Originally posted by Ironduke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Oil is at a 12-year low
Collapse
X
-
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostEverything I've discussed in this thread in regards to environment, pollution, and so on, has to do with negative externalities.
Negative externalities created by you affect me, and you don't have a right to infringe and trample over on my health, life, access to clean air, clean water, and so on.
If you create negative externalities that infringes on the lives and health of others, you should pay costs to mitigate them.
This is not inconsistent with libertarianism. I'm also a civil libertarian, but libertarian generally in outlook as well.
Creators of negative externalities have to pay for them. The basic premise is, it's your responsibility, be accountable for your actions, don't pass the buck on me, don't pour motor oil in my drinking water, or paint thinner that ends up in my iced tea. Quite simple.
Negative externalities can have diffuse origins from the actions of thousands/millions/billions of people. I can't sue an entire metro area's population of 3 million people if I get cancer from something 3 million people did that gave me cancer. They can also be caused by a corporation, or a single individual. In this case you can sue, but you might be dead and your family bankrupt before they settle.
Not getting cancer because of something you did, or dying of thirst because of something you did, or suffering from heat stroke because of something you did, and in general not dying because of something you did, is a civil right.
That's where regulation and taxation enters the picture in a libertarian model. To protect the rights of others against infringement by people each acting in large ways, or small ways on a macro-scale, that in turn harms others in ways that cannot be held to be the responsibility of any definite party, but is of indefinite origin from the mass actions of many people.
The answer here was so obvious, and so common-sense, I can't believe that somebody had to ask.No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Parihaka,
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostYou misunderstand. If Barack Obama is calling himself a civil libertarian, then what he means is international socialist, because that's what he is. He's simply going through another re-branding as the old brand name has become tainted.
It’s plain he isn’t with ISO, since they are opposed to US actions in Syria. They also happen to be Marxist socialists, which Mr Obama is most clearly not. And, if you mean the Socialist International, well that’s an organization of social democratic and socialist parties and since Mr Obama is a member of the Democratic Party, well, … no.Trust me?
I'm an economist!
Comment
-
Originally posted by DOR View PostParihaka,
I get the impression you either don’t know or don’t care what the words you use actually mean. When you say President Obama is an “international socialist,” the two most obvious interpretations are (a) a member of the International Socialist Organization, or (b) a member of Socialism International.
It’s plain he isn’t with ISO, since they are opposed to US actions in Syria. They also happen to be Marxist socialists, which Mr Obama is most clearly not. And, if you mean the Socialist International, well that’s an organization of social democratic and socialist parties and since Mr Obama is a member of the Democratic Party, well, … no.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostThat is where lawsuits enter into the picture, not taxes. Reasonable regulation to prevent uncompensated downstream effects is way different than taxes designed t be hgh enough to pick winners and losers in a social engineering context.
I suppose if you believe that pumping tons of carbon dioxide is great for the Earth, man-made climate change is a good thing, or on the other hand, climate change is not occurring, or half the species on the planet have gone extinct naturally, or the relatively rapid warming of the Earth is the result of solar oscillations and unconnected with CO2 - then you don't see greenhouse gases as an "uncompensated downstream effect". I do.
Who do I sue if a grandparent were to die of heat stroke in a heat wave caused by a global warming related heat wave? Who do I sue if I have a well for my home that goes dry because the water table was depleted by, for the sake of argument, almond orchards? Who do I sue if I were to have a child, that plays in a pond, poisoned by heavy metals because someone dumped a hundred car batteries into it, and whodunnit can never be established? Who do I sue if I get lung cancer from a source of pollution that is too diffuse to point a finger at?
Perhaps we should quintuple the number of lawyers in society and hire private pollution detectives by the tens of millions.
Or we could just make polluters pay upfront for the damage they do. Going after them, after the fact, allows polluters to evade almost all responsibility for all but the most heinous and obvious actions."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostDoktor - if you cause harm to others, you help pay for it.
It's as simple as that.No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostAm not in argument about that, am in argument why there should be a tax for that.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostAm not in argument about that, am in argument why there should be a tax for that."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostBecause all of his arguments are potential events rather than actuals, hence a tax to mitigate against possible future harm to him."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostHe's an internationalist, and a socialist, a globalist. Stepping outside Pol101, what's so difficult to understand?Trust me?
I'm an economist!
Comment
-
Originally posted by DOR View PostAnything in particular in that UN speech that you think was actually "internationalist, socialist and globalist," or was it just the fact that he spoke at the UN?
Obamacare, for example, is perhaps 10% as "socialist" as the healthcare schemes in virtually every developed country are.
New Zealand's health care system is 10x more socialist than Obamacare."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostThere is harm that occurs to people every day as a result of pollution, heavy metals, exposure to toxins, etc. It isn't a "potential" thing that could occur, it is happening, to virtually everybody, everyday.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Originally posted by DOR View PostAnything in particular in that UN speech that you think was actually "internationalist, socialist and globalist," or was it just the fact that he spoke at the UN?In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
Comment