29 Apr 2015

Potpourri

Potpourri, Shameless Self-Promotion 66 Comments

==> Benjamin Zycher has an interesting reaction to a (pro-)carbon tax event that some of his colleagues at AEI recently hosted.

==> My colleagues at IER put together this interesting post on oil and gas production on federal versus other lands.

==> Phil Magness on the alleged misrepresentation of the “Austrian” School.

==> At Mises CA I take on the claim that labor unions gave us the weekend.

==> A man has been released after decades in prison when it turns out the FBI confused a dog hair at the crime scene with his hair.

==> Tom Woods and I talk carbon taxes.

66 Responses to “Potpourri”

  1. Harold says:

    Zycher reveals his bias in section 2 – what is the actual evidence on the effects of GHG emissions? An example – he says he Arctic sea ice cover does not differ by a statistically significant amount from the 1981-2010 average. To see this, the graph he links to shows 2 sd of 1981 to 2010 average, with 2012 and 2015 shown. You will notice that 2015 is well below the 2012 line, but has recently crept back into the 2 sd area. SInce it is within 2sd of the average, there is no evidence of warming. But why is 2012 shown at all? It is because it was the lowest minimum sea ice extent by far, as you will see on Anthony Watts sea ice page http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ Just scroll down one more graph from the one shown by Zycher. You will notice that the 2012 line remains within the 2sd average for the whole of Jan to May, yet ends up with a minimum about half the average, and well outside the 2sd area. This year’s line so far is well below 2012. He has used a crazy measure. One part of one year cannot ever, ever be the arbiter of whether there is a trend. The trend is actually shown a few graphs down: -8.79% per decade for sea ice minimum, and -2.55% per decade for sea ice maximum.

    I believe that any disinterested party looking at the sea ice evidence would conclude that there was a significant and obvious trend over this period. In order to conclude that there was none, one would have to select a particular metric and ignore the most obvious ones. This is exactly what Zycher has done.

    He uses this to support his claim that “the evidence published by government agencies, by research bodies funded by government agencies, and in the peer-reviewed literature does not support that common argument [of evidence being observable and serious].” So either Zycher has been deliberately misleading – by quoting a technically correct fact (that current sea ice coverage is within 2 sd of the mean) which suggests there is no evidence when the trend is obvious. Or he does not know the significance of the selection he has made – i.e. he does not know enough about the area to evaluate whether the evidence for warming is observable and serious.

    • ax123man says:

      Honest question: why do they look at timeframes of just a few decades? Why can’t I say your bias shows here because you are only looking at ice trends since 1979? Isn’t it the case that “ice ages” (which I assume are offset by ‘un-ice ages” have trends that span at least hundreds if not thousands of years?

      • Tel says:

        Plausibly accurate measurement has only been possible with the use of satellites. Even then it measures only ice area, not ice thickness (think about looking down at the pole from above), and there are still arguments over exactly where the ice comes to an edge, given that it breaks up and spreads into bits and pieces (they contour it based on percentage coverage, but then apply other masking functions to exclude land, etc).

        There’s also wind that blows the sea ice around, it can bunch or spread and different direction wind can blow it toward or away from warmer waters.

        Anyone telling you this is a simple cut and dried measurement is also selling you something. The surface temperature of Earth shows features at every known time scale, from the day/night cycle, to the season cycle each year, to the 11 year sunspot cycles and 35 year Bruckner cycles, 1500 year Dansgaard–Oeschger events, and 26,000 and 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles. We also have additional chaotic factors such as ENSO thrown in.

        If I dare to mention Henrik Svensmark (his name will get you deleted from most discussion boards) there could quite likely be extremely long cycle events caused by our sun orbiting the galactic center and moving past the spiral arms of our galaxy (i.e. multi-million year time scale).

        Once upon a time when Edward N. Lorenz was still alive, he offered a large archive of his papers for free download, but that’s hard to find these days. Anyhow, we basically don’t have the mathematical theory to determine a meaningful trend inside chaotic data when energy is present over a very broad band of frequencies… there’s no reason to presume such an answer really exists. Lorentz demonstrated a number of simple chaotic functions that could output this type of broad spectrum time series data, and we know that both the orbital functions and the local weather oscillations are chaotic.

      • Harold says:

        Valid question, but I was not discussing whether the evidence actually supports warming, but the selection of the data he chose to present. He has chosen a metric that disguises rather than reveals the actual trend. If he had said there is a clear trend over the last 2 decades but this does not prove that there is warming, then I would not have been able to make this particular criticism. I can only choose the last few decades because that is what is presented on the WUWT sea ice page.

        • ax123man says:

          The reply from Tel was what I was looking for. I didn’t know the details (and appreciate taking the time to respond), but it’s what I expected, in summary. Now, how many of those throwing themselves into this discussion are saying that the data is chaotic and we can’t conclude anything from it? No, instead everyone feels compelled to take sides and as soon as you do that bias creeps in. The result is that trillion dollar tax policy decisions will be made on meaningless information. And I’m really not sure Bob Murphy or anyone can do much about it, although I appreciate the effort.

          • Harold says:

            “Now, how many of those throwing themselves into this discussion are saying that the data is chaotic and we can’t conclude anything from it?”

            Not too many because it isn’t true. If you want to swallow Tel’s unfounded assertions wholesale it is up to you, but you cannot write off all the evidence just by throwing the words chaos and broad band of frequencies.

            • ax123man says:

              ok, I’ll put it a different way. How many of those throwing themselves into this discussion have even heard of the ideas in Tel’s comment? Of those, how many have thoroughly researched them? Historically the way this has worked is that a few do-gooder, control freaks get together and decide to run everyone’s lives. They trashed the American education system, screwed up our diets, prevented/delayed the prevention of disease across the world,

              With a debate like this, when one side has fear on it’s side, it can “win” debates with catchy slogans and hockey-stick graphs. The other side has to work much harder.

              Enough of that. So where are the refutations from the expects that other cycles are not responsible for the decline in ice? Also, you didn’t answer my question: Why can’t I say your bias shows here because you are only looking at ice trends since 1979? Saying “Sorry, that’s just where the graph started” is pretty lame. It would have been more accurate to say “It looks like Zycher is being misleading here based on the graph that starts in 1979, but we can’t be sure because we need more historic data”.

              • Harold says:

                Sorry, haven’t been back here for a while, so a bit late. “Why can’t I say your bias shows here because you are only looking at ice trends since 1979?”

                Because there is world of difference between “evidence for” and “proves”. The sea ice reduction evidence supports recent AGW, but is not conclusive. The evidence he presents says nothing about warming, yet he claims that because it is within 2sd of the recent average it shows there is no warming. That is refuted by the evidence, and it is not biased to point it out.

                As Tel pointed out, we only have reliable records that go back to satellite era, so 1979 is a reasonable place to start that does not necessarily reveal a bias. I went to WUWT for the data, the best known climate sceptic website. I don’t think that is evidence of bias.

    • Tel says:

      I believe that any disinterested party looking at the sea ice evidence would conclude that there was a significant and obvious trend over this period.

      Possibly a genuinely disinterested party looking at the sea ice evidence would consider both North and South hemispheres… I mean, being disinterested, how would they know which one to completely ignore?

      • Harold says:

        If he had said the global sea ice was such and such, and linked to a graph of total sea ice, then you would have a point, but he did not. That would have required a different response, but I can only respond to what he said. As it was he made lots of comments and linked to lots of things. This was the one that I thought revealed his bias clearly. As I said above, I am not saying that the current trend proves warming, but that his presentation disguised the trend and was misleading.

        “Even then it measures only ice area, not ice thickness” Look further down on WUWT – the Arctic sea ice volume trend is estimated at -3000 km3 per decade.

        “Anyone telling you this is a simple cut and dried measurement is also selling you something. ” This measurement is probably one of the easiest in global warming terms. After all, if you look at the pictures you can see the difference. I have not seen anywhere that the actual measured area is in dispute, nor anyone’s alternative method for measuring sea ice area that shows the area has grown. Whatever the problems in this determination, I think it is grasping at straws to suggest this particular measure is unreliable. Contrast with the ice volume mentioned earlier, which cannot be measured directly and must be estimated using a model.

        • Tel says:

          I quoted exactly what you said, “any disinterested party looking at the sea ice evidence”.

          You were the one who quietly slid across from a specific case to a general statement, I just hauled you up on that.

  2. guest says:

    From the Phillip Magness article:

    “Modern Austrians are not skeptical of government economic interventions because they violate some sacred laissez-faire ideological precept, and they do not gravitate towards classical liberalism from a belief that markets can do no wrong. Rather it is the Austrian concept of subjective value that makes its practitioners deeply skeptical of the efficacy of economic planning. An Austrian predilection for classical liberalism is not the cause of this belief, but is rather its commonly derived consequence.”

    Yes; By definition, you cannot control for – and therefore you cannot centrally plan – subjective values.

    Price controls don’t even control prices – they can only impose costs on revealed preferences:

    Papa John and “Passing On”
    https://mises.org/blog/papa-john-and-passing

    “For the price of a given product is set by the demand schedules of the consumers. There is nothing in higher costs or higher taxes which, per se, increases these sched­ules”

    Instead of using the price information from revealed preferences to peacefully satisfy consumer wants at a profit, central planners penalize profit, itself, not knowing that *all* deliberate actions are profit-seeking (or, economizing) actions and that therefore central planning necessarily destroys the economy.

    I can only get an idea of which trades with which specific people will be peacefully and sustainably profitable to me if the price reflects uncoerced profit-seeking.

  3. Josiah says:

    Let me know if Tom wants to have me on the show to rebut you.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      First let’s make sure you actually disagree with me.

      • Josiah says:

        Bob,

        As you know, being disagreeable is not a skill I lack.

  4. Josiah says:

    I just want to point out something kind of odd.

    At the end of the podcast, Tom asked Bob what the true libertarian solution would be if the standard scientific view of climate change were correct. In response, Bob said that in a Rothbardian system, anyone who would be harmed by man-made global warming could get an injunction stopping people from emitting greenhouse gases. In practice, that would mean that a random guy in Peru could shut down virtually all fossil fuel use overnight, resulting in an economic collapse and hundreds of millions (if not billions) of deaths.

    Note: this is what Bob called the “ideal” solution to the problem.

    Bob then conceded that the ideal system wasn’t going to happen and that we might need a second best solution instead. But he went on criticize a carbon tax as a second best solution on the grounds that it (allegedly) didn’t pass a cost/benefit analysis. But the ideal Rothbardian solution doesn’t pass cost/benefit either! Whatever you think about a $30/ton of CO2 carbon tax, it couldn’t do anywhere near as much damage as the “ideal” solution of an immediate end to using fossil fuels.

    • The Pen is Mightier says:

      “In practice, that would mean that a random guy in Peru could shut down virtually all fossil fuel use overnight, resulting in an economic collapse and hundreds of millions (if not billions) of deaths.”

      That is just laughably absurd. There is no legal precedent for such a thing. Look at the way pollutants were handled in the US legal system in the early/mid 1800s.

      Of course, if you could come up with some kind of precedent for your absurd scenario, we might have some reason to listen to you.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Josiah wrote:

      In response, Bob said that in a Rothbardian system, anyone who would be harmed by man-made global warming could get an injunction stopping people from emitting greenhouse gases.

      No, I absolutely did NOT say that. If you want to say that I did, Josiah, please type out the transcript of the relevant portion. I just listened to it again to see what I said that made you write that, and no, I didn’t say it.

      • Keshav Srinivasan says:

        Bob, here is the quote that I think Josiah is referring to:

        “Rothbard pointed out that no, historically, with the traditions of law that came over from England and so on, a homeowner could go get an injunction against a factory dumping stuff in the river and it was coming onto her backyard or whatever, she could go stop that, and it was governments who said ‘No, we want to promote industrialization’, and so they overturned that stuff. And so they freed major companies from the traditional legal responsibilities and framework that was there all along. ”

        It’s at the 43 minute mark. I think the obvious response to Josiah is that a private judge could tell the factory to compensate the houseowner for her damages, rather than telling the factory to shut down all operations.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Keshav, of course that’s the part Josiah has in mind. Notice you didn’t type out the words:

          “…in a Rothbardian system, anyone who would be harmed by man-made global warming could get an injunction stopping people from emitting greenhouse gases…”

          which is what Josiah said my position was. No, it isn’t.

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            Well, weren’t you making an analogy between how historically courts handled factories dumping chemicals into rivers, and how a Rothbardian system might handle carbon emissions?

          • guest says:

            “… and it was governments who said ‘No, we want to promote industrialization’, and so they overturned that stuff.”

            What’s being said, here is this: “Governments overturned access to injunctions in favor of promoting industrialization by giving businesses a pass.”

            Injunctions are seen as the good approach, while giving businesses a pass is considered the bad one.

            (I disagree that “polluting” the part of the river that’s on your own property makes you responsible for damage that it causes downstream.)

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              “(I disagree that “polluting” the part of the river that’s on your own property makes you responsible for damage that it causes downstream.)” guest, how far are you willing to take this principle? Is it OK to intentionally poison the river in order to kill your neighbor? Is it OK for a factory to emit fumes which are carried by the wind and thereby kill everyone in a 50 mile radius? Is it OK for a factory to do the same thing with the intentionally of killing everyone?

              • guest says:

                “Is it OK for a factory to emit fumes which are carried by the wind and thereby kill everyone in a 50 mile radius?”

                As long as it doesn’t kill any of the factory workers and consumers that the owner makes a profit off of and who probably have to communte to within 50 miles of the factory to get to work – then, yeah.

                Is it OK that your Commie response to such a scenario would kill poor people within a 50 mile radius? (Like what happened to Detroit.)

                After all, there’d still be a “collective” left if THOSE people died; We could stand to lose SOME lives, right?

                “Is it OK for a factory to do the same thing with the intentionally of killing everyone?”

                No. Only if you accidentally killed them with the good intention of forcing people to be a Brotherhood of Man.

                But seriously, intent is important with respect to using your own property (on your own property).

                If your goal is to kill people, then that’s different.

                You’d still have to prove it. How do you know that some jealous guy just wants to accuse rich people of harm so he can steal from them?

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                guest, the ethical system you’re describing doesn’t sound like the standard libertarian position. If you stab someone either by accident or on purpose, that’s a violation of the non-aggression principle, isn’t it? So why does intent not matter in regard to violence committed directly against another individual, but intent does matter in regard to using your own property in a way that leads to someone’s death?

                Also, suppose a factory is about to emit fumes that will kill everyone in a 50 mile radius. If someone living within that radius were to try to sabotage the factory to save his life, would that really violate the non-aggression principle?

              • Harold says:

                Guest, just to clarify your position. If I shoot you from my property that must be OK, as long as my intention was not to kill you. If I were to fire a machine gun from my front yard into the street, that is OK as long as I am doing it because I like the sound of gunfire?

              • guest says:

                ” If I shoot you from my property that must be OK, as long as my intention was not to kill you. If I were to fire a machine gun from my front yard into the street, that is OK as long as I am doing it because I like the sound of gunfire?”

                Firing, per se, is OK, yes. It’s also OK for neighbor.

                But as was mentioned before, you have a right to defend yourself from harm. Using your own resources.

              • guest says:

                It’s also OK for you and your neighbor to operate dangerous wheeled machines in far closer proximity to pedestrians than you are to your neighbor.

              • Harold says:

                “But as was mentioned before, you have a right to defend yourself from harm. Using your own resources.”

                In the shooting case, what right does the neighbour have? He cannot shoot back, because the intention would be to harm the shooter, and I think you ruled out intentional harm. Are you saying that he has the right to dive for cover, or wear a bullet proof vest?

                The matter of directness comes into play here as well. The shooter merely moves his finger which action causes no harm. This movement moves a trigger, releasing a hammer that strikes a cartridge causing a small explosion, that results in expanding gas that displaces the bullet. It is the bullet that then travels and may cause harm. This is an indirect, although entirely predictable, consequence of moving that finger.

              • Josiah says:

                Is it OK that your Commie response to such a scenario would kill poor people within a 50 mile radius?

                I’d just like to point out that you are now referring to Murray Rothbard’s views on this issue as the “Commie response.”

                You should go to your room and think about what you’ve done.

              • guest says:

                “You should go to your room and think about what you’ve done.”

                LOL. You make me miss Ken B.

                I disagree with Rothbard on this one, not that I had his position in mind when I made that comment.

                I was referring to a regulatory response.

                Van Jones:

                “The only thing left for you young folks, next year, is to go back to the EPA and say listen, we tried to pretend that what was going on was a market failure, i.e. we had the price wrong for carbon, the price being zero and now we’re going to pretend like it’s a regulatory failure.”

          • Tel says:

            I’m pretty sure I remember noting last episode that there’s an important difference (which legal systems pay close attention to) between proximate cause (i.e. the factory is right next door and dumping stuff in the river which poisons your livestock) and a long chain of remote cause (i.e CO2 and hurricanes or sea level).

            That’s not to say you can’t get into trouble over a remote cause, but there’s a much better chance for your case. I think the reason is kind of obvious.

            • Harold says:

              Are we assuming that the legal remedies are the optimum ones here? In criminal trials, for example, we prefer to acquit several guilty rather than falsely convict one innocent. That is because we recognise the courts are imperfect. However, I think everyone would agree that a system that convicted all the guilty and only the guilty would be preferable.

              In these civil cases, we prefer a system that only kicks in where fault is clearly definable. But surely everyone agrees that a system that correctly and proportionately assigned blame and extracted the remedy would be preferable. We must not confuse a legal solution with a just, or more importantly an efficient solution.

              Discussion of legal frameworks is interesting, but not the final word on what should be done.

              • Tel says:

                A dictatorial government that always knows exactly what is best for us at all times is the best form of government… but since no such thing exists (other than perhaps God, whose existence is arguable) there isn’t much point in planning your society on those lines.

                What I’m saying here is that by presuming an all knowing homunculus somewhere in the system you can go on to show how wonderful it is… but that assumption does not create the requisite knowledge, nor will anything else you do.

              • Harold says:

                “nor will anything else you do.”
                To a first approximation won’t a Pigovian tax do this? *If* you can asses the level of damage, the correct incentive is applied without the need to coordinate millions of individual legal interactions. It is almost as if there were an “invisible hand” operating.

                There is that “if” in there, but is that your only objection?

              • Tel says:

                Any tax is the application of force, and more force cannot substitute for lack of information.

                You always presum

              • Tel says:

                As I was saying…

                You presume the dictator has both perfect knowledge and honorable intentions. Real world dictators fall short on both.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Tel, it doesn’t require perfect knowledge of markets and human interactions to set the right level of a Pigovian tax, does it?

              • Tel says:

                Well, describe a systematic method to put a price on this so called “externalities” business; such that it doesn’t just come down to some guy’s opinion, and it fairly compensates anyone genuinely harmed by the activity.

                Even a quick outline?

          • Josiah says:

            Bob,

            You are correct that you didn’t say “my ideal solution is to shut down all fossil fuel use immediately, killing billions.” That’s just what would happen if we adopted the Rothbardian solution.

            • Major.Freedom says:

              Nomit isn’t Josiah, you’re still falsely assuming that the collective result of billions of people can rightfully be responded to with force against an individual in Rothbardian principles.

              Nowhere in private property rights protection does it it say or imply that.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Josiah, do you think I believe that a Rothbardian judge would rule that it was a crime to breathe?

      • Harold says:

        I assume this comment is nothing to do with CO2 from non fossil sources. Any CO2 in breath has recently been removed from the atmosphere by the plant you or animal you ate, so there is no net emission. I am not sure what you are aiming at here.

      • Josiah says:

        Josiah, do you think I believe that a Rothbardian judge would rule that it was a crime to breathe?

        No, but then breathing doesn’t cause global warming.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          So according to you, a Rothbardian approach to, say, bank robberies says it’s OK to steal $1000 from the bank teller at gunpoint, so long as you give it back 30 seconds later?

          The problem here Josiah is that the alleged negative externality of AGW is not really like standard property violations. So you are wrong to say, “Ha ha, Bob thinks it should be handled in a perfectly analogous fashion, but these aren’t analogous situations. What a moron.” No, I recognize they are different situations, and just said free market judges giving opinions would lead to a more sensible outcome.

          I have a whole paper I wrote on this; I wasn’t going to try to summarize it in 45 seconds at the end of Tom’s show.

          • Josiah says:

            So according to you, a Rothbardian approach to, say, bank robberies says it’s OK to steal $1000 from the bank teller at gunpoint, so long as you give it back 30 seconds later?

            As I understand the science of it, it’s more like you deposit $1000 to the bank and then withdraw it later (Rothbardians are okay with that, right?”

            The problem here Josiah is that the alleged negative externality of AGW is not really like standard property violations.

            I’ve noticed a bit of a libertarian two-step on this issue. If you ask how a Rothbardian society would deal with global warming (assuming it was a serious problem) they point to the injunctions. But when you point out the damage that would result from an injunction, they say “oh, you wouldn’t be able to get an injunction for CO2.”

            It’s like being offered free towing service, only to find out you aren’t eligible if you live on planet earth.

          • Josiah says:

            BTW, I would be happy to read your paper on this subject (I tried googling but couldn’t find it).

    • Gil says:

      I believe a lawyer for the FF industry would essentially say “pfff, prove it.” In words, for most people the notion that releasing GHGs and harm from climate change is too indirect to be considered harm. Then there’s the Tragedy of the Commons in which no one person released copious amounts of GHGs but everyone releases some hence next no one is blameless.

      • guest says:

        Not that “GHGs” are harmful, but the solution to real Tragedies of the Commons is private property:

        Stossel – ‘The Tragedy Of The Commons’ 12/5/10 1 of 4
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IdzaEiYx5o

        • Gil says:

          Yeah right so some people are going to entrap whole towns and cities under giant domes to privatise the air?

          • guest says:

            I was thinking we could start by trapping whole towns and cities within Convention Centers in order to better COLLECTIVIZE access to food and not-getting-assaulted:

            IN KATRINA’S WAKE
            Sobbing Geraldo:
            Let the people go!
            http://www.wnd.com/2005/09/32149/

            “Over there, there’s hope, over there, there’s electricity, over there, there’s food and water. But you cannot go from there to there. The government will not allow you to do it. It’s a fact.”

            Srsly tho, why wouldn’t there be competing dome-providing companies for those scared that the weather might change?

            Imagine being able to control the climate within your neighborhood-sized dome – and one day, your own house.

        • Harold says:

          There is certainly a strong argument that private property is a solution to the tragedy of the commons. If nothing else, once a thing is owned it is not the commons, so the problem disappears by definition! In this case it would entail ownership of the atmosphere. I can see no mechanism whereby this would occur, so it remains in the realm of fantasy for the moment.

          Indulging in the fantasy for a while, a hypothetical owner of the atmosphere charges a fee to use the atmosphere for breathing, combustion etc, but may have to pay damages for avoidable harm caused by the atmosphere. They will have to balance the extra fee they will get in the future from growers for increasing the CO2 level against charges made against them for damages from warming. I think they will charge a fee for dumping CO2, as the best evidence indicates a net negative effect.

  5. Josiah says:

    That is just laughably absurd. There is no legal precedent for such a thing.

    You need to take this up with Bob and Rothbard, not me. They’re the ones who proposed this as a solution.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Unfortunately, Rothbard didn’t think you could use force to stop someone from misrepresenting your position to others.

      • Gil says:

        Remember Walter Block’s story of washer women who took railroad companies to court and eventually forced them to change to a cleaner, more expensive coal?

    • The Pen is Mightier says:

      Josiah,

      Have you ever heard of the fallacy of the straw man? You really should look it up.

  6. Bob Murphy says:

    In case you’re baffled Josiah, try this:

    TOM: Bob, what would a free market in roads look like? Would we have to pay tolls every 2 miles? Would there be nothing but billboards?

    BOB: Well, I like to cite Rothbard here, who pointed out that if we were advising the Soviet government on food privatization, it wouldn’t be our job to predict how many grocery stores there would be on each corner. But the general principles of free entry and competition would ensure better roads at lower prices.

    JOSIAH: I want to point out something interesting. Bob said that the Rothbardian solution to interstate highways is to have Kroger build coolers full of milk and beer. Does anyone else think that’s weird?

  7. Major.Freedom says:

    Josiah,

    The standard Rothbardian position on property rights violations has the incredibly important caveat that an individual’s activity must have a demonstrably destructive direct effect on another individual’s person or property.

    Carbon dioxide is not a poisonous chemical the release of which directly harms other people’s property. There is an implicit presumption on your part that individual molecules of CO2 released by one individual in the US, is destroying the property of someone in Peru. Well, where is the evidence of that? No, saying that the combined effect of literally everyone on the planet is warming the Earth to some positive degree, does NOT constitute a destruction by one identifiable individual against another.

    You are presuming that the combined effect of everyone on the planet is rightfully responded to by targeting certain individuals for retribution, and in your socialist ideology it always takes the form of some people using force against some other people. As if statesmen themselves do not breathe and emit CO2.

    Your principles are flawed, not Rothbard’s, on this one.

    If everyone emitting CO2 is justification for targeting certain individuals for retribution, then you must support Bob imposing his own taxation on say President Obama and his entire administration, and everyone else in the state. But oh no! Your gut says something is wrong with that! Can’t have the state being taxed. No, if everyone emits CO2, then the only individuals who must pay are the taxpayers, and those supported by taxation can emit CO2 to their heart’s content, because after all, “somebody” is being sacrificed and “paying their share” to “society”.

    You know, I would very much like for you to participate in a dialogue with Woods and Murphy, because rather than ” debuting” them, you’ll clearly make a fool of yourself for pushing your flawed “logic” masquerading as sound judgment.

    • Major.Freedom says:

      To clarify for others, if the combined effect of literally everyone on the planet is to change the Earth’s climate, then the change in climate must be regarded as an act of nature, and just like heat waves or long winters, must be dealt with without people shooting at each other out of some warped worldview of ethics that sacrifices individuals to the collective.

      Josiah, your ethics are disgusting. Built on a foundation of fear, constructed by sacrificing individuals, and sold with shysterism.

      Nobody should be made slave to your inability to live without fear.

      • Harold says:

        “an individual’s activity must have a demonstrably destructive direct effect on another individual’s person or property.”

        This is all very well, but there are such things as firms, for example. Coase explained why this is so. After all, in a perfect market, all transactions would be between individuals and there would be no need of firms. Need a pallet shifting? Offer increasing amounts to do it and the best suited fork lift driver will come and do it. That would only happen if there were no transaction costs. The real transaction costs that exist in the world mean that the overall efficiency is higher if firms exist, which reduces transaction costs. This alone means that we cannot work entirely on the level of the individual. The actions of a firm are not due to a single individual’s action. We deal with this by treating the firm as an entity. We say the steel mill emits pollution, not that Fred Bloggs does so.

        So do we have to revise that, and assign responsibility in each case to the one individual who’s action directly led to the harm? Is it the person who puts fuel in the boiler? The person who wrote the operating procedure? The person who employed the person who wrote the operating procedure? The CEO? The owner (if there were just one owner)? Even in the case of a single owner, we would have to show that the *owner’s* activity had a demonstrably destructive*direct* effect on another individual’s person or property. Under this system, as long as you can spread responsibility thinly enough there can never be redress. That system will not work efficiently.

        “To clarify for others, if the combined effect of literally everyone on the planet is to change the Earth’s climate, then the change in climate must be regarded as an act of nature”

        I disagree. Nature is usually defined as everything that is not controlled by man. If it is caused by the actions of man (rather than by the mere existence of man) it is not an act of nature. If we accept humans as part of nature, then everything they do is an act of nature. That is totally unhelpful except to differentiate the natural from the supernatural, which is not the intention here.

        What if one person is responsible for 99.99999% of the effect, but everybody else contributed the rest between them? The result would be due to the combined effect of everyone on the planet, but would not be considered an act of nature. Your characterisation does not make sense. Remember (as I said earlier) breathing does not contribute to CO2 emissions, so everyone on the planet does not contribute to climate change as a result of living, only as a result of their behaviour.

        “You are presuming that the combined effect of everyone on the planet is rightfully responded to by targeting certain individuals for retribution” People have criticised Josiah for misrepresenting RPM, but this is worse. Josiah did not say this or anything like it. He said that Bob had said that. Bob disagrees, and given that this was conversation I think we have to give a little more leeway than with the written word.
        Bob said “a homeowner could go get an injunction against a factory dumping stuff in the river and it was coming onto her backyard or whatever, she could go stop that” Taken at face value this seems to say that she could get an injunction to stop the pollution. In a wider context, we can probably agree that it is also possible that she could get compensation for the harm and the pollution could continue, and this would be included in what Bob meant..

        However, the same problem arises as with the firm. In an ideal market, the person could sue the polluter as Bob describes. But, just as with an employer wanting to shift a pallet, the transaction costs become huge if dealing at an individual level. There are multiple polluters and victims. It is not just Government that stops these individual injunctions happening, it is impossible even in an unfettered market. We can no more expect the “efficient” outcome than we can expect all work to take place without any organisation.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          “This is all very well, but there are such things as firms, for example. Coase explained why this is so.”

          Firms are contracts between individuals. Nothing changes to the principle.

          “After all, in a perfect market all transactions would be between individuals and there would be no need of firms.”

          Firms are nothing but individuals contracting private property. You seem to be suggesting that firms would still would exist if individuals did not.

          There is no “but” when you include individuals contracting with each other. Equally as importantly, an absence of contracts also delineates right and wrong behavior. The absence or presence of contrcts is precisely how problems of pollution are solved.

          If you contracted to use or buy a piece of land beside me, and the air around you has warmed 0.001% because of what everyone in the world has done, you have to prove that the molecules of CO2 I am creating are harming your person or property. As far as I know, there has never been any scientific evidence that my breathing is harming you.

          “Need a pallet shifting? Offer increasing amounts to do it and the best suited fork lift driver will come and do it. That would only happen if there were no transaction costs. The real transaction costs that exist in the world mean that the overall efficiency is higher if firms exist, which reduces transaction costs. This alone means that we cannot work entirely on the level of the individual. The actions of a firm are not due to a single individual’s action. We deal with this by treating the firm as an entity. We say the steel mill emits pollution, not that Fred Bloggs does so.”

          No, we say that this list of specific individual owners of firm X have used their property in such a way that their actions have caused chemical Y to be created.

          “I disagree. Nature is usually defined as everything that is not controlled by man.”

          But you’re critiquing my principles. Therefore you have to critique it by addressing what it is saying, rather than claiming it is wrong because you don’t like the definitions.

          In praxeology, references to “man” and “mankind” are always supposed to be understood as references to individuals.

          If you cannot even in principle identify the individuals who are responsible for the Earth’s climate rising 0.5% degrees, then by the definition of individual action distinguished from all other phenomena, yes the increase in temperature is indeed a natural phenomenon.

          You have the burden of proof that what I do is causing you harm.

          How are the specific molecules of CO2 I am exhaling causing you harm to your person or property? Make a case.

          “What if one person is responsible for 99.99999% of the effect, but everybody else contributed the rest between them?”

          If you can show that any one of those other individuals is causing harm to your person and property, then you have a case. If not, then you don’t. So explain how any one of those other individuals is causing you harm by what they are doing.

          “The result would be due to the combined effect of everyone on the planet, but would not be considered an act of nature. Your characterisation does not make sense.”

          No, yours doesn’t make sense. You are blaming individuals for alleged harm to your person or property that you have not even bothered to show the proof even in principle, let alone an actual case which is what these thought experiments are supposed to help with.

          ” Remember (as I said earlier) breathing does not contribute to CO2 emissions, so everyone on the planet does not contribute to climate change as a result of living, only as a result of their behaviour.”

          Breathing actually does generate CO2. It therefore contributes to CO2 emissions.

          If there are other phenomena in the world that reduce CO2, that does not imply I am not contributing to CO2.

          You can’t even identify any individuals who are causing you harm by way of CO2.

          “You are presuming that the combined effect of everyone on the planet is rightfully responded to by targeting certain individuals for retribution”

          “Josiah did not say this or anything like it. He said that Bob had said that.”

          No, Josiah only said Bob is saying that because Josiah himself can’t help but think that.

          Bob never said that.

          It is because that is how Josiah thinks that he believes Bob said that.

          That is why I said Josiah is presuming that. He presumes it, so when Bob talks about Rothbardian responses to property destruction, Josiah can’t help but believe that blaming individuals for CO2 is also present in Rothbardian principles.

          “Bob said “a homeowner could go get an injunction against a factory dumping stuff in the river and it was coming onto her backyard or whatever, she could go stop that” Taken at face value this seems to say that she could get an injunction to stop the pollution.”

          That is because specific individuals can be identified as those who caused harm to the other guy’s property. Bob is saying that Rothbardian principles allow for injunctions against individual aggression.

          Josiah, because he wants to blame individuals for CO2, then thought that Bob per Rothbard accept the same thing.

          “However, the same problem arises as with the firm. In an ideal market, the person could sue the polluter as Bob describes. But, just as with an employer wanting to shift a pallet, the transaction costs become huge if dealing at an individual level. There are multiple polluters and victims.”

          Ah so you do understand that it is individuals, not contracts abstracted from individuals, who act and either respect property rights or violate the property rights of others.

          “It is not just Government that stops these individual injunctions happening, it is impossible even in an unfettered market. We can no more expect the “efficient” outcome than we can expect all work to take place without any organisation.”

          Still individuals.

  8. Josiah says:

    Bob,

    Rothbard’s position on pollution was as follows:

    The remedy is simply for the courts to return to their function of defending person and property rights against invasion, and therefore to enjoin anyone from injecting pollutants into the air.

    Either this remedy (enjoining all emissions) would apply to greenhouse gases, or it would not. If it did, then you’d have to shut down all fossil fuel use immediately. If it did not, then it isn’t a solution to global warming, is it?

    • ax123man says:

      Does that comment really capture the complete position? I would assume Rothbard is ok with a private property owner leasing his land to be used as a land fill. The air over our heads is obviously a more complicated scenario, but I’m not sure it’s unsolvable. It’s going to get a little weird and would involve some interesting contractual arrangements. Perhaps all land property owners band together to sell some kind of rights in large tracts over their houses. The owners of those tracts would negotiate payments made for pollutants. Those pollutants can’t be tracked to 100% accuracy but probably well enough to enforce the contracts. It seems to me it sounds a little crazy only because we don’t do this today.

      • Harold says:

        “Perhaps all land property owners band together to sell some kind of rights in large tracts over their houses…it sounds a little crazy only because we don’t do this today.”

        Not just today, there is nothing to suggest to getting all landowners to agree on this would ever be possible.

    • Major.Freedom says:

      CO2 is not a pollutant.

  9. Josiah says:

    Perhaps all land property owners band together to sell some kind of rights in large tracts over their houses.

    The problem with trying to contract around the violation with global warming is that there are billions of emitters and billions of people affected. So the transaction costs of securing the necessary permissions are way too high.

Leave a Reply to ax123man

Cancel Reply