Let's say man-made global warming is a real threat. In the abscence of anarcho-capitalism, what law would you support to address this issue? I see much hostility here toward the "social engineers" (aka most environmentalists) since none of their statist solutions would solve anything. At the same time, we have to realize that the "property rights" granted by the State are illegitimate (except in cases of coincidence).
So, let's say that cap-and-trade is implemented EXCEPT the revenue is used to counteract exactly whatever pollution was created with that amount of fuel rather than spent on research. Under this system, the consumer would still shop around for a "pollutio-removing" company so there would be market forces in the pollution-removal industry.
Would you support this measure as a means of enforcing whatever vague property rights the State recognizes?
No, because there's no practical way to stop the government from raping the system to show favor to specific industries and domestic business in general. The Prisoner's Dilema is the problem with cap and trade, the incentive is to inflate the cap and the permits to the point of uselessness, and once one country drops out the incentive for others to drop out is enormous. If a system is to be implimented it has to be designed to minimize the government's incentive to screw with it, and subsequently if they can't screw with it for personal/political gain, it will likely not be put in place. So for all practical purposes a carbon or generic GHG tax might be the best option.
None. You see, the free market already creates ample incentives. As soon as an environmental problem becomes widely known about, firms will create 'green' policies as a PR stunt. For example, look at Apple's new policies regarding laptop production. Clearly, they're trying to get more demand that way, specifically from people concerned about the environment.
But any coercive measures taken to help the environment, such as taxation or a scheme of pollution permits goes againt what I believe with regards to property rights and freedoms. It's basically collectivist 'for the greater good' policies, where people who don't care are taxed to make the people that care feel better, because let's face it, governments, even if they create a supra-national organisation to protect the environment, will always fail. The grander the task for government, the more inefficient will be its management and the higher the costs.
Fred Furash:But any coercive measures taken to help the environment, such as taxation or a scheme of pollution permits goes againt what I believe with regards to property rights and freedoms.
But any coercive measures taken to help the environment, such as taxation or a scheme of pollution permits goes againt what I believe with regards to property rights and freedoms.
But aren't particular environmental measures (as I mentioned in my first post) protecting property rights? Put another way, garnishing a thief's income to pay for damages does not infringe on the thief's property rights.