General

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

Wibee — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 00:41:44 GMT

Water flows in a river. so, he is not polluting your water. poisoning your fish gives you rights to restitution. placing your fish farm in a river does expose it to undue risk. A makeshift pond may be more managable.

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

Nadjeschda — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:57:43 GMT

Now you stretch the term "implicit" a bit. Where do I have used the term "always"? I have run into quite a lot of people who presented panaceas - etatist and free market supports - but where did I claim that they are all the same?

I do not personally dislike lawyers or environmental experts; I dislike the idea of a technocracy. If large parts of our affairs become dependent on legal and scientific experts, and if disputes can only be settled by expert assessments (instead of a logic which all people can follow) than there is a lot of room for corruption and for instrumentalizing environmental problems.

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

Nadjeschda — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:42:46 GMT

I am not talking about Utopia when I am afraid that the legal system might cease to "work". If for example 90% of murder could not been detected and proofed anymore I foresee havy damage to society. As people can get killed by environmental degradation this is not as far fetched an example as it sounds.

I already stated that I don't see how the state can solve the problem either. But because nobody has found a solution yet -state of free market - the problem can't be ignored by labelling a save environment an utopia.

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

Autolykos — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:08:24 GMT

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.

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

liberty student — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:35:35 GMT

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.

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

Nadjeschda — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:56:00 GMT

"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:

Climate change
Change in micro-climate in a given region (India, Sahel, Brazil)
Pest of poisonous jellyfish in the black sea
Coral bleaching
Decline of mangrove health in Bangladesh and land loss
Decline of landmass in some isles
Acid rain.

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:

Rise in auto-immune disease
Rise in allergies
Decline in fertility
Rise in respiratory disease in some regions of the world.
Rise in rare disease such as gulf-war-syndrom.

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

liberty student — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:59:06 GMT

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?

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

cryptocode — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:55:40 GMT

Please ignore the above, it's on the wrong thread.

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

cryptocode — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:50:43 GMT

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.

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.

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

Sieben — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:34:31 GMT

Stranger:
i might have came on too strong and i'm sorry about that.

K truce :)

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

Nadjeschda — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:34:02 GMT

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.

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

Nadjeschda — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:26:25 GMT

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.

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

BrianAnderson — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:23:33 GMT

- 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.

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

Nadjeschda — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 20:38:11 GMT

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.

Re: Environmentalists in attack mode

Autolykos — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 20:25:16 GMT

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?