19
May
2015
Potpourri
==> Richard Ebeling is not a fan of stimulus spending.
==> A funny comic on physics envy.
==> Remember everyone, I only troll Steve Landsburg because I care.
==> I am the prosecutor putting the Fed on (mock) trial at FreedomFest this year.
==> Rob Bradley on Ken Green’s road to conversion on the carbon tax issue.
==> Zach Slayback has been writing on “The Remnant” as an alternative to “the movement” philosophy.
The XKCD comic is spot on. On a related note, Don Boudreaux recently wrote in a post on Cafe Hayek that econ is a lot more like biology than physics. http://cafehayek.com/2015/05/the-economic-way-of-asking-questions.html
What is the correct libertarian verdict in the photon trespass case?
If I give you all the answers you’ll never learn to think for yourself.
Okay, I’ll give the answer: the true libertarian verdict is to order the neighbor to stop using her iPhone, WiFi connection, dimmer switches, and fluorescent bulbs.
I can see how it would be awkward for a libertarian to admit that this is what their principles require, but that’s the answer.
Libertarian Position: Other people can’t invade your property rights.
Issue: Does an iPhone owner have the right to use his phone, or does his neighbor have the right to be free from all photons?
All Reasonable People: Hmm that’s a tough question that just about every theory of justice would have to deal with.
Landsburg and Josiah: Libertarians are stupid!
Bob, Mr Fistinberg can show how the photons are harming him and can identify his neighbors specific photons in a lineup.
What about the sun’s photons?
Is this case being tried in libertopia? Or the USA?
Bob,
I don’t agree that all reasonable people view this as a tough question. Almost everyone would say that of course you have the right to use your iPhone and if your neighbor objects to the photons from it hitting her that’s too bad.
It’s only a tough question for (certain types of) libertarians because their principles are leading them to the absurd result of siding with the anti-photon lady.
Yes, it’s a tough question Josiah when you try to explain your answer. A judge can’t just say, “Get outta my courtroom,” s/he has to explain the ruling. And then when you try to do that, you run into serious problems, as Landsburg’s post demonstrated.
Bob,
Here is the court decision. The relevant discussion is on pages 8-10.
The cases doesn’t seem to have given the judges much trouble in Theory of Justice terms (it did get bogged down procedurally, sadly). Of course these judges weren’t applying libertarian theory.
From the judgement “In a toxic tort case, where the plaintiff seeks to establish injury as a result of exposure to a harmful substance, including radiation, the plaintiff is required to prove both general and specific causation”
This case is all about whether the photons caused any actual harm. As such it sheds very little light on the “pure” libertarian issue of whether a property owner has the right to prevent all trespass, including photonic trespass.
Harold,
The court wasn’t attempting to apply pure libertarian principles. If it had, then it would have had to rule in favor of the anti-photon lady, because under pure libertarian principles you have an absolute right not to have your property invaded against your will.
Of course Bob doesn’t want to actually admit this, not only because it would make him look silly in this case but because the principle would also give a handful of hippies the ability to shut down all industrial activity on the planet. Hence his repeated attempts at tu quoque.
Josiah wrote:
because under pure libertarian principles you have an absolute right not to have your property invaded against your will.
Wait a minute Josiah… You’re saying you *do* think in a just society, people every day have their property invaded against their wills?
I don’t think that’s how most people would describe it. I think they would say, “Your ownership of your house doesn’t include the right to be free from photons from your neighbor.”
If you rent a hotel room, you don’t get to put in new carpet. The explanation would be, “You weren’t purchasing the right to do that.” It wouldn’t be, “When you rent a hotel room, you don’t have an absolute right to your property.”
“… because under pure libertarian principles you have an absolute right not to have your property invaded against your will.”
And since your will favors photons entering your property, as is evidenced by your lack of concern over photons from the sun, no violation has taken place from your neighbor’s use of his iPhone.
Turn your whole house into a dark room, if you’re concerned about photons.
You’re saying you *do* think in a just society, people every day have their property invaded against their wills?
Almost no one cares about photons from their neighbor’s wifi invading their house, so it’s not against their will. But even if someone does object you can still do it.
If you want to describe that as “home ownership doesn’t include the right to be free of photons” that’s just a matter of semantics.
Josiah wrote:
If you want to describe that as “home ownership doesn’t include the right to be free of photons” that’s just a matter of semantics.
Phew! I thought for a second we had a serious disagreement.
Look Josiah I’m 50% trolling you and 50% being serious. This has nothing to do with advanced technology. Back when John Locke was talking about homesteading, does building a fence around a virgin plot of forest land give me the right to be free from gravitational forces from my neighbor’s massive horse? People knew about Newton back then. [UPDATE: I double-checked to see if Newton published before Locke, and it looks like I came in just under the write by 2 years. Phew! But more generally what I meant was, the classical liberal thinkers relying on John Locke knew about the Newtonian view of the universe. So these problems about photons etc. aren’t a modern thing invented by David Friedman using quantum theory; these issues would have existed back then. Since none of the common law judges thought of saying someone in London could get an injunction against someone in Africa for accelerating him, I think it’s safe to say a Rothbardian judge wouldn’t either.]
Bob,
See below for my answer.
You have not shown it is absurd.
Gosh, I remember there was this guy called Ronald Coase and he had this theorem saying he could prove it didn’t matter either way, and your photon question isn’t even important (providing the law is consistent). Something about property rights being transferable provided transaction costs are low.
He got a prize n stuff, it was kind of a big thing back in the day.
If it’s any consolation I vote with common sense: of course it can’t be arbitrary either way. That would be ridiculous right? I think Coase Theorem is a load of cobblers just like you do.
Gosh, I remember there was this guy called Ronald Coase and he had this theorem saying he could prove it didn’t matter either way, and your photon question isn’t even important (providing the law is consistent).
You are misremembering.
Josiah,
Actually, what libertarian principles imply is that the person must cease sending photons into the property territory of the other guy. Not that he must cease producing photons altogether.
Also, the other guy would be subject to the same restrictions, so if the other guy makes a claim and calls for the ending of photons being sent into his property territory, then the first guy would be able to make the same claim and call for the other guy to stop sending photons into his, the first guy’s, property.
While the principle of nonaggression is absolute in libertarianism, this does not necessarily imply that victims SHOULD seek restitution, only that they have a right to, and of course be subject to the same principle of nonaggression.
So, a possible SOLUTION, that retains the notion that there are actual victims here, is for each party to at minimum practise what they preach, and then if they realize that being handed to them a non-libertarian history and structure of property has made it very very difficult for them to not only claim protection under the NAP, but also be subject to it themselves, it is reasonable to assume that one possible solution could be “Seeing as how the NAP demands both of us to refrain from sending photons into the other person’s property, and seeing as how you as claimant would also find it by the circumstances of the case very very difficult to cease sending photons into my property, why don’t we first find out if the photons we are each sending each other actually causes harm, or a prevention from you enjoying your property?”
Then, “If we can’t agree on the science, then we each owe each other restitution. I pay you and you pay me, and it’s a wash.”
Or, “If you make a claim against me, then I will make the same claim against you. Are you sure you want to be subject to the same NAP in practise at this particular time when most people have not structured buildings and even their bodies, to be perfect black bodies that emit no photons?”
Josiah, it is one thing to say you have found what seems to be a concerning aspect of libertarian theory. It is quite another to believe that this identification in and of itself constitutes an intellectual refutation or internal inconsistency.
Have you noticed that some of the most brilliant thinkers who understand libertarian theory very well, such as David Friedman, have all “refuted” absolutist libertarian theory on the grounds that it would be an inconvenience? That the cost would be too high? That they don’t want a drastic change with how we produce things and how we go about dealing with each other?
Nowhere have they pointed out an internal inconsistency proper. They are injecting their own value systems and basically saying they want to keep emitting photons into other people’s property, regardless of their consent. In other words, they say “You ought to take it, you should not be able to stop me from sending photons into your property.”
You talk about how you “can see how it would be awkward for a libertarian to admit”, but there is nothing to admit or be ashamed of. This is the NAP. Abide by it or not, but this is the best most consistent ethics there is.
The slippery slope to consequentialism is really just an ex-post justification for people to disregard the NAP because they don’t like where it leads for themselves. Well, nobody is forcing you to exercise your libertarian right to no unwanted radiation caused by others. Just don’t force others to live by your ethic. Live any way you want, just don’t tread on others.
This is not difficult to grasp.
If you don’t like it that absolutist NAP as practised would drastically change the way people live, then you have not refuted it. All you have done is chosen to violate it, and are willing to face the consequences, which in the current circumstances with photons, is not very much to your detriment, which is why you say ” awkward”.
So, what you’re saying is that ugly people should stop emitting photons?
So can one guy with no electronic devices make all those around him turn off theirs? He is practising what he preaches. Or some guy can prevent his neighbor from using any particular photon emitting device he does not himself use?
I do not see a vague hope that everyone will just agree not to pursue actions lest they be subject to them also is a solution.
I think most people simply accept a mild form of consequentialism -if the photons cause no harm, they should not be actionable. Dare I suggest that most who call themselves libertarians are already on this slippery slope?
This does not refute libertarianism, but it does demonstrate that a system that takes absolutely no heed of consequences has no remedy if those consequences turn out to be undesirable.
He’s still emitting photons in tha he is alive and warm.
To be more precise, he is not emitting photons of the same energy as from a wifi device, so by MF reckoning he is entitled to demand none enter his property..
Remember how the biologists claimed credit for all those people saved from diseases? Most of that was thanks to sewage disposal and clean water supply, done by engineers.
And the people who were saved ? They voted for the government that ordered those physicists to build bombs… just pointing that out. Big picture folks.
Anyhow as usual XKCD gets critical details wrong… physics is not just applied maths, physics is math plus units which seems to be astoundingly difficult to explain to economists who want to be like physicists, but aren’t interested in learning about units (also difficult to explain to comics, but at least you can imagine rational reasons why the comic doesn’t care).
Tel,
I had an engineer for a room mate back in college, but I fail to fully understand your point about units. Can you explain further or point me to something you or someone else has written on the subject?
Much obliged.
Math will tell you that 1+1 = 2 but show me a “1” or a “2” walking down the street. Numbers are abstract, you need to relate to real things somehow if you want to connect what you are doing into the world of stuff that you live in.
The standard convention for doing this is to construct a bunch of algebraic place holders that serve the purpose of containing a little piece of the universe in your equation. Thus you can multiply the abstract number 2 by the unit “a foot” to get an answer that is “2 feet long”. NB: the answer is not “2”, the answer is “2 feet”, which is a length, not a number.
This may in some ways sound like the bleeding obvious, but there’s a subtle algebra of units that has a sense of it’s own. For example, an equation must balance in order to be true, but a physical equation must balance both numerically and also balance as units at the same time. If your units don’t balance then your equation cannot be true to the physical world.
If you multiply a foot (i.e. length) by another foot, you get a square foot (i.e. area). Multiply by another foot again you get a cubic foot (i.e. volume). An equation with volume on one side and area on the other side does not balance and is therefore meaningless regardless of what the numbers are doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
That’s probably a good place to start, it has notes about economics as well.
I agree very much about units. At school I thought they were just an awkward add -on. I felt cheated if an answer was marked wrong because I had left off the units, but Tel is right, the answer is 2 ft, not just 2.
Units are helpful. We all know speed is measured in miles/hour. That tells you that to calculate speed you divide distance by time. It seems obvious, but checking the units are great short cut to the calculation needed. If I have inadvertently divided time by distance, my units of hours/mile do not make sense.
Tel,
Thanks for the discussion and link. I believe Roger Garrison at Auburn (who has a background in engineering from the U of Missouri) has written some on this issue.
I might also point out that biology is chemistry plus the theory of evolution. That is to say, biology is a subset of chemistry… that being self reproducing chemistry… a kind of special subset. It’s very unlikely a pure mathematician would ever grasp the importance of self reproduction and evolution without a biological example to demonstrate. Of course, once the concept is understood, mathematical models can be constructed, but I think we are a long way away from having and real working model in this regard. Very limited models, yes.
Never wanted to be part of a movement. A movement, as I understand, is something that you flush. This seems to be where the Libertarian Movement is heading. I am the remnant. Although I’m not sure if I identify with carpet scraps, it is close enough.
Will the Fed’s defense attorney be Sumner?
“Stiglitz goes on to say, “The contention that people at the top are the job creators and, if you tax them at higher rates, they won’t create jobs is nonsense. The fact is there is talented entrepreneurs at all levels of the U.S. economy. Whenever there is demand, jobs get created and entrepreneurship flourishes.”
-Just like in 1980s Mexico, 1990s Russia, and 2000s Zimbabwe!
When your typical progressive says “demand”, s/he doesn’t mean “demand”. S/he means “government-created fairy dust”.
the most bestest science debate has many facets, sometimes “purity” is convoluted with immediate real-world applicability, the ill-defined metrics mull the debate somewhat…
extending tel’s comment above:
https://youtu.be/GBGEyNbF-Hk?t=14s
…but at the end of the day for the biology-physics question, physics can still at least salvage the point that biology’s successes must acknowledge the critical role physics plays in the field of biology: thinning the field early by giving a large percentage their first ‘b’ in physics 101…goodbye 4.0 and dreams of top medical school 🙂
Back when John Locke was talking about homesteading, does building a fence around a virgin plot of forest land give me the right to be free from gravitational forces from my neighbor’s massive horse? People knew about Newton back then.
As I understand it, Locke thought it was okay for the state to set rules regulating property, so I’m sure that he’d be fine with just telling the anti-photon lady to go pound sand.
Of course, Locke also thought that the state was legitimate, that taxes weren’t theft, etc. Rothbard had no use for such half measures; he was an absolutist, which is why IMO his principles lead to so many absurd results.
Why is the pursuit of consistency absurd?
Picking and choosing when laws apply to you and not others isn’t *better* than absolutism.
On what basis, then, should an absolutist concede to what you might consider “practical”? Or vice versa?
As soon as you pick a basis, it becomes absolutist.
Why is the pursuit of consistency absurd?
The pursuit of consistency itself isn’t absurd. It’s a foolish consistency that’s the hobgoblin of little minds.
What’s a “foolish consistency?” Let’s say you adopt a simplistic principle. The principle sounds good in the abstract, as simplistic principles often do. However, it turns out that the principle implies a bunch of crazy stuff. Faced with this situation, you had a couple of options:
1) you can say “if the principle leads to this, then maybe it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.” Or
2) you can say “if the principle requires this then this must not really be crazy.
3) I suppose as a third option you could just try to avoid facing up to what the principle requires.
Option 1 isn’t always the best option, but I would submit that when it comes to Rothbardiasm the refusal to use option one has led some people to some pretty dark places.
If I have followed the arguments, MF adopts option 2 when he says “If you don’t like it that absolutist NAP as practised would drastically change the way people live, then you have not refuted it. All you have done is chosen to violate it, and are willing to face the consequences.”
Harold,
I stopped reading Major Freedom’s comments years ago, so I wouldn’t know. That does sound like the sort of position he’d take, though.
” I think they would say, “Your ownership of your house doesn’t include the right to be free from photons from your neighbor.””
What do they base this on? From the judgement Josiah linked to, the plaintiff offered $10,000 for the neighbor to stop using the devices. Would most people say that home ownership does not include the right to be free of invasion onto your property that you value at $10,000? No, presumably they would say that home ownership does not include your right to prevent something that I don’t value.
When you rent a hotel room, the conditions are part of the agreement. Anyone buying a property now that has in the contract that you will not seek to prevent photons from your neighbor would have a choice whether to accept that. Mr Firstenberg would presumably not have accepted such a clause, and would seek other property. If he could find none, then he may be forced to accept it.
There does exist a solution if such a clause is included in all property transfers from now on, but until then it seems that strict libertarianism has a problem.
In other news, check out this hilarious attempt by the office of the director of national intelligence to associate anti imperialist books with “DAT OSAMA”:
http://www.dni.gov/index.php/resources/bin-laden-bookshelf?start=3
On Rob Bradley – he explains why a carbon tax is a bad idea: “If $4-per-gallon gas won’t reduce consumer demand, how is adding another 10 cents, 50 cents, or dollar going to do so? Low carbon taxes won’t have a significant effect, and high carbon taxes won’t retain political support long enough to provide environmental benefits. That’s not surprising: Houses, cars, and energy-consuming appliances are long-term investments that can’t easily be changed when fuel prices fluctuate. Jobs are also not abandoned lightly, so commuting distances aren’t easily adjusted.” Isn’t this sounding a bit like sticky wages arguments people make for a minimum wage?