the growth of a poisonous algae, which now causes severe health problems.
Plausibility of the example:
The complexity of cause effect-relations in this example are the rule and not the exception in environmental problems - ranging from coral bleeching to climate change.
Nadjeschda:You might solve some environmental problems by privatisation of land and resources but this is not a panacea to all environmental problems.
Again with the "not a panacea". Your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. Eliminate the fallacy and you will realize that you have no valid argument.
"If the fish farm never claimed the right to a certain temprature water, certain levels of chemicals, etc. then he never had the right to it." Put yourself in the shoes of the fish farmer: you invested time and money in building the physical structure of the fish farm, you reared the young fish. The paper factory and the nuclear plant are new arrivals and you didn't foresee that there is any danger in having both of them at the same river. So all future fish farmers will learn from this case: Be precautionary! When I install a fish farm than(from now on) I automatically claim that the river water might not be altered in any physical, chemical or biological sense from the state I found it in, because I can never be sure that this will not interfere with the operation of my fish farm. In this sense even feeding the ducks is forbidden. I have a strong feeling that such precautionary claims would stall economic development.
I think there could be more to it. Is it economicly feesible for the fish farmer to chase down every single person who fed the ducks? Or is it more likely that there are relatively few major polluters along the river and he would be well served taking them to court. Also the fish farmer would have to be able to prove that the actions taken by those feeding the ducks directly impacted him.... that would be a difficult case. While the nuclear power plant that dumps millions of gallons of 120 degree water into the river over the course of the year could be relatively easy to prove.
So we have to take all this theory and put it to the reality test. In theory he could chase down everyone who altered the river. But realisticly it would only be economicly feasible to take the big violators to task.
Think about it this way. You own a peice of land. A couple of individuals hike across the corner of your property on occasion. You dont really like and you dont want them to do it... but it only happens once every couple of months. It dosent bother you enough to pay to put up a fence or hire someone to guard against the tresspass. You do, however, clear post some no tresspassing signs to enforce your claim to the land.
Now what if instead a couple of people, its one person. Instead of hiking, he builds a 4 land highway that he uses as access to his industrial plant. Do you think that it might be economicly feasible for you to more forcibly assert your claim to the land. Maybe instead of just posting some no tresspass signs you hire someone to block the road and take the man to court?
Both cases your property rights have been violated, but one was a minor violation the other major. In both cases you asserted your right to the property (no tresspass signs, vrs court & hired security). The lenghts that you go to are indirect proportion to the value you subjective assign to the violation.
Stranger:so your argument is that you don't believe these costs are high in an example that is itself hypothethical?? *shrug* whatever, i guess.
Stranger:at the very least it seems like you would at least want to state that assumption explicitly. after all, even in this hypothetical example it isn't obvious to me that contracting with some of these actions (like a frickin' nuclear power plant) would be nearly costless. do you honestly think that you would only need a telephone? what about lawyers for drawing up the contract itself? is their time free? even if we ignored those other considerations, i'm not totally convinced a telephone implies nearly costless transaction costs. it took me almost 3 hours spread over 1 week just to find the right person at timewarnercable to sort out a simple problem with my cable bill...and i wasn't trying to get them to change the way they do business like this fisherman would be.
Stranger:but who knows, maybe it is a mom and pop nuclear power plant so you wouldn't have to worry about that (just a handshake in the shadow of the cooling tower is all you would need to seal the deal). everything is possible in in a hypothetical example, i guess. still it seems strange you would fail to mention such an essential assumption.
Stranger:i don't remember having any major arguments with you except once about the plausability of private defense firms (def don't remember any business cycle discussions). *shrug* but that seems to be the popular meme at the moment. "i don't like what you're saying...so you're trolling me". talk about victim mentality.
It was back when you and neoclassical were talking about business cycle theory. I confronted you with asymmetric vs symmetric inflation, which I believe put the cap on your arguments, and you didn't bother to respond for some reason... There were also a lot of other issues I confronted you both with that never got answered, but which were neoclassical and which were you kind of blurr. History aside, this boils down to you biting my head off for not reciting the Coase Theorem in its entirity, and then chalking the omission up to IGNORANCE rather than just perceived irrelevance. You've taken this opportunity to say "LOLOL look how stupid Sieben is he doesn't even know about basic law theory. Here let me link him "anarchism for dummies" as if he hasn't been around the block a few times." U trollin man.
Since it the situation isn't specified, I didn't feel it was necessary to bring up specific things that might make the situation fall apart. Do you account for war when you explain the wheat market? "Oh yeah the wheat market works just dandy but if theres a war and half of everyone dies you could have some hiccups".
if you believe your ommission of transaction costs was so irrelevant for your argument that it can be compared to ignoring the possibility of war when discussing the wheat market, then I know an excellent book by david friedman that provides an excellent introduction to the coase theorem and how essential the assumption of low transaction costs is.
It was back when you and neoclassical were talking about business cycle theory. I confronted you with asymmetric vs symmetric inflation, which I believe put the cap on your arguments, and you didn't bother to respond for some reason... There were also a lot of other issues I confronted you both with that never got answered, but which were neoclassical and which were you kind of blurr.
don't remember it off hand. i actually try to avoid business cycle discussions since i am not a macro guy. but i do know i have slipped into them a time or two (it is a pretty interesting topic so i sometimes can't resist). if i neglected an essential point you made, i appologize.
History aside, this boils down to you biting my head off for not reciting the Coase Theorem in its entirity, and then chalking the omission up to IGNORANCE rather than just perceived irrelevance. You've taken this opportunity to say "LOLOL look how stupid Sieben is he doesn't even know about basic law theory. Here let me link him "anarchism for dummies" as if he hasn't been around the block a few times." U trollin man.
i didn't intend to make fun of you. it is just seems like a common error to me that folks on this board discuss externalities without mentioning transaction costs. i just want to correct that approach as I believe the assumption regarding transaction costs is essential (and really it is the importance of transaction costs that is the most important lesson in coase has to teach, not only in his paper on the problem of social cost but also in his paper on the origin of the firm).
i might have came on too strong and i'm sorry about that.
Nadjeschda:"What do you mean by the tragedy of the commons?" - Overexploitation of an ecosystem because it belongs to no one but is used by everyone. You might solve some environmental problems by privatisation of land and resources but this is not a panacea to all environmental problems.
At this point, I agree with what DD5 said: you're committing the nirvana fallacy. You're also committing the strawman fallacy. Only the most naive of free-market supporters would claim that it "solves all problems".
“Your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. Eliminate the fallacy and you will realize that you have no valid argument.”
I still don't see the fallacy, please explain it. I already admitted (when I started this discussion) that a government might be equally unable or even less able to solve the described problem. People are used to think in a kind of duality “every problem that can not be solved by the market must be solved by the government” or “every problem that the government can not solve must be solved by the market”.
People can avoid at least an escalation in the quantity of the described problems if they voluntarily restrict their consumption of environmental resources. They neither need the market nor the government for this.
“Also the fish farmer would have to be able to prove that the actions taken by those feeding the ducks directly impacted him.... that would be a difficult case. While the nuclear power plant that dumps millions of gallons of 120 degree water into the river over the course of the year could be relatively easy to prove “
It is easy to proove that the power plant supplys heat but it is not easy to proove that this harms the fish. Power plants usually mix their water with river water before they "dump it". The water entering the river is only be 3 to 4 degrres hoter than the surounding water. I don’t see any method in the described problem to quantify how much the nuclear power plant really contributed versus how much dug feeding contributed. The power plant will point out that it will not pay until I can quantify contributions.
If there are a lot of people who feed the ducks this can have a significant impact in terms of eutrophication. The power plant – in environmental terms – is called a point source while dug-feeding (if lots of people are involved) and farming are closer to the definition of non-point-sources. Some environmental problems are entirely caused by non-point sources and/or a multitude of contributers.
If the fish farmer is a billionary and just wants to make a point in suing the power plant he would still be unable to proof the contribution in terms of quantity. The uncertainty in complex systems is often fundamental , you can't solve it by spending more money, and I didn't mean to discuss transaction costs.
Well I actually run in "naiv" market supporters quiet often. Proof me that privatisation of land would solve the majority of conflicts.
Actually, the free market does solve all these problems: but the key component is time, it turns out!
If all the companies make more profit than than the fish farm, the river gets used for their waste. Fish farm loses, totally.
Indeed, however, fish rises in price because supply is less, and we get companies trying to produce high quality fish, short time later, if this continues.
Real world example. Most regular sturgeon is produced in USA (800 < X < 1600 USD/Kg quality cavier, which is cheaper than the best, Beluga sturgeon, X ~ 3000 USD/Kg quality), and several entrepreneurs are trying to breed Beluga sturgeons in USA, and investing real money into a proper environment to get Beluga Sturgeon to breed; after the Russian communists dumping all their waste into rivers and Caspian Sea has basically made it very scarce, even in Iran and the Southern Republics.
Free market USA is actually slowly (it'll take 30 years more for USA belugas to appear) solving USSR's environmental error.
Edit: To clarify, the key word is that the conflict is solved, but not immediatly. Nirvana fallacy is that there is a problem. In fact, only if fish is worth it enough that people are willing to pay higher price, as in the case of Sturgeon, will fish production continue. As it should be. Else, if people keep producing more fish but people prefer the products of the factories, then resources are being wasted.
You can not extrapolate from the past in complex systems to predict their next state. At one point capitalism might solve more problems than it causes and at another moment in time it is the reverse. I won't dispute that the environmental situation in the Ex-UDDSSR is improving but time is of the essence. Most Systems react non-linear, that is you don't see any damage for a long time and than all of a sudden they crash quickly and completly. Some damage is also nearly impossible to reverse (when a system switches from some equilibrium into another).
We might see another example of sudden crash in complex systems when the US government interfers further with interest rates.
Nadjeschda:I still don't see the fallacy, please explain it.
You can't attack something for being imperfect or not ideal for which there is no perfect or ideal alternative. It doesn't matter that you have acknowledged already that government may not do any better. You are still assuming some idealized hypothetical alternative or statements of yours such as "but it is no panacea" would make no sense. This why I said that the argument itself is fallacious.
Nadjeschda:People can avoid at least an escalation in the quantity of the described problems if they voluntarily restrict their consumption of environmental resources. They neither need the market nor the government for this.
But when people voluntarily restrict....whatever... it is a free market solution.
Nadjeschda:You can not extrapolate from the past in complex systems to predict their next state. At one point capitalism might solve more problems than it causes and at another moment in time it is the reverse. I won't dispute that the environmental situation in the Ex-UDDSSR is improving but time is of the essence. Most Systems react non-linear, that is you don't see any damage for a long time and than all of a sudden they crash quickly and completly. Some damage is also nearly impossible to reverse (when a system switches from some equilibrium into another). We might see another example of sudden crash in complex systems when the US government interfers further with interest rates.
Now it seems like you're appealing to the precautionary principle. Am I correct?
Addmited, this is as free as it can be.
However normaly when I run into liberals and ask them to consider if they can limit their consumption or change to less harmfull forms they get a major fit.
If you don't know how to make your consumption more environmentally friendly and you bark at anybody who might try to explain it, the free market solution will not work.
I do understand that even in the simplified form that you have used the problem is substantial. Apply the problem to a river system as large as the Mississippi it becomes mind boggling. Even so in our simple case it can be proven that dumping warm water into a river will raise the temprature. And in our case the power plant does not have the right to dump warm water into the river at all. So at the very least the fisherman could prevent the power plant from engaging in that activity.
Who will pay the fisherman for the loss of his fish.... possibly no one. If liability is so small from all of the violators then it will simply be a loss that he will not compensated for. After all in all cases of restitution he has to beable to prove damages, if he is unable to do so then he is not entitled to compensation.
So in the example the fisherman would possibly lose out on his current crop of fish, but he would have an avenue to prevent the pollution that killed his fish in the first place. So he would beable to continue fishing in the future. But even if its a constant battle to take all these people to court.. he could always offer a buyout. Give up his rights to the river in exchange for a cash compensation.
Again this is if we assume that he can possess the right to a certain water quality.... that may be up for debate as well.
Nadjeschda:Addmited, this is as free as it can be. However normaly when I run into liberals and ask them to consider if they can limit their consumption or change to less harmfull forms they get a major fit. If you don't know how to make your consumption more environmentally friendly and you bark at anybody who might try to explain it, the free market solution will not work.
How do you define "environmentally friendly"?
How do you define "work"? As in "the free market solution will not work".
Can you explain to me how problems exist objectively?
I recall from the exact definition of the precautionary principle that it is a guide to how politicians should design policies. I just ask you to make your own judgments precautionary in situations of complexity.
The more you alter an ecosystem the less you will be able to predict what happens next. Their is a clear tendency to more alterations in the current economic development. What I am afraid of is a situation where such "unsolvable" conflicts become abundant. For me this is a treat to freedom too. You will have an increasing amount of lawyers and so-called environmental experts running around pointing to real or fictive damage.
Straw man fallacy: the original intend of my treat was to warn you from running into some common errors which I have observed with liberals (I know just one libertarian so). You might never have done the errors mentioned by me before but I can't now that.
- Overexploitation of an ecosystem because it belongs to no one but is used by everyone.
I certainly understand where you're coming from when you say that the farmer sould should be able to sell (and keep healthy) the fish he's reared over time, but, assuming he doesn't own the body the water, you're still arguing as to who gets to kill the fish first. So clearly it hasn't nothing to do with the fish. Once he owns the water, which the government is stopping him from doing now, he can always move the fish temporarily while the power plants do their thing (after paying him), or he can continue going on as he pleases. Ownership does seem to solve everything.
Definitions of environmental problems:
1. Any alteration from a pristine state of environment before man interfered (saving the environment for environments sake, not logic because it builds on the faulty concept of intrinsic value):
2. An alteration of the environment that leads to a decline of the health, safety or economic wellbeing of those located in it (environmental protection for mans sake).
Estimating the impact of your lifestyle(this will always be an approximation):
The amount of energy you consume including energy from nutrition, renewable energy, non-renewable energy, energy used in all manufacturing steps.
Reason1: Every ecological system will need a minimum amount of energy to perform its function and perform it stable (complex systems become instable the more energy you withdraw). Even loss of species is an example of energy lack, the systems lacks the information to maintain the information of DNA in this case.
Reason2: The more energy you command the more you can alter your environment. Altering the environment might not be in your best interest, if you don’t know the effect. The more environmental modifications you create the more difficult will it get to understand interactions of individual projects. The more an ecosystem is altered, the less you will be able to foresee its reactions. Both processes will lead to ever more “unsolvable” disputes over causes and effects of environmental damage.
Implications of Reason2 and refutation of "Nirwana falacy": the amount of energy circling in the economical system steadily increases while the amount of energy effectively available for the ecological system decreases. If the number of “unsolvable” or “difficult-to solve” environmental disputes is increased the legal system will not be able to handle that. Hence an increasing number of economic damages go uncompensated. Since most people are causes and victims of environmental degradation this might seriously harm the economy and health of overall population.
Can you define what is "the water"? Clearly the river is a large branched system with smaler creeks running into it. The nuclear power plant might pay me for relocating the fish but for this it must be clear that it is the cause of the problem. This is not the case.
Stranger:i might have came on too strong and i'm sorry about that.
I've been thinking about this incident, and several others, quite a lot, and your comments have been helpful. Several of you have asked for a more complete description so hoping not to bore you, here it is.
One evening we happened to sit at dinner next to Jim and Sheila (I'll call them) from Chicage. Jim said he had been enjoying history and named a number of biographies he'd read this year. When he finished I said I'd been reading a lot of economics the last 3 years and said after Keynes and Chicago I'd found the Austrian school and loved it. During my explanation I'd said I found Keynes math impossible, and though I later learned it was meant to only describe models, that the models themselves were completely unrealistic. (I didn't assume at that time that he'd studied any econ at school). In response to my discussion he made no sounds at all. So after that we fell pretty silent. Then he asked if we played bridge at our club a lot. (We were a group of bridge players.) I didn't explain that I'd been too sick recently and instead said the we'd found the worldwide 24/7 bridge site and enjoyed it. He responded that they prefered to play with real people. (Now that is not an attack but it is certainly a put-down.) We said nothing else to them directly that evening.
The following evening we selected a different table, but when Jim and Sheila arrived they came directly to the table at which we were sitting. I said nothing for half the meal. The most at the table began talking about their rear view cameras in their Lexus' cars and how great they were. My husband joined in and said our daughter's Ford also had a rear view camera moved to the back of her horse trailer and in addition one on the inside of the trailer to enable her to observe the horses in transit, and he agreed they were marvelous. Jim then said loudly, "Does she have a shotgun in the back window?" (Now that's an attack.) There was dead silence for a few seconds, then my husband said, "Well we do have guns, but what you see in back windows is usually some fishing rods." Again there was dead silence. There was little more conversation, and none from us.
I think the comments in this thread can be grouped into several groups.
Some indicate we all have the same emotions. Yes, typically, but different emotions, and emotions overall, are different strengths in different people. Further, during the maturing process, some people learn how to control them more fully than others.
Some said it's uncomfortable to hear the truth. But I think that begs the question of what the truth is. But it's also close to saying that it's uncomfortable to hear opposing views.
Several said that many people, one way or another, identigy personally with their opinions, beliefs, ideology, etc. I think this is closer.
Sieben : People choose ideologies based on what makes them feel good. If they choose an ideology that is actually wrong, it will make no difference. I could work really hard and try to be objective, and wind up supporting Ron Paul or maybe even no one in elections, and the outcome would be the same as if I had blended in and voted for Obama. I'll feel a lot better if I vote for Obama because there's the social support and good feeling of winning and doing something.
People choose ideologies based on what makes them feel good. If they choose an ideology that is actually wrong, it will make no difference. I could work really hard and try to be objective, and wind up supporting Ron Paul or maybe even no one in elections, and the outcome would be the same as if I had blended in and voted for Obama. I'll feel a lot better if I vote for Obama because there's the social support and good feeling of winning and doing something.
Before the '08 election we were at another bridge convention, eating lunch with several other out-of-state couples. I asked who they were going to vote for. One woman said Clinton. She said she prefered Obama but was going to vote for Clinton because Clinton was going to win. Again I was dumbfounded and silent for a bit. I simply could not believe that there were people whose opinion was based on the opinion of the larger group. I asked her, finally, why, if she prefered Obama, she didn't vote for him. She replied, "Oh no, she primarily wanted to vote for the winner".
Based on these and other experiences about being part of a larger or majority group, or an in-goup, seems to make people feel safe and secure and right, correct. Therefore those who do not agree are wrong, stupid and open to attack because they endanger the safety and security of their group. "The tyranny of the majority" in spades. Mere disagreement is also unacceptable and uncomfortable and this was my 'sin' with Jim. My Austrian opinions did not agree with his and he was right. Therefore it was acceptable to attack us. And their mantra about respecting others is a halucination.
Now I'm thinking, Jim and his majority are basically fearful at heart, and thefore unwilling to accept responsibility for their own thoughts and actions. They feel safe and secure only as part of a large group. There's safely in numbers, the banana that gets away from the bunch gets pealed, etc.
At least I"m forming some explanation for such behaviour, even if it's not thecorrect one.
Please ignore the above, it's on the wrong thread.
Nadjeschda, I am a libertarian and an environmentalist. I am pro-property rights because that is the best way to resolve issues of environment.
I read your OP twice, and I couldn't find an actual argument on any Mises publication or an Austrian economics concept in particular. Was this intentional?
"Nadjeschda, I am a libertarian and an environmentalist"
Great, I knew they must hang up somewhere!
Yes I have a critic to a particular Mises publication; it was one of the audio courses. There was an example with an old lady having her laundry stained by soot from a nearby chimney. Instead of waiting for state action under free market society she can sue the factory directly. However I don’t think that this example is representative for environmental problems:
for most environmental damages:
1. Source.
2. Mode in which sources actually translates into damage
3. Synergistic effects: if more than one polluter is involved who caused what quantity of damage?
can’t be pinpoited.
Many damages are also extremely difficult to distinguish from natural events:
4. Is damage of human source or a random variation?
I understand that the Mises Institute is familiar with the concept of “tragedy of the commons” and that current environmental problems could be solved in a free market society by privatizing all natural resources (please correct me, if I am wrong)
This will only work if the majority of such damages and disputes can be meaningfully settled with modern legal methods (in dubio pro reo). And that’s exactly what I doubt.
The example with the old Lady would already be much more tricky if she had developed a respiratory disease instead.
I give you a selection of examples where point 1,2,3 ,4 makes damage and culprit difficult to proof:
The cause of any illness which affects broad parts of population will also be extremely difficult to pinpoint, so the list can be increased by:
Nadjeschda:I understand that the Mises Institute is familiar with the concept of “tragedy of the commons” and that current environmental problems could be solved in a free market society by privatizing all natural resources (please correct me, if I am wrong) This will only work if the majority of such damages and disputes can be meaningfully settled with modern legal methods (in dubio pro reo). And that’s exactly what I doubt.
What do you mean by "work"? If you mean, find perfect solutions each time, then property rights will fail. That's utopianism. There are no utopian solutions to each and every problem. Libertarians, Austrians and anarchists do not claim perfect answers.
What we do claim, is a system where people can be secure and accountable. Where there are methods for resolution.
If we can't figure out coral reefs in a private property society, how can we figure it out with a state? The state cannot do anything the market cannot, except use aggressive force.
Sure, in a free market order, laws and legal processes will have to evolve. That is one of the major reasons to be a libertarian! We want to see competition and evolution in law, we want to see better systems of arbitration evolve and become available to everyone. Progress like this is not possible under a statist system, where law and order are monopolized into one system, which is very slow to change and hostile to competition.
But at the end of the day, no one pretends we can perfectly determine causality. To be able to do so would require omniscience.
Nadjeschda:I recall from the exact definition of the precautionary principle that it is a guide to how politicians should design policies. I just ask you to make your own judgments precautionary in situations of complexity.
The phrase "exact definition" implies there is one particular definition that is "correct". However, all definitions are inherently arbitrary, so there can be no "correct" definition.
My own meaning for "the precautionary principle" is essentially the same as Wikipedia's:
The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
As a system under consideration becomes more complex and/or less predictable, the risk of something "bad" happening to it is perceived (at least) to increase. Appealing to the precautionary principle, then, is akin to drawing a line in the sand. "This far, no farther." But, if you think about it, something "bad" could also happen by not going further. So the precautionary principle, taken to its logical conclusion, demands that no action ever be taken about anything. Everything must stop.
Nadjeschda:The more you alter an ecosystem the less you will be able to predict what happens next. Their is a clear tendency to more alterations in the current economic development. What I am afraid of is a situation where such "unsolvable" conflicts become abundant. For me this is a [threat] to freedom too. You will have an increasing amount of lawyers and so-called environmental experts running around pointing to real or fictive damage.
So what? Who's to decide how many people should be lawyers and environmental experts, real or "so-called"? Essentially your criticism of the free market seems to boil down to "I'm against the free market here because I'm afraid it may not give the outcome that I want". But who ever said that the free market is guaranteed to produce any particular outcome?
Nadjeschda:Straw man fallacy: the original intend of my treat was to warn you from running into some common errors which I have observed with liberals (I know just one libertarian so). You might never have done the errors mentioned by me before but I can't now that.
You committed the strawman fallacy when you implicitly claimed that free-market supporters always assert that the free market can solve all problems.