You call this capitalism?
Here is a huge piece in City Journal by Guy Sorman, the ostensible purpose of which is to herald the triumph of markets over socialism. He tells us that economics teaches this. Fair enough. But once you get into the article, you will find support for pollution trading permits, US imperial patrol of seas, central banking, bailouts of failing banks, patents, limited welfare, restrictions on insider trading, forced transparency rules, and a host of other interventions slyly mentioned in passing as somehow essential to markets. If this person were writing in say 1900, he would be considered a more socialist than capitalist in his thought, since his tendency is support every institution that was born of a market failure argument. Hey, I'm glad he is against wholesale nationalization but that's about all that can be said for this disguised treatise on behalf of the interventionist social-democratic state. If this writer ever confronted a real supporter of the market, he would probably recoil in horror and start talking like a post-Marxist: dog eat dog, the jungle, survivalist of the fittest, and all that.
Comments (38)
support for pollution trading permits
Yes, what a dastardly stupid idea, which contrasts with the OBVIOUSLY correct libertarian one that totally avoids such absurdities as saying that all pollution is strictly forbidden on pain of violence or that all pollution whatsoever must be prohibited if any detectable amount ever reaches any unconsenting person's property.
Remind me what that libertarian policy is?
Published: July 27, 2008 10:54 PM
Libertarian policy:
GTFO of my life. Carbon taxes and especially "cap and trade" programs will harm our economy more than the benefits we will receive from reduced carbon emissions.
We're only a few years down the road from a discovery that could significantly reduce carbon emissions. The fact that environuts want to hurt the economy even more than they have just for these few years irks me to no end.
Published: July 27, 2008 11:03 PM
Krazy Kaju - Person is right, libertarian policy is very unclear about how to handle pollution. If you have air rights, you can completely prevent pollution, right? This would be a lot more harmful (the complete removal of all pollution) than reduced carbon emissions.
I've struggled with this issue a lot - what is the libertarian solution to pollution? It's obviously not let anyone pollute as much as they want, as that harms the property of others. But having full rights to one's property, air rights, would make pollution impermissible if just one person with property opposed it.
Published: July 28, 2008 1:36 AM
Outside of the twenty or so people at the Mises Institute, how many people actually consider capitalism to be free market?
Published: July 28, 2008 1:54 AM
"But having full rights to one's property, air rights, would make pollution impermissible if just one person with property opposed it."
I'm nitpicking here, but this really doesn't refute the property rights approach to managing pollution. It only states that moving from the current non-ownership of air to private ownership would disrupt industries which were built around non-ownership. Had property rights been applied from the get-go, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Published: July 28, 2008 2:00 AM
Hello Niccolo,
fortunately there are quite enough people that consider "the capitalistic bundle" (i.e. free markets + rule of law + investment of savings into future production instead of consumption) the best recipe for how to handle division of labor in the society.
The question is if anyone can come up with a better plan. With what history teaches us about slavery, feudalism, socialism, fascism and other -isms, "capitalistic bundle" is the clear winner. Or to put it otherwise: "For every so-called "market failure" there is at least one intervention that caused it."
Published: July 28, 2008 3:02 AM
Jeremy said:Krazy Kaju - Person is right, libertarian policy is very unclear about how to handle pollution.
Response: Id be interested to know what 'libertarian policy' is. Here I was under the impression that the aim is an ABSENCE of policy.
Ireland said:
fortunately there are quite enough people that consider "the capitalistic bundle" (i.e. free markets + rule of law + investment of savings into future production instead of consumption) the best recipe for how to handle division of labor in the society.
Once again, let me declare that I think we should jettison the label 'capitalism'. Its too hard to explain what WE mean by capitalism, as distinct from what Leftists mean by the same term ( they dont distinguish State/private the same way as we do - they see the Fed for example as the engine room and crony of western capitalism, while we see it as the grandaddy of all interventionisms doibng incalcul;able harm, and hence profoundly opposed to free market principles. So the term invites mistaken identity on a massive scale.
Labelling the statist/corporatist /interventionist/protectionist nexus as Capitalism, correctly fingers the villain imo, and makes a much better starting point for enlightening the ignorant or misled in the public debate. This is where we are alway as a disadvantage, because as good as our scholarship is, it doesn't do TV well....our long-chained reasoning requires more than a soundbite or a ride on the back of the emotional issue du jour to resonate in Joe Public's mind.
And wouldn't it be great to be able to open an argument with a Leftist anti-capitalist with 'Oh yes we agree with you - capitalists trample all over our market freedoms in a hundred different ways, Here's why......All the evils of Capitalism are the direct result of state intervention on behalf of vested corporatist interests, and at the expense of others, not least the consumer. We don't like Wal-mart's arrogant use of 'eminent domain' any more than you do.... And as for those evil pharma companies with their synthetic IP 'rights' and legislation protecting their unfair advantages, well, you might be surprised to find that we dont like what they are doing either. BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL PERVERSIONS OF A FREE MARKET.
Now, ain't that common starting ground gonna set the tone for winning more hearts and minds?
Published: July 28, 2008 4:58 AM
Sounds good, I'll keep that in mind for the next time I start a debate lol.
Published: July 28, 2008 5:42 AM
Sounds good, I'll keep that in mind for the next time I start a debate lol.
Published: July 28, 2008 5:43 AM
*agrees with David Ch*
*boinks the state-capitalists*
:)
Published: July 28, 2008 7:14 AM
While I sympathize with the frustration over the popular definition of capitalism, I don't see that "free markets" is much better. The same socialists who changed the definition of socialism have also changed the definition of "free market" to mean lawless anarchy, as in Russia after the collapse of the USSR.
The fact is that socialists dominate the media and therefore determine definitions. Any term you come up with to describe libertarian economics, the socialist media will twist, distort, torture and eventually make it mean the opposite of what you intended. This is reality until more libertarians work in the media. Meanwhile, there is nothing left to do but insist on defining terms.
Published: July 28, 2008 8:02 AM
I think the most common libertarian position on air pollution is to let property rights do the work.
Published: July 28, 2008 8:08 AM
I agree with fundamentalist. The libertarian approach to dealing with pollution should be pretty simple. If A's pollution of the atmosphere negatively impacts B or his property, B can sue A for damages. The net effect would be to discourage pollution. Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?
Published: July 28, 2008 8:19 AM
"Though economics as a discipline arose in Great Britain and France at the end of the eighteenth century, it has taken two centuries to reach the threshold of scientific rationality. Previously, intuition, opinion, and conviction enjoyed equal status in economic thought; theories were vague, often unverifiable. Not so long ago, one could teach economics at prestigious universities without using equations and certainly without the complex algorithms, precise (though not infallible) mathematical models, and computers integral to the field today.
No wonder bad economic policies ravaged entire nations during the twentieth century, producing more victims than any epidemic did."
At first I thought he was kidding (being sarcastic) when he wrote this, but he seems to be serious....
Published: July 28, 2008 8:47 AM
"fortunately there are quite enough people that consider 'the capitalistic bundle' (i.e. free markets + rule of law + investment of savings into future production instead of consumption) the best recipe for how to handle division of labor in the society."
Ireland: Where do these legendary "free markets" exist? Can you point me in that direction, 'cause I'd love to live in one, if I could only find it. (I currently live in the U.S.)
Published: July 28, 2008 9:46 AM
i'm with fundamentalist; orwell's lesson is valid, we should be fighting for the correct use of language (inflation, capitalism etc.), not scurrying away to search for new terms.
language is important and we should stem it's corruption.
anyway "dog-eats-dog" is an absurdity. show me where this occurs in nature. socialists can't even get their metaphors right.
Published: July 28, 2008 11:09 AM
The suggestion that the Libertarian policy regarding air pollution (rights to air vested in person or property) would cause the total elimination of all air pollution is totally unfounded. The principles of compensation for damages and homesteaded rights would allow juries to determine whether and to what extent a person is entitled to compensation. Only if the cost of compensation for continuing to emit is higher than the cost to reduce emissions would the emitter undertake additional technological improvements.
I think those of you who equate the libertarian position with no pollution are thinking of the Coasian model. I would have to go back and look at it, but I don't believe Coase sufficiently explored the concept of homesteading. I also believe he assumed that there is some perfect air quality that would be expected. However, I believe Rothbard's treatise on air pollution effectively dispenses with the objections raised here. Hopefully, someone can post the link.
Published: July 28, 2008 11:40 AM
Property rights being a solution to what end? Property can be used in so many ways. Allowing people to sue? What if my use of my riverfront property is to go down to the shoreline and lick rocks? Without person A's pollution, I could do so. But to sue, some third party needs to intermediate, and it will be THEIR interpretation of what constitutes impairment. People really don't need to lick the rocks so they lose. Being able to walk or boat without contracting a disease might win. Who decides? Is this where Common Law comes into play?
Then, what if the detioration is cumulative and not ascribable to one person? If we establish person B's right to lick their rocks, but there is no one clear perpetrator, what is to be done then?
I think that there is most likely a bright line test between major and minor polluters at the outset, and if Company A has a drainage pipe into my backyard, Ive got a clear case. A thousand people fertilizing their lawns upstream is a bit harder to judge upon.
Lastly, to sue for the average person is a huge undertaking, especially if they are going against a deep pocket. How can an individual pay to have endless testing of pollution sources? A large pollluter could always say that their contribution isn't what's causing your problem, but rather the 1,000 other individuals upstream. For your civil case you'd have to have endless chemical tests done that you couldn't afford.
Perhaps some consideration needs to be given to the actual producers and that if they, too, had a libertarian mindset, that they would do their best to dispose of toxins and "terraforming" chemicals properly and not just send it down stream. But even then how do we address cumulative effects of even small pollution?
Published: July 28, 2008 11:45 AM
Pollution is a problem, but how does "carbon credits" solve it? It is nothing more than state-sanctioned permission to pollute. I don't know what the solution to pollution is, but I guarantee it doesn't involve the State allowing other people to pollute my air under the guise of a war on global warming.
State sponsored environmentalism is basically "permission to pollute" regulations that favor certain groups (polluters and ecoterrorists) over the rest of us. Institutionalizing and formalizing pollution does not protect us, but I bet we could find a workable way to get along if we had the freedom of contract and association we have lost.
Published: July 28, 2008 1:04 PM
To add to David Spellman's post:
Say company ABC has purchased sufficient carbon credits to allow up to 100 tons of carbon pollution. As long as ABC's pollution doesn't exceed that amount, what recourse do I as a property owner have if ABC's pollution makes my property uninhabitable? ABC is well within their "right" to pollute up to the amount allowed by their carbon credits, right? So now, due to a conflict in property rights, it comes down to an even more arbitrary decision about who receives compensation, as there is no clear delineation between the entity being harmed and the one doing the harming.
Cap and Trade is a fiat system of property rights, created literally out of thin air. Ten acres of land is ten acres of land out of however many billions of acres of land exist on the planet. As such, it represents a scarce resource because it is limited by geography. A million carbon credits is a million units of an arbitrarily created (guessed-at), highly flexible number. They do not, nor can they possibly represent any kind of "property".
Published: July 28, 2008 1:35 PM
As for imperial control of the seas, I don't see a better or a more viable option. Piracy is already a growing threat in regions of the world where U.S. power is mistrusted. How does more piracy increase freedom?
Published: July 28, 2008 2:32 PM
Ron, wuzacon, and fundamentalist:
Because that's completely arbitrary. What is the LIBERTARIAN BASIS for saying that one kind is aggression and one is not? It's fine to have "juries decide the issue", but what are juries deciding based on? What's the harm principle?
@Ron and David Spellman: *sigh* The point of carbon credits or C&T is that there exists a level of pollution which, in the aggregate, is not high enough to cause "substantial" harm to people. It doesn't matter *who* emits it; only the total matters. Therefore, given a maximum, if someone wants to pollute, they buy the rights (and thus halt pollution from) someone else. Simple, simple.
If in fact someone's pollution does not simply mix in with the others, but rather, really damages someone's property, the carbon credit does not cover this, and would simply be handled by the ordinary libertarian principles regarding one-on-one torts. You know, whatever the hell they are.
I'm sorry you guys try to comment so firmly on the issues despite being so ignorant.
Published: July 28, 2008 3:07 PM
An idea about the language issue:
We are the real naturalists and we discover Natural Law, form Natural Governments limited to our Natural Rights given by our Creator or Nature. Let's go back to the language of the Founding Fathers and emphasize what is Natural. We need Natural Markets, not necessarily Capitalism or some system. We are the ones bringing others to what is Natural, not Liberals or neocons. If they can advertise that intervening against mother nature will come back to get you then so can we. The liberal media talks wildly about "market failures" but no one raises their fist to the sky after a hurricane and says, "You failed me nature!" People already have the idea that meddling with nature is bad, let's use it. It's our (the Founding Father's) language anyway. And its true.
Published: July 28, 2008 3:09 PM
An idea about the language issue:
We are the real naturalists and we discover Natural Law, form Natural Governments limited to our Natural Rights given by our Creator or Nature. Let's go back to the language of the Founding Fathers and emphasize what is Natural. We need Natural Markets, not necessarily Capitalism or some system. We are the ones bringing others to what is Natural, not Liberals or neocons. If they can advertise that intervening against mother nature will come back to get you then so can we. The liberal media talks wildly about "market failures" but no one raises their fist to the sky after a hurricane and says, "You failed me nature!" People already have the idea that meddling with nature is bad, let's use it. It's our (the Founding Father's) language anyway. And its true.
Published: July 28, 2008 3:12 PM
An idea about the language issue:
We are the real naturalists and we discover Natural Law, form Natural Governments limited to our Natural Rights given by our Creator or Nature. Let's go back to the language of the Founding Fathers and emphasize what is Natural. We need Natural Markets, not necessarily Capitalism or some system. We are the ones bringing others to what is Natural, not Liberals or neocons. If they can advertise that intervening against mother nature will come back to get you then so can we. The liberal media talks wildly about "market failures" but no one raises their fist to the sky after a hurricane and says, "You failed me nature!" People already have the idea that meddling with nature is bad, let's use it. It's our (the Founding Father's) language anyway. And its true.
Published: July 28, 2008 3:14 PM
Person: "Because that's completely arbitrary. What is the LIBERTARIAN BASIS for saying that one kind is aggression and one is not? It's fine to have "juries decide the issue", but what are juries deciding based on? What's the harm principle?"
On what, then, would you suggest the harm principle be based? What non-arbitrary standard do you recommend, given your espousal of moral relativism? Should the "majority" decide the issue? Should a bureaucrat decide? How about a random observer? Perhaps, in order to be consistent with your views as stated elsewhere, the "principle" is simply decided upon by whomever has the most guns? You appear to argue for some sort of objective principle, but you never tell us what it is. So what is it?
Published: July 28, 2008 3:42 PM
*sigh*
Oh look Honey, someone on the Mises blog is attributing view to me that I don't hold and couldn't possibly be inferred from anything I've written.
You say that all the time, Dear, give it a rest.
***
Ron, I never espoused moral relativism, and I never said it's a good idea for issues to be decided by who has the most guns. (Perhaps you're referring to the Alaska thread? I was simply pointing out that the market accurately incorporates the harms of "men with guns", not that the men with guns were doing something *just*.)
My point was just that I've never seen another libertarian (yes I consider myself libertarian) present a consistent, non-absurd, principled case for how to handle pollution, and yet they (like Jeffrey Tucker here) casually ridicule serious, market-based attempts (like C&T) to handle the problem, but without saying what the *right* way is.
That bothers me.
So, I listed the minimal requirements a libertarian handling of pollution must meet, and then posed the simple simple simple question of: what IS that libertarian policy, other than cap and trade? How do you know when a pollution restriction is or isn't justified, keeping in mind that many kinds of pollution are only harmful when the *total* amount, rather than any one emitter, exceeds a threshold?
These are serious questions, yet all libertarians do is whine about how they can't pollute as much as they'd like, and then, in the same breath, whine about the EVISCERATION of someone's property rights when any amount of unwanted pollution reaches it.
What gives?
Published: July 28, 2008 3:59 PM
*sigh*
Oh look Honey, someone on the Mises blog is attributing view to me that I don't hold and couldn't possibly be inferred from anything I've written.
You say that all the time, Dear, give it a rest.
***
Ron, I never espoused moral relativism, and I never said it's a good idea for issues to be decided by who has the most guns. (Perhaps you're referring to the Alaska thread? I was simply pointing out that the market accurately incorporates the harms of "men with guns", not that the men with guns were doing something *just*.)
My point was just that I've never seen another libertarian (yes I consider myself libertarian) present a consistent, non-absurd, principled case for how to handle pollution, and yet they (like Jeffrey Tucker here) casually ridicule serious, market-based attempts (like C&T) to handle the problem, but without saying what the *right* way is.
That bothers me.
So, I listed the minimal requirements a libertarian handling of pollution must meet, and then posed the simple simple simple question of: what IS that libertarian policy, other than cap and trade? How do you know when a pollution restriction is or isn't justified, keeping in mind that many kinds of pollution are only harmful when the *total* amount, rather than any one emitter, exceeds a threshold?
These are serious questions, yet all libertarians do is whine about how they can't pollute as much as they'd like, and then, in the same breath, whine about the EVISCERATION of someone's property rights when any amount of unwanted pollution reaches it.
What gives?
Published: July 28, 2008 4:01 PM
*sigh* The point of carbon credits or C&T is that there exists a level of pollution which, in the aggregate, is not high enough to cause "substantial" harm to people. It doesn't matter *who* emits it; only the total matters. Therefore, given a maximum, if someone wants to pollute, they buy the rights (and thus halt pollution from) someone else. Simple, simple.
1. For some bureaucrat to define what constitutes "pollution" is completely arbitrary. What is the BASIS for saying that one kind of substance is pollution and one is not? It's fine to have "bureaucrats decide the issue", but what are bureaucrats deciding based on? What's the pollution-qualification principle?
2. For some bureaucrat to define what constitutes "substantial" harm is completely arbitrary. What is the BASIS for saying what is substantial and what is not? It's fine to have "bureaucrats decide the issue", but what are bureaucrats deciding based on? What's the harm-substantiality principle?
Tu quoque.
Try sighing into a paper bag. Either you will solve your annoying sighing problem, or you will suffocate. Either way, problem solved.
(BTW, C&T is not "market based." It's the "C" part that is especially non-market, actually.)
Published: July 28, 2008 4:54 PM
to person:
we're about to have a cap-and-trade carbon scheme imposed on us here in australia, starting 2010.
just to show you how ludicrous these programmes turn out, the federal government is sheltering the power industry (we're a coal-powered country), offering them carbon credits. their workforce is totally unionized, and the labor government (=democrats) is not stupid enough to disenfranchise its key supporters.
petrol (gas) for cars will effectively be left untouched (too many hip-pocket nerves).
so who gets the bullet? the industries less favoured (non-unionized workforce, less strategic electorates etc.), and those that aren't able to move offshore easily.
i'm hostile towards the agw story and see cap-and-trade as a scam, but even on a utilitarian basis our scheme is a wakeup call to you americans. they won't work!
by the way, the scheme's architect is a dyed-in-the-wool keynesian, who believes that hobbling industry is good for innovation.
the real truth is that the labor party saw a great way to raise taxes and pay for the greens' preference votes, an integral part of the successful strategy for winning the 2007 federal election.
Published: July 28, 2008 8:07 PM
Person: "Ron, I never espoused moral relativism, and I never said it's a good idea for issues to be decided by who has the most guns."
I apologize. I thought it was you who had argued the non-existence of "rights" in another thread a few weeks ago. Turned out to be another poster.
We can certainly agree that there is no "perfect" solution to the problem you describe. If, in fact, there is some level of pollution prior to which individuals will not be affected, but that will have catastrophic effects upon reaching that point , then the application of existing property rights may be insufficient to prevent further damage. The problems with this view, as I see it, is that 1) the existence of said level of pollution has not yet been proved to exist, and 2) there is no way of knowing what that level is. Even if there were some way of knowing, we should all hesitate to put government in charge of enforcing it, as government will surely manipulate the number to its own ends. What's to stop Congress from voting more carbon permits for favored businesses when they start whining about not being able to pollute enough? Unlike the amount of land on earth, over which Congress has no control, scarcity in the case of carbon credits is artificial.
Another problem that I see with this view is that it's simply unnecessary. The mere threat of the level of pollution you describe has already had the desired effect of reducing pollution. As consumers demand "greener" products, businesses have been curbing their carbon output voluntarily. If anything good can be said about the global warming hype, it's that it has sufficiently modified consumer preferences to make "green" solutions profitable.
Published: July 28, 2008 9:23 PM
Person: "What's the harm principle?"
Harm is not a principle, it is a fact to be proven in a court of law (as opposed to "compensation for damages," which is a principle incorporating several legal and factual decisions). There are very few things in law more simple than harm -- was my life or property impacted in a negative way so that I suffered a loss of income or had to incur expenses that would not have been required but for your action. This is the easy part.
Deciding who caused the harm and whether the existing emitter had a prior use right to emit into the air space in question (homesteading) are the more complicated issues. Sure, the cost of litigation is not cheap and I encourage all who can to avoid lawsuits in any way possible. However, class action lawsuits can be filed and they can be filed against several polluters. The harm suffered by the complainants can be divided up. If the harm is significant enough, the insurance companies that paid the medical bills will undertake the litigation and lead the way for all of us. Remember, it is expensive for both sides to be in litigation, so businesses will look for ways to settle the dispute in a reasonable manner.
Of course, this does raise additional concerns about whether an emitter can ever effectively settle with so many persons, but I think the court's would be able to handle these types of questions. In any event, the centrally planned models for pollution abatement have not met their goals at extraordinary costs. Cap and trade, particularly for SOx has been somewhat successful at driving innovation. Generally, market based solutions (air pollution controls) have been more successful than the end of pipe numerical constraints (water pollution controls), especially in terms of moving technology forward.
However, let's end our preoccupation with inventing markets and allow real, natural, beneficial markets to develop. Natural markets do not waste resources on meaningless bean counting. Nor do they provide the means for interference by well meaning politicians to decide who benefits. Natural markets allow people with real claims to be heard and compensated. Sure, it won't be perfect and some businesses will overspend on emissions controls to avoid litigation while others will underspend and be involved in litigation. But any measure of the proper amount of spending is totally arbitrary anyway, so why not let freedom work. By the way, if cap and trade in carbon works like other cap and trade programs, they would pretty much eviscerate any private right under the common law to be compensated for actual harm.
Published: July 28, 2008 11:44 PM
Okay, let's step back a second. Before I go on, I want to learn what you guys think about the government's cap (at zero) on the number of legal homicides in a year. You know, the number that was ARBITRARILY dreamed up by some BUREAUCRAT and the system for which is riddled with CORRUPTION and INJUSTICES.
I'm *totally* sure your opinion there is consistent with what you've said here, right?
Published: July 29, 2008 12:42 PM
I was surprised that legal homicides are capped at zero,I thought Texas was still executing people.
Also you have neglected the actions of the military,
acting as hired muscle on behalf of wall street corporations.
Most important, killing people is not a requirement for producing economic goods, affecting the natural environment is. Your reasoning is specious.
Published: July 29, 2008 1:36 PM
Before I go on, I want to learn what you guys think about the government's cap (at zero) on the number of legal homicides in a year. You know, the number that was ARBITRARILY dreamed up by some BUREAUCRAT and the system for which is riddled with CORRUPTION and INJUSTICES.
This comment is demonstrably false. The government does not cap legal homicides at zero.
There are many forms of legal homicide. There are the various forms of homicide mikey described, committed by the State in the form of executions and military action.
There is also the State's definition of self-defense, as it applies to homicides committed by private persons against other private persons.
There is also the State's definition of the use of deadly force against private persons by police (once called "peace officers" but now called "law enforcement officers") in the course of their employment. The definition of what constitutes a legal homicide applicable to the police is supposed to be the same as the definition applicable to private persons, but in reality it is much more lenient on cops.
Many states have codified statutes that expressly provide for broader immunity from prosecution for crimes, including homicide, than we plebians enjoy. Otherwise, it's a part of the state's case law. In other words, state agents are authorized to commit crimes, and are then protected from prosecution for murder by the State.
If you don't believe that the State's "system" of defining what constitutes a legal homicide is not, in fact, "riddled with CORRUPTION and INJUSTICES," then I suggest you try using a taser to get the compliance and obedience of some guy who mouths off to you on the freeway or in line at Starbucks. Try buying an automatic weapon that any Sheriff's Office is allowed to buy but you can't. You'll then see how pure and just the State's system of self-serving definitions really is.
Published: July 29, 2008 1:58 PM
Person: "Before I go on, I want to learn what you guys think about the government's cap (at zero) on the number of legal homicides in a year."
This is a poor analogy, though I'm sure you'll find some way to make it fit your viewpoint.
But I'll bite. The "cap" of zero homicides per year is based on what most libertarians would consider a natural property right...the right to life, or the right of self-ownership. It's not a made up number. It's the number of homicides that would be consistent with the right to life. That number would, in fact, be zero. The governments imposition of a cap on homicides is therefore superfluous, as the number is fixed at zero, at least in principle.
Of course, putting government in charge of setting the number of allowable homicides is very dangerous. As Mikey noted, government often undertakes to commit (or allows to occur) numerous homicides in achieving its own ends, so there is virtually nothing limiting the number of homicides government might deem "acceptable".
Published: July 29, 2008 2:11 PM
Ron et al: It's not a made up number.
Actually, a BUREAUCRAT did in fact ARBITRARILY make up this number.
Wait wait wait, what's that. Sorry, I'm having trouble making out your words. Are you saying that the JUSTIFICATION of a cap's level is an INDEPENDENT question from WHO in practice, has the guns to set that level?
Well, then I guess you made my point for me, didn't you?
Similarly, we can OBSERVE cases where a certain cap might be JUST even as we disagree with the SYSTEM that sets it. For example, there are cases where traditional sustainable fish- and water-extraction rights arise, and people trade around exactly WHO has the right to trade any one unit up to that limit. This is PERFECTLY consistent with libertarianism.
The fact that government enforces bans on murder does not mean that ban on murder are unjustified. The fact that government enforcement of bans on murder is riddled with corruption, has the same property.
Be sure you understand whether you are objecting to the ban as such, or you simply wish some other organization enforced it.
That is all.
Now, back to the question of of the majestically sensible way that libertarianism is supposed to handle pollution.
You know, the proposal that doesn't exist but everyone INSISTS really does.
(Btw make sure to check out my site.)
Published: July 29, 2008 3:02 PM
This is the same ploy used to take away 'liberalism' from the philosophy of classical liberalism and replace it with the exact opposite where the State is presented as the guarantor of liberty (absurd!)
They think they can squeeze their way into the debate of ideas and then use the power of the corrupt media and the corrupt education system to make it appear like they are legitimate.
Test the imposters with subjectivism. Test them by making them speak about how subjectivism means that ultimately humans can not be served by the State and that all interventionism is ego-driven.
The imposter's agenda will stick out like a sore thumb.
Published: July 29, 2008 8:26 PM