I wonder how would you sue car users for damage? And what is there to litigate after your child is born deformed?
So, I’ve seen you make similar claims before on this forum before, and you’ve explicitly stated a problem with the theory of externalities. So, lest I strawman you, I have a serious question. Are you really saying that by some means or another, every time somebody is affected on the market it is factored into the price system?
Answer: the market.
If it’s bad enough to cause such problems then individuals will refrain from using/consuming/buying the product. If the people feel otherwise, so be it. If one company sells leaded and another unleaded, and people know the dangers of leaded, I’m sure the people will choose the more effecient, and safer fuel. You don’t need bureaucrats managing and outlawing potential risk.
For any individual the amount of leaded fuel they’re consuming is irrelevant to their health, it’s such a small part of the total that on the margin the decision to cut down just isn’t worth it. Even if they have they really want to cut down on the amount of leader gas that is consumed, there’s no incentive for them to stop, because it just doesn’t matter. On the other hand, if there was some third party that could enforce everybody to cut down, we’d all be better off.
I think it really depends on how extreme an environmental change we are talking about. I don’t think the laws of economics apply as we know them if say an asteroid was going to hit earth in 3 years.
I don’t know, some people would seem to believe that externalities don’t exist, and that asteroid is somehow going to be included perfectly in the price system.
Is your argument for 1 world government prepared, or do I really need to send you a PM to get the truth about asteroids?
Sure, send me a PM, I’m not sure what answer you think you’re going to get, I already made my point and I don’t think anybody except Sage addressed it adequately. In the meantime can you answer the question I posed to you above?
Is there any study you know of that asks when the environment takes too much of a homeostatic shock to upset economic calculation? Or something along those lines.
I mean would an absolute free market be the system of choice in the middle ages when the bubonic plague spread (much of it, at least for the Byzantine and Persian Empires was caused by trade)? If it was possible to somehow realistically subsidize towards a vaccine, would that be the best course of action?I honestly don’t know the answer to those questions, but I would imagine that somewhere the laws of economics either don’t apply or have to take a back seat. I guess the 1 billion dollar questions are when and how.
Something tells me the “how” is going to be scenario specific. Even then though, I still everyone could agree it would be silly to not keep as much of a market system as possible (flat out central planning would be suicidal).
Lol, I didn’t know I walked into a past debate. Still though, assuming the threat (plague, astroid, bad air, Vanilla Ice comeback tour, whatever) is immediate and severe enough (I’ll let you decide what “immediate” and “severe” means) in current circumstances I don’t think you could advocate as a solution: abolishing government immediately.
Could you imagine a scenario in which an astroid was falling to earth or the black plague was spreading (say in either case extinction is a very real threat) and the govt just abolished itself to free up markets? That would be insanity, and most likely counter productive (to under state my opinion).
I am not saying that a natural anarchy that had been in place for a few decades couldn’t meet the challenge of an asteroid or a plague (perhaps much more efficiently), I am just saying using our current environment (or maybe the Byzantine/Persian environment for the plague example) causing the ancap revolution at that very moment does not seem like a wise decision.
Outlawing a special brand is of course no idea. “Outlawing” should be done by the market - and the only way for Governement to interact here might be to rise taxes on fuel.
I think energy is a very basic question within evolution. The more effective species would survive on the long run. This is right within nature - and this is even right within economics.
So Governement mitht use taxation not just in a way to get money - but also in a way that puts some sort of evolutional pressure in a reasonable direction.
Let´s say it this way: If governement “has to” take taxes - taxation should be in a reasonable way. It´s better to tax consumption than income - because income or just having money has no negative consequences at all. Money does not pollute the air - does not ask for roads and parking lots to be built and kept in good condition.
Nope. Stealing is stealing. Doesnt matter if its out of his pants pocket or jacket pocket.
The point is that the Hummer is what consumers want. If you ban the Hummer, then you’re reducing the overall utility that consumers receive. The same goes with “sin” taxes and bans - e.g. taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and bans on prostitution, marijuana, heroin, etc. By banning/taxing goods and services that consumers want, you’re directly reducing their standards of living.
Also, Rothbard elucidated in Power and Market (I think) how all taxes are ultimately income taxes.
Is that objectively or subjectively “irrelevant?”
Is that objectively or subjectively “worth it?”
Uh, you mean other than that “they really want to cut down…”
I share defnetly your opinion concerning theft. [:)]
But we´re not discussing that question. The point is (sadly enogh) that a bad tax is still better than a worst tax.
The ponint we (libertarians) often neglect is that libertarism would infact be quite ecological. The hyper-exploitation of the worlds resources is a consequence of “money-printing”.
Just have a look on the US. A country where state as well as private persons are consuming on credit. Think about what goods and energy would cost (in relation to the income) if there would just exist reasonable limits for taking credit.
The US would have passed the point of bancruptcy many many years ago. So a big part of the over-consumption the world is suffering from today would never have happened in a reasonable system. Energy and other resources would be much more expencive than they are today.
Today many things are cheap just because it is possible to buy real things with “worthless paper”. Paying with “worthless paper” is like not paying at all. Means that you do not have to work in order to consume. That´s not at all ecological. And that´s not at all according to reasonable market-rules.
What is the point of this nonanswer?
That’s an interesting concept of worthless.
Maybe worthless was the wrong word: It´s an interesting concept of exploitation or slavery.
And this is exactly the reason why “Austrians” would prefer sound Money like Gold. Gold is something you would never easyly borrow away to others just because you do know that it can´t “just be printed” in the case it got lost. You would give away Gold only to people/institutions/enterprises you feel 100% sure that you will get it back.
The whole sub-prime-crisis shows this problem: Banks gave credit to people just the banks understood that in the end the state would just print more money to bail out them.
So the consequence is: People do own houses, cars and many other things that did barely work at all. Hej - this is a situation you otherwise can find in some commie-states. There you can find a Nomenclatura that get´s Goods just because they know how to “clap hands” in the right moments.