Hermann Goering on Anthropogenic Global Warming

Economics Political Theory
, , , ,
61

In Walter Block’s “Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights” published in Journal of Business Ethics 17: 1887-1899, 1998 endnote 16, he states

It is only because murder and rape are illegal that there was a call for a forensic industry, capable of determining guilt based on semen, blood, hair follicles, DNA, ect. If these activities were legal, these capabilities would not have developed. Similarly, when one can sue for pollution, it is of the utmost importance to determine guilt or innocence; hence, the establishment of environmental forensics.

I think the point he makes here applies to the issue of anthropogenic global warming(AWG) as well. The precedent of governments treating air pollution in general as a legislative-regulatory issue, rather than a common-civil legal issue ensures that AWG will be treated the same. And because it would be virtually impossible to sue anyone, even if there were undeniable evidence available, there is no market for any kind of climate forensics which could link back specific damage to specific CO2 emission. If AWG is existent, there would be no market to prove a causal relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperature. There is no reason why such research couldn’t be done, but there is also no profit incentive to do it.

I wasn’t suggesting, nor do I see how the IPCC could crowd out private research. The incentives simply exist for state funding and scarcely do for private funding.

I agree. If it can be demonstrated that an activity will cause damage, we should be allowed to get an injunction to force the activity to stop.

I think our differences here come from the fact that I’m trying to apply sort of a Rothbardian-Blockean ethical framework to the problem, while I think (but I’m not 100%) yours is Lockean. The only way to resolve these differences is to get into homesteading theory and the foundations of our ethical positions.

If you and TokyoTom have convinced me of anything, it is that Libertarians shouldn’t be avoiding the ethical issues surrounding climate change and just dismissing the science. This is what I was doing before, because the ethical issues seem really difficult to figure out. AWG seemed like a tragedy of the commons problem without the possibility of the usual solution of homesteading. I look back on my previous position and it just looks like a major cop-out. And I’m sure it does to many outside observers as well when the more well known Libertarians do it.

In terms of strategy, it would be better for Libertarians to put their main efforts into solving the ethical dilemma, rather than dismissing the science. First of all, it’s Libertarian’s main strength. If Libertarians can prove that the market can do a better job, at producing sound climate science (if there is a good reason to even produce it), that it can supply higher quality justice than the state, and combine that with the proof that the market can provide better cheaper solutions than massive government regulations (George Reismann), than it doesn’t really matter if the IPCC is right or wrong.

62

Ego, I already addressed your proposal regarding children - did you miss it? Anyway, it’s hard to take it seriously - state-imposed limits on numbers of children is not consistent with libertarian or Austrian views. The fact that people largely bear their own costs for their children is what has led to the demographic shift in the developed nations.

Austrian approaches to environmental issues focus on improving property rights (or other cooperative mechanisms that better internalize external costs), in order to enable people to make transactions based on their preferences.

I think your final sentence is largely a strawman, but so what? Do we get more trackion demonizing those with disagree with, or by accepting that there is a problem with property rights that doesn’t force people to bear all of their own costs and frustrates the ability of people to express their preferences?

63

Yes, I missed that response.

For others who are reading, my post was this:

You responded with this:

I am not saying that my proposal is Austrian! Definetly not. I was saying that my proposal follows logically from setting a criminal-level of carbon output.

Oh, I was just responding to your point about the origins of the environmental movement (aside from the fact that it’s suspicious).

Again, I’m not opposed to stopping any pollution that violates rights; I’m just worried about violating others’ rights in the name of something as murky as this.

64

It might be beating a dead horse at this point, but I figured this might be of some interest: http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-does-it-mean-to-advocate-market.html

65

I don’t think it matters one lick whos behind the calls, what matters is what they want us to do about their respective drummed up crises. Again the solutions to both are pretty simple and pretty much the same:“Give up certain individual rights and freedoms for the sake of the greater good”

I don’t care what either phony crises appeals to. Just because fighting global warming appeals to “good hearted left wingers” such as yourself doesn’t make it any more righteous. And what is this bit about poor governance? Is there good governance?

Well first, yes there certainly are real problems with terrorists! I find it laughable that you completely dismiss terrorism as if it doesn’t exist but your willing to wage jihad on the sun beacuse Al gore says it’s given are planet a “fever”.

Wow don’t believe I said that now did I? I believe the appeals to fight global warming are for the most part sincere just like the appeals to fight global terror. What I object to is fighting them at the cost of my own rights. I fail to see any difference in giving up these rights to kill Osama or to kill off Co2.

66

Ego, it doesn’t sound like in principle we are so far apart - but floating non-Austrian proposals about limiting children seems a bit extreme.

I share your reluctance to “violate others’ rights in the name of something as murky as this.” What have I advocated here, other than changes in government policy to INCREASE individual and corporate freedom? But let’s not ignore that in the absence of property rights and enforcement mechanisms in important shared resources like the atmosphere means that costs are being shifted involuntarily, for the gains of a few.

67

Copperhead, you won some points (particularly with hjmaiere) with your initial post comparing AGW and terrorism, but you just lost plenty by mixing up your own legitimate views with fairly trollish nonsense.

If you don’t like my hyperbole in trying to show what I see are the clear differences between the rent-seeking behind AGW and terrorism, it’s fair to say so, but it’s something else to then come back (i) slinging around unfounded conclusory terms like “good hearted left wingers” and (ii) finding “laughable” the offensive strawmen that you set up ("you completely dismiss terrorism as if it doesn’t exist but your willing to wage jihad on the sun beacuse Al gore says it’s given are planet a “fever”).

Our discussion was simply about rent-seeking - where do you come up with “left wing”? As I specifically noted, I’m a right-winger. Call me good-hearted if you wish, or too statist for your satisfaction, but please try to base your conclusions on what I’ve said, and not your preconceptions of who cares about climate change - or terrorism.

And of course I have NOT “completely dismissed terrorism as if it doesn’t exist” - rather, I’ve indicated that if it’s serious, it’s because we “helped to create [it] and can’t resolve by the use of military force”. See the difference between your black and white strawman and my important nuance? I believe that my position is the considered conservative and libertarian one.

And where do you get off laughing at the offensive claptrap that I want to “wage jihad on the sun beacuse Al gore says it’s given are planet a ‘fever’”? Al Gore doesn’t pull my strings, I am concerned about climate change for the same reason practically all scientific bodies (and a lomg, long list of others) are, I see (as I specifically noted) an obvious problem in Austrian terms with the atmosphere and other important open-access resources that lack clear or enforceable property rights, and I acknowledge (as I also specifically noted) and remain concerned by the inevitable rent-seeking that also accompanies the “government action” case.

Dolt. Just because you can’t walk or chew gum at the same time doesn’t mean others can’t. Get yourself some nuance and some basic civility.

Ironically, can’t you see that your willingness to so quickly stereotype those you disagree with is the very type of shallow, reflexive tribal reaction that hjmaiere writes about? Let’s rush off an attack enviros! Too much fun letting your unearned hostility and contempt flow (and too much hard work exercising a little self-control)?

Of course, if you want to persist, you’re in good company with the lovers of reason at Mises, sadly:

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/19/cool-rationalists-or-conservatives-and-neocons-on-the-environment.aspx

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/24/george-reisman-or-how-i-learned-to-hate-enviros-and-love-tantrums.aspx

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx

Sorry, but I just have no appetite to respond to you further. Funny how that works.

68

Tom,

I’m still waiting for you to comment on the status of property rights. Are they natural as the Austrian Quiz seem to suggest ? Or are they created by elites to promote ‘efficiency’ or some other collective ‘common good’ ?

69

Well its fine for you to be concerned about global warming just as its fine for george bush to be concerned about global terorrism. What concerns me is that you seem to be trying to conjure up instances where libertarian principles cannot apply(in your mind) as an excuse to support “government action”.

Okay way to show me your civility tom! I didn’t think my post would be taken as so offensive by you and frankly I think your overreacting a great deal. Not to mention your the one who completely twisted my original post into something I clearly did not say.

Well perhaps if enviromentalists such as you, weren’t always attacking mankind itself, folks like me wouldn’t take such offense to your ramblings.

Yes there are lots of folks out there who just aren’t as concerned about the enviroment as you are, so what? And theres nothing like the self righteousness and arrogance of enviromentalists like you to encourage that.

70

CooperHead:

Okay way to show me your civility tom! I didn’t think my post would be taken as so offensive by you and frankly I think your overreacting a great deal. Not to mention your the one who completely twisted my original post into something I clearly did not say.

I’m just reacting to you, and justifiedly. You didn’t think I would find your patently offensive remarks to be offensive? Or was it that you just didn’t think I would care? In either case you deserve to have a pissed-off reaction. If you want to comment here in a civil manner, then people are happy to have a conversation, regardless of how much you disagree with them.

Frankly, if you’re serious about commenting here, you’ll take responsibility for your own behavior, instead of trying to cover up what’s indefensible with more weak, irrelevant and offensive justifications - like somehow I provoked your offensiveness with my “ramblings” and because I must be one of those “enviromentalists [who are] always attacking mankind itself”, or that it is the “self righteousness and arrogance of enviromentalists like [me]” who are really the problem. Get real - how you feel about “environmentalists” generally is no excuse for your own rudeness.

It’s your tone, and not my response, that’s the problem. If that’s how you want to be, take it somewhere else. Or you can prove yourself worthy of having a serious conversation. Your choice.

71

Juan: I am not sure whether you want a real conversation, but given your persistence, I’m willing to take the chance.

Was what your score on the Austrian quiz? Mine was 95%. Not that it’s that important; it just means I have some idea of what Austrian views are.

The Austrian test “answer” on property is quite brief; my views are more nuanced:

Property is a naturally arising relationship between human beings and material things. Property and enforceable property rights make possible economic calculation, a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of prosperity. Indeed, civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property. Any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity.

Property doesn’t exist by in nature, but is a relationship created by man - and meaningful only to the extend that it is mutually erspected by others (i.e., “enforceable”). It is certainly not the only relationship by man and material things - there are no property rights in some things and shared property rights in others, and men also often take things that others say belongs to them (viz., a denial of or indifference to “property” of others).

“Property” as we know it is a human institution, but it is hardly unique to man. Other animals also try to capture and defend resources - treat them like personal property - often very effectively, but it does require diligence and expenditure of energy. But cooperation (and some reciprocal recognition of “pecking orders”, rules of priority and use developed in animals because it provided some advantages over a constant, no-holds-barred squabble over resources.

Does property require law? If you mean written law, then of course not. Humans had recogizable property rights land before we had written language. But property of course requires relatively clearly understood and accepted rules, and social mechanisms to enforce those rules - both to allow those whose rights are violated to seek redress and to provide disincentives to violations. Written law of course is certainly created by elites, and used to enforce property rights. These laws are in some ways simply codifications of common, unwritten rules, but they also involve some element of deliberate choice and decisions that elites were in a position to manipulate in their favor. Is written law still useful? Yes. Is written law complete and satisfactory as is? Read Mises.

You might recalled that I previously discussed Mises and Yandle, in the context of explaining exactly these points earlier.

Do “property and enforceable property rights make possible economic calculation, a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of prosperity”? Yes, indeed.

Is “civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property”? This is certainly a rather broad and vague statement. Have we had a spectrum of societies, some of which, for one length of time or another, did not officially recognize private property, or considered most property to be “collectively” owned or owned by the state? Sure, but to the extent that internally they did not acknowledge private property they had severe problems with economic calculation, a productive division of labor, and increasing levels of prosperity. Some of these groups are still around, starting with various religious sects. But even the societies that declaimed private property still acted as if the state owned property, and would defens such property against outsiders, and in any event, as human nature has evolved to include a concept of property, even in the radically communistic societies a fairly large streak of private property was respected as a practical matter, and helped these societies to function.

Does “any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity”? Well, encroachment by whom? Without a state, the effectiveness of “property” is entirely dependent on the ability of the one claiming it to defend his position, which ability depends to a large extent on the willingness of others to accept his claim. As the material environment continually changes, so too will “property” change in societies - with or without laws. If the encroachment is by the state, then I pretty much agree - and am worried about theft and manipulation by elites. All taxation may reduce freedom, and is likely to reduce prosperity, but besides that, are state actions with respect to resources that are not owned “encroachments on property”?

Is TokyoTom a radical, man-hating enviro fascist commie? Who knows; but he’s certainly a snake in the grass who can’t be trusted, that’s for sure.

Hope the above is useful as a place for further discussion. Forgive the arrogant sarcasm at the end.

72

Since the quiz is a bit slanted towards anarchism, my score is 100%. Anyway…

To me that sounds opposite to the view of property as ‘natural’. A ‘natural arising’ relationship is not the same thing as a ‘man-created’ relationship, is it ?

So you seem to accept that property is in some way not an exclusively human relationship ?

Alright, but those rules are not to be created by ‘our shared tool of government’, as you put it. Considering the way property rights are tampered with by governments, it doesn’t make sense to me to advocate involvement of government in the creation of rights, in the first place. If you do, despite the record of government as a destructor of property rights, I think it is legitimate to question your motives.

State action is coercion. You seem to be proposing that the politicians act as if they can appropriate unowned resources. I don’t think they legitimately can.

As to how many people lend support to enviromental issues (a point you raised in other posts) : There are enviromental ideologues who indeed oppose human freedom. There are people who are in it for the money, for instance, the ones involved in the ethanol scam. The mass media and mainstream ‘scientists’ also are highly motivated by profits. And a part of the general public just believe what they are told without much critical thinking - they can’t be bothered. So, I’m not sure how this heterogenous group of supporters validates your position.

73

I must apologize, I was not aware that my type had such an overt and offensive tone. Perhaps I’ll change the font someday.

74

Juan: Thanks for your comments.

Yes, property is natural and, as a relationship can be observed in nature. But for there to be property, there has to be not merely a substance, but something that does the valuing of it.

I think you can see that I agreed that man evolved to cooperatively treat material things as property, if they are materials that are desirable and capable of being treated as property. Other aninals animals similarly - but not to the same level of sophistication - treat things as property (they are territorial, and expend energy defending resources that are important to them).

As for my view of the role of government, particularly with regard to property, I wish that you would relax a little bit and read more carefully what I say, both here and at my blog. Some you might not like, but I suspect most you would agree with. I obviously do not believe that it is necessary to have states in order to have property, and I clearly recognize that states very often mess with property, in ways we would all agree is bad. But undeniability what we view as property in lay terms are things that are codified in laws, rules, regulations and in the “common law” - a body of written court cases by state-appointed officials. That’s just how things are, not a statement of my preferences. And it’s quite fair to observe, as Mises, Block, Cordato and Rothbard do, that what gets codified as law is what elites decide should be codified, which is often one-sided or leaves the property owner off the hook for damages for which he is responsible. These points should be unobjectionable.

One difficult question is what to do when the law is normatively wrong. Do we just let it lie, because we prefer state inaction over more coercion (in the form of correcting the rules)?

I’m not in favor of the state itself homesteading, but is it coercion if it does so without using assets taken from others? An interesting question, perhaps, but I’m not really advocating that.

Yes, there are various people who lend support to environmental issues - including the Austrians I’ve named above, who quite obviously are concerned and believe that the solutions lie not in hating enviros but in understanding that the problem is a lack of clear and enforceable property rights (and government ownership), which prevents people from reaching deals over resources and results in people fighting over resources or over the governemtnthat controls them.

75

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2008/1101080428_400.jpg

76

Whether or not global warming is a fact of the matter, Austrians should be discussing libertarian approaches to it, so that should the evidence ultimately be found in favour of GW, we have a ready response to silence those who’d rather use the heavy hand of coercion.

77

applause

78

Austrians should be discussing libertarian approaches to it

You mean some libertarian response other than calling all those who are concerned enviro-fascists? Other than saying that the science must be a scam because anybody who is convinced must be a rent-seeker? You mean maybe libertarians should actually listen to guys like Cordato who say that “environmental” problems are really simply political battles over resources that result when there are no clear or enforceable property rights? Isnt that so much harder than actually hating people? You mean we actually have to think and discuss, and even try to talk with and persuade all those socialist/statists out there? Yuck! But its so much funner and satisfying to question the motives of and “laugh” at people who think we need to have jihad against the sun, and then insult them more when they get offended!

Is it a libertarian approach, Jon, to say, hey - maybe we can make substantial progress towards adapting to and mitigating climate cvhange by deregulating power production and distribution (so sellers can sell at margin costs rather than blended rates, introduce competition and the like), eliminate capital gains taxes and energy subsidies? Or is that too statist? Im not really sure if pushing for deregulation is really libertarian, since involves getting the state to do something, but I keep making suggestions like those, as well as taking the heat for everyones tribal fantasies about how evil anyone who cares about looming unsolved problems must be.

Well actually of course its been high time for the past few decades to talk about libertarian approaches, and momentum is rapidly building for more statist ones. Im starting to feel that libertarians really are not fundamentally serious, either about serious resource issues generally or serious about battling statism. Insular tribalism is more comfortable.

79

No, anthropogenic global warming is a manufactured issue, selected specifically for its ability to slough off “libertarian approaches.” As I originally explained, the actual science never really made much sense in the first place, and the further you dig, the more strained and contrived the qualifications and revisions and inferrences get. Do not confuse the existence of a government-sponsored consensus for rational discourse. Most importantly, pay attention to the arguments offered for public consumption in support of anthropogenic global warming. When they aren’t outright lies, they always take two forms: appeals to authority, and scare tactics. Environmentalism itself has clearly been called upon to play the role of civil religion.

I mean, how more obvious can it get?

No, as far as political discourse is concerned, the only real point to be made is that the nature of the State is such that the institutionalization of authority in any form sufficient to address anthropogenic global warming would only do far more harm than anthropogenic global warming itself could possibly do. More importantly, it already does.

80

TokyoTom I shall assume you’re being sardonic.

Hjmaere, I’m not well versed in the science of the matter, my point is simply that it’s worth putting thought into should the science prove correct. Should it not, it’d be no real loss as we’d have had a chance to expand libertarian thinking in new directions anyway. Just some thoughts.

-Jon