welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Libertarian solutions to the CO2 problem?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
Snorri wrote:
You could of course argue that you're not "forced" to buy those drugs but then you are also not "forced" to pay taxes.

I'm not aware of any companies that can jail an individual for refusing to purchase their products.


The government can only jail you if you've already used their products. I can't actually even think of a way to earn money without using government products or benefits.

Even the act of making money itself is using a service provided by the government. I.e the money.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3271

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
Snorri wrote:
You could of course argue that you're not "forced" to buy those drugs but then you are also not "forced" to pay taxes.

I'm not aware of any companies that can jail an individual for refusing to purchase their products.


Insurance companies
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Insurance companies

Actually, no. At least, not in the U.S.

Laws which require individuals to maintain financial liability do not require individuals to deal with insurance companies; the individual has the option of becoming bonded in order maintain the requisite liability. All the law requires is that the liability be demonstrably maintained by the individual.

And insurance companies cannot, of themselves, issue warrants or jail individuals. They must seek judgments against individuals and, if and when those judgments go unfulfilled, it is the state that jails the person for failing to comply with a court order.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3271

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So a roundabout way of industries requiring you to use their product.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How so? If I post a bond for what the law requires of me in terms of financial liability, I can tell every insurance company in the world to kiss my pale, hairy little tookis.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3271

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
How so? If I post a bond for what the law requires of me in terms of financial liability, I can tell every insurance company in the world to kiss my pale, hairy little tookis.


Is this the method that you use?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Is this the method that you use?

Not that my finances are any of your business, but, yes, that is how I maintain my professional liability as an engineer. For my house and vehicles, I find insurance policies to be more economical.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3271

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So disregarding your job, you use insurance policies, because you find them more economical.

How is this different from legally requiring you to buy their product. One is less economical, you are legally required to have one or the other.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
How is this different from legally requiring you to buy their product. One is less economical, you are legally required to have one or the other.

You've answered your own question: I'm required to have one or the other; I am not required to deal with the insurance companies if I don't choose to do so, so long as I can show that I am maintaining--by bond, perhaps, or by escrow in terms of real estate and other large purchases--the liability required of me by law to protect others financially from accidents in which I might be involved or which might result from my actions, choices, designs, maintenance of my property, etc.

Even without bonds or escrow, there is no law that says I must purchase, say, a health insurance policy from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, homeowner's insurance from Farmers, and vehicle insurance from Allstate. I can take my business wherever I like. The law simply says that I must be able to show that I am maintaining so much liability for such-and-such. Where I get it and how I set it up, is my business.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2433

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snorri wrote:
A person might be perfectly informed but still make the wrong choice because he really want to have sex with this three-headed dog or something. People are just really weird.

If having sex with a three-headed dog is wrong, I don't want to be right.

I think the example was about overfishing. People who buy fish do not know when they are buying fish from an overfished area. They do not know what environmental impact their purchase will have. The "wrongness" of their choice was due to not having perfect information.

Snorri wrote:
I have absolutely no rational reason for preserving the ozone-layer if any negative effects only start in 200 years even with perfect information.

In 200 years, either everyone will be dead or technology will have advanced enough that we can repair or ignore the damaged ozone layer. Your harm may not be harmful, which means actions that do not take ozone layer damage into account may well be the right ones.

Snorri wrote:
And prisoner's dilemma can be applied to the market. It is not solely reserved for those situations where you happen to land in jail.

I'm not sure it applies to markets or to landing in jail. One's participation in the market may be (weakly) modeled as a series of decisions, but certainly not as the making of a single choice.

Snorri wrote:
Company towns never existed?

They just made those up for TV.

Snorri wrote:
Your option to buy a different product is limited, even in this modern society. I wasn't operating under perfect information or perfect availability there, just under general shape of current markets.

I don't believe I have ever made a market decision in which there wasn't an almost-exactly-as-good alternate available to me. Perhaps buying a house will be different, although my experience renting doesn't seem to suggest so.

Snorri wrote:
And you don't have to do violent revolution. You can just stop earning money or move to somewhere without taxes. It being difficult, even mostly impossible, does not make a difference.

No. No, no, no. It makes a huge difference. You cannot try to emphasize how difficult it is to make a market decision and then just blow off the difficulty in making every market decision for the rest of your life all at once. Moving to another country is not a viable option for most people, and the way it pops up in this kind of conversation bewilders me.

I'd wonder if it was an ease-of-traveling-in-Europe thing, except plenty of right-wingers in the States spout the same inanity.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3271

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
How is this different from legally requiring you to buy their product. One is less economical, you are legally required to have one or the other.

You've answered your own question: I'm required to have one or the other; I am not required to deal with the insurance companies if I don't choose to do so, so long as I can show that I am maintaining--by bond, perhaps, or by escrow in terms of real estate and other large purchases--the liability required of me by law to protect others financially from accidents in which I might be involved or which might result from my actions, choices, designs, maintenance of my property, etc.

Even without bonds or escrow, there is no law that says I must purchase, say, a health insurance policy from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, homeowner's insurance from Farmers, and vehicle insurance from Allstate. I can take my business wherever I like. The law simply says that I must be able to show that I am maintaining so much liability for such-and-such. Where I get it and how I set it up, is my business.


Thats a pretty weaselly answer. Oh it doesnt count because it doesnt force me to buy from a SPECIFIC company and you've got this other less economical option available to you. I fail to see how this doesnt compel poorer people to use a product from a private company under threat of law.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
Bart wrote:
I'm quite sure libertarians would say that disseminating good information about products should also be left to the free market. Why force people to pay taxes for information a private firm could also provide.

I'm quite sure anarcho-capitalists would say that. I'm also quite sure that a substantial majority of those who self-identify as libertarian would not say that.


Well, most of the people I know that self-identify as libertarians do. Might be a difference of opinion within the group. How exactly would a libertarian justify giving this task to government instead of leaving it to the market ?

Sojobo wrote:
Bart wrote:
The voluntarily choosing to buy green products doesn't sound like the libertarian answer either.

Yes. It does. In fact, it sounds like the libertarian answer to almost everything.

OK, it would sound like something a libertarian would hope for, but even a libertarian would have to concede that it is very unlikely this'll actually work.


Sojobo wrote:
Bart wrote:
It assumes that consumers believe the damage to themselves caused by their marginal contribution to emissions is greater than the increased price of more expensive products for them.

Which is an assumption Wheels explicitly makes in the opening post, and that I explicitly refer to in my post.


How are they the same assumption ? Wheels assumption only means that a framework has to be created in which emissions will be reduced (and that framework has to be consistent with libertarian thought). It does not mean that everyone will voluntarily reduce their emissions because it is beneficial for them personally. It's not because there is a consensus that something needs to be done on a global scale that individuals will start working towards that goal without their own work benefiting themselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
Snorri wrote:
A person might be perfectly informed but still make the wrong choice because he really want to have sex with this three-headed dog or something. People are just really weird.

If having sex with a three-headed dog is wrong, I don't want to be right.

I think the example was about overfishing. People who buy fish do not know when they are buying fish from an overfished area. They do not know what environmental impact their purchase will have. The "wrongness" of their choice was due to not having perfect information.

That's not the point of the example, really. It's about personal interest vs group interest. Even if I know that the area is overfished and know that it will have an environmental impact later down the line I would still have no personal reason to stop it.

It's against my personal interest not to buy those fish.

Quote:

Snorri wrote:
And prisoner's dilemma can be applied to the market. It is not solely reserved for those situations where you happen to land in jail.

I'm not sure it applies to markets or to landing in jail. One's participation in the market may be (weakly) modeled as a series of decisions, but certainly not as the making of a single choice.

It's not about a single choice, it's about a situation where the best/rational choice for all parties gives a sub-optimal result. In the example of an overfished area: the best result would be one where we all stop overfishing. But if I were to do that alone then there would be no change except that I would get screwed out of fish.

Or say taxes were voluntary. Obviously taxes give a great benefit to society. Enough taxes and you can build roads and schools and whatnot. But on the other hand I would be best served if I personally didn't pay taxes. I would still enjoy all the benefits of roads and such and would also have extra money. This is true for each person given the choice of paying taxes. Not paying and free-riding is better than paying.

Quote:

Snorri wrote:
Your option to buy a different product is limited, even in this modern society. I wasn't operating under perfect information or perfect availability there, just under general shape of current markets.

I don't believe I have ever made a market decision in which there wasn't an almost-exactly-as-good alternate available to me. Perhaps buying a house will be different, although my experience renting doesn't seem to suggest so.

Drugs, some insurances, some services (postal and internet and such) and houses and the like are all things were your options are limited to a degree. especially drugs that are patented, in fact any product with a broad enough patent.

If you need an anti-cancer drug but the only drug you can buy is one from a company that, i dunno, has abhorrent factory conditions you really don't have much of a choice.

Quote:
Snorri wrote:
And you don't have to do violent revolution. You can just stop earning money or move to somewhere without taxes. It being difficult, even mostly impossible, does not make a difference.

No. No, no, no. It makes a huge difference. You cannot try to emphasize how difficult it is to make a market decision and then just blow off the difficulty in making every market decision for the rest of your life all at once. Moving to another country is not a viable option for most people, and the way it pops up in this kind of conversation bewilders me.

I'd wonder if it was an ease-of-traveling-in-Europe thing, except plenty of right-wingers in the States spout the same inanity.


I think the problem here is that you're being rational and I'm discussing libertarianism.

My point is a reductio ad absurdem. Because what I said is the exact opposite of what Libertarians frequently claim. They blow off the difficulty of making a market decision but act like it's almost impossible to move to another country.

Libertarians seem to forget that we came to the position we are in now through trial and error. That we moved away from a freer market because it sucked. Minimal government and a super-free market actually made us less free. You had company towns and The Jungle and shit like that, it was actually harder to quit your job and find a new one or to start a new business.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
I fail to see how this doesnt compel poorer people to use a product from a private company under threat of law.

Who is compelling people to "use the product?" The company, or the government?

The company cannot pass statutory law; the company cannot arrest anyone. Plain and simple.

Even if you wish to consider the alternative I've already detailed to be somehow inapplicable to the masses (although the law applies equally to everyone), no private corporation has the powers of government.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2433

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bart wrote:
Well, most of the people I know that self-identify as libertarians do. Might be a difference of opinion within the group. How exactly would a libertarian justify giving this task to government instead of leaving it to the market ?

"Libertarian" covers a very wide spectrum. Extreme libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) would say they would leave it to the market, and they'd offer the same extreme opinion about all public goods, including roads, law & national defense. Most libertarians are not in this camp. Moderate libertarians justify giving tasks to the government in the same way as everyone else. Individual liberty can be a significant concern, even a primary concern, without being the only concern.

Bart wrote:
OK, it would sound like something a libertarian would hope for, but even a libertarian would have to concede that it is very unlikely this'll actually work.

I don't think they do. Letting the market correct for pollution seems a lot less extreme than privatising the FDA. The difficulty is that the market decisions have to be based upon good information for it to work, and with so many people convinced that climate change isn't real, it can't.

Bart wrote:
How are they the same assumption ? Wheels assumption only means that a framework has to be created in which emissions will be reduced (and that framework has to be consistent with libertarian thought).

Wheels didn't ask for a framework. It is weird to me that you gentled the assumption like that. He is asking what libertarians would do, given that they know they must do something. Spreading accurate info and making individual market decisions (Can I afford to buy green? Yes? Then I must do so.) is the most libertarian way to handle it.

Your carbon tax method (which I like, I really really do), to be libertarian, requires good enough information to quantify the damage a factory causes by polluting, so it can charge the polluter the correct fees. If we don't know how much damage there is, but the government enforces a tax anyway, then it is just interfering with the market, and therefore not libertarian.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group