This post from TokyoTom deplores the fact that (TT excepted) supporters of the Austrian School, and for that matter libertarians in general, are almost universally committed to delusional views on climate science. The obvious question is why. As TT points out, there are plenty of political opportunities to use climate change to attack subsidies and other existing interventions. And the fact that the environmental movement has shifted (mostly) from profound suspicion of markets to enthusiastic support for market-based policies such as carbon taxes and cap and trade seems like a big win. Most obviously, emissions trading relies on property rights and Austrians are supposed to like property rights.
On the other hand, given the near-universal rejection of mainstream climate science, we can draw one of only three conclusions
(a) Austrians/libertarians are characterized by delusional belief in their own intellectual superiority, to the point where they think they can produce an analysis of complex scientific problems superior to that of actual scientists, in their spare time and with limited or no scientific training in the relevant disciplines, reaching a startling degree of unanimity for self-described “sceptics”
(b) Austrians/libertarians don’t understand their own theory and falsely believe that, if mainstream climate science is right, their own views must be wrong
(c) Austrians/libertarians do understand their own theory and correctly believe that, if mainstream climate science is right, their own views must be wrong
While (a) clearly has some validity, most of the comments on climate science made here by self-described Austrians and libertarians suggest that either (b) or (c) is true. But which?
The problem is complicated (but also to some extent clarified) by the bewildering variety of Austrian/libertarian sects. Starting as far out on the spectrum as we can go, it seems clear that, if mainstream climate science is correct, neither anarcho-capitalism nor paleolibertarianism can be sustained. The problem with anarcho-capitalism and other views where property rights are supposed to emerge, and be defended, spontaneously, and without a state is obvious. If states do not create systems of rights to carbon emissions, the only alternatives are to do nothing, and let global ecosystems collapse, or to posit that every person on the planet has right to coerce any other person not to emit CO2 into the atmosphere. For paleolibertarians, the fact that property rights must be produced by a new global agreement, rather than being the inherited ‘peculiar institutions’ of particular societies seems equally problematic.
For more moderate libertarians, who accept in principle that property rights are derived from the state, I think the problem is more that the creation of a large new class of property rights brings them face to face with features of their model that are generally buried in a near-mythical past.
To start with, there’s the problem of justice in the original allocation. Until now, people developed countries have been appropriating the assimilative capacity of the atmosphere as if there was always “enough and as good” left over. Now that it’s obvious this isn’t true, we need to go back and start from scratch, and this process may involve offsetting compensation which effectively reassigns some existing property rights.
Then there is the problem that the emissions rights we are talking about are, typically time-limited and conditional. But if rights created now by modern states have this property, it seems reasonable to suppose that this has always been true, and therefore that existing property rights may also be subject to state claims of eminent domain.
Overall, though I, think that acceptance of the reality of climate change would be good for libertarianism as a political movement. It would kill off the most extreme and unappealing kinds of a priori logic-chopping, while promoting an appreciation of Hayekian arguments about the power of market mechanisms. And the very fact of uncertainty about climate change is a reminder of the fatality of conceits of perfect knowledge.
This seems to be the kind of thing Tokyo Tom is talking about. But so far, it seems as if he is in a minority of one. Any others want to join him?
Note While I’d be interested in comments from libertarians on whether they think mainstream climate science is consistent with their views, comments repeating delusionist talking points will be deleted or ruthlessly edited.
John Quiggin 
One way of assessing Libertarain party support of course would be to look at their support in national polls. IIRC, Bob Barr and Wayne (can’t recall his last name) got about 520,000 votes or about 0.4% of the votes cast. Admittedly, some Libertarians might have preferred to support McCain to keep out Obama.
Another measure might be funds spent as a proportion of the total. The Libertarians spent about 89 cents for every $1000 spent by the two major candidates which would be consistent with them having about 0.09% support.
@gerard
There’s a difference between being stupid and being wrong. By stupid I am implying Forrest Gump-style low intelligence, whereas all the libertarians I know are capable of obtaining degrees in engineering, economics, law, science etc.
To illustrate the difference: Ted Kaczynski was intellectually gifted, but he was also a screwed up conspiracy theorist nutcase. Likewise, otherwise bright libertarians can get carried away by fears of the UN using climate change to start a one-world government (geez, haven’t you listened to the latest Muse album?).
I wouldn’t class you or any of the other posters here as stupid, but I sure think that you’re wrong about a lot of things. And you miss the point. You’re right that hysteria doesn’t change the facts, but the way some people stir up panic has the adverse effect of making people suspicious of the ulterior motives of those who demand action on global warming. You can send a big government supporter like Al Gore or Paul Krugman off on a futile mission to try and convince these troublesome libertarians, but I’d suggest that TokyoTom is going to be much more effective.
Let’s put it another way: if there was privatisation of a particular public asset being proposed, whose take would you be inclined to use as a reference point, mine or JQ’s? (just assume we have equal levels of experience – even though I am a trained economist, JQ has the unfair advantage of being about 30 years older than me).
And I realise that 0.01% was an exaggeration, although it’s still small.
Actually, that’s a bad example, since you’d probably choose JQ on the basis of experience.
Suppose there’s a privatisation being proposed. Whose advice do you use as a reference point: JQ’s, or some 55 year old economics PhD who happens to be affiliated with CIS?. My guess is that if JQ said it was a good idea, you would be more favourably inclined than if the CIS guy said it’s a good idea. True?
I’m about public utility. If someone can show me that equal public utility follows regardless of whether the state does something or the resources are deployed by non-state actors, then I’m for flipping a coin to see who does it. I genuinely don’t care whose name is on the project.
My position reflects the reality that there are many projects where one cannot believe non-state actors will produce public utility favourably comparable with those of the state. Public policy in relation to climate change is merely the most obvious.
@TokyoTom
You may well be right. Certainly, as regards the right in general, I’ve found tribalism more satisfactory than any alternative explanation of the appeal of climate delusionism. I’ve been surprised not to see more accommodation to reality as time has gone on, and have started to entertain the view that there is either an actual or perceived conflict between reality and libertarian ideology. I’ve concluded that is true of the extreme right forms (anarcho-capitalism and paleolibertarianism). For less extreme right libertarians, my conclusion is that there is a combination of tribalism and wishful thinking.
Professor Quiggin,
You raise some interesting points about the role of division of labour in the growth of knowledge and the status of experts in democratic decision-making.
Many people of different professional and lay backgrounds contribute to the growth of knowledge.
The growth of knowledge is an individualistic process where initially tiny minorities persuade the majority that they are wrong.
There are biases, with those who believe in small governments more willing to be more sceptical about proposals for new regulations than those who are more comfortable with a large role for government.
This correlation the risks and rewards of regulation extends to the global warming debate.
The growth of knowledge on any issue is not a march onwards up to the light.
As Thomas Kuhn has shown in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scientific thought does not progress patiently, one year after another, developing, sifting, and testing theories, so that science marches onward and upward, with each generation learning more and possessing ever more correct scientific theories.
Kuhn found that once a central paradigm is selected, there is no testing or sifting, and tests of basic assumptions only take place after a series of failures and anomalies in the ruling paradigm has plunged the science into a crisis situation.
Scientists do not give up a failing paradigm until a new paradigm arrives which resolves the failures and anomalies that caused the crisis.
In the interim, they instead make increasingly desperate attempts are made to modify the particulars of the basic theory so as to fit the rising number of unpleasant facts to preserve the framework provided by the paradigm. Popper called such ad hoc adjustments to a core hypothesis to escape refutation an immunisation strategy.
Economics is an example of a science which moves in a contentious, even zigzag fashion, with old and new fallacies sometimes elbowing aside earlier but sounder paradigms. (Kuhn studied the hardest of the hard sciences to develop his view).
Experts and full-time specialists have their role in a democracy.
They can do what others do.
Voters resolve their differences by trying to persuade each other and having elections. No one gets a special say or extra vote in democracies.
A leading democratic challenge for policy on global warming is posed by Hayek.
A large sized government calls upon democracies to agree on more topics that it may be capable of agreeing upon.
Democracies can agree on only a certain amount of topics, and once this limit is exceeded, democratic control over political leaders may fail to work as well, if at all.
Hayek’s challenge must be resolved by more than repeated reassertions of optimism about a unlimited decision-making potential for the democratic process.
Singapore and Hong Kong are not predominately white. I’d happily add Japan to the list however I expect that they wouldn’t be receptive to a free immigration agreement due to their ethnic prejudices. All the countries are developed and democratic which is by design. Certainly this policy position is not an open door position but it entails a door that is much more ajar than it is today. It is a means to opening the door.
If open immigration is the benchmark that you want to judge these things by then the ALP, Greens, Liberal Party, Democrats and Nationals are all offering a product that is much more inferior.
Do you favour Australia opening it’s borders? If so then how in political terms do we move towards that position other than by opening up? Bilateral free immigration may not be as pure as unilateral or multilateral free immigration but it’s one heck of a good start.
A case of product bundling putting limits on consumer choice.
Also Taiwan should definitely be a candidate.
Comparing debates about privatization to debates about climate science is further evidence that libertarians do not understand the scientific method.
@gerard
Ok, so you nit-pick the discrepancies in my analogy but obstinately refuse to get my main point. Your failing, not mine.
the main point is that libertarians reject climate science for political reasons. Your analogy is proving my point, as you are comparing it to a political debate, rather than a scientific one.
Forget about the IPCC, Al Gore, et al. I’m asking about the science.
According to Wikipedia “Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the Climatic Research Unit concluded that 2005 was the second warmest year, behind 1998.”
If you accept that 1998 was the hottest year on record, would you re-consider your views on global warming if that record were to be broken in the next few years? Or if that is not strong enough, what if it were to be broken twice in the next, say, decade? Wouldn’t that be compelling evidence?
Sorry, the above comments were in reply to Sea-bass.
@Cynic
Cynic, I’m not a skeptic of the variety to whom JQ refers in his post. I came around to the libertarian point of view over the last few years, up until then I was a cookie-cutter left-wing social democrat with strong environmentalist tendencies. Many of my political views have changed, but my views vis-a-vis the science of climate change have not suddenly changed just because I now believe in low taxes and less regulation. At the same time, I recognise that I had an attitude (like that of many others) of “somebody must do something, ANYTHING” to stop climate change. My main concern now is that the proposed government “cure” may be worse than the disease. I also object to this patronising “the debate is over/you are too stupid to understand the science” reply that anyone questioning the consensus view receives – it is actually contributing to the current division in my opinion.
The libertarians to whom JQ refers are straight out denialists – they deny that AGW is occurring at all. Austrian economists are not climatologists, so I think they are venturing into unfamiliar territory by holding this position, and would have done better to stay out altogether.
The likes of Gerard keep denying the significance my point, since he assumes that science is immune to political process. For example, the 1961 UN Convention on Narcotics (I think that’s what it’s called) went to great lengths to bury evidence contradicting their findings that the coca leaf, used innocuously by the Andean peoples of South America, was harmful. This later justified the US War on Drugs and a policy of coca leaf erradication and continual foreign meddling.
I am not attempting to cast doubt on the IPCC report, but the idea that all scientific reports are created in some ideology-proof vacuum is not necessarily true. And I think it is fair to say that most of the scare tactics are orchestrated from the leftist-authoritarian part of the political spectrum. So what we have is many libertarians, who are usually not experts on the science of climate change, being asked to blindly accept scientific conclusions that are often promoted by people and organisations whose political beliefs are antithetical to their own. Which is where I think it helps to have people like TokyoTom or Ron Paul show up and talk to them in a language they can understand, and remind them that the environment is not a “leftwing” issue.
I hope that clarifies my point.
Even worse you may have to suffer the cure and the disease.
@Alice
Sorry, I had a few stale / bad links that I`ve fixed, and added a few more, because I`m prolix by nature.
The only thing that that would be evidence of would be higher temperatures, not how they got there.
The year 1998 was an extremely strong El Nino, which in turn caused the large fluctuation in temperature. That is why it was as hot as it was. Picking it as evidence of AGW is just as bad as someone picking that year as a starting point of reference for a trend. Or like picking a time in historey in which it was colder due to internal variability, and then showing an increase in temperature.
@Corey Actually, I think using 1998 as a reference point is an excellent idea, precisely because of the El Nino. Evidence for GW (not necessarily AGW, as you rightly point out) would be very hard to ignore if that record should be broken in a year absent El Nino.
@Sea-bass
So you believe the world is getting warmer? You believe it is caused by human activity? And you believe that government intervention will make things worse because (a) they will fail to reduce global warming (b) they will increase political power at the expense of individual freedom and (c) economic growth will be reduced compared to what it would otherwise be?
Right?
@Cynic
NASA says 2005 was warmer than 1998 and there was nothing special about the El Nino cycle that year. The delusionists not only have to cherrypick their data points, they also need to cherrypick the measures.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Well then Terje…re your comment on Free immigration arrangements..
“Singapore and Hong Kong are not predominately white. I’d happily add Japan to the list …
“Also Taiwan should definitely be a candidate”.
So there is no real belief in perfectly free and open borders by ALS, but its qualified (white and /or high income Asian countries?). Then the real ALS beliefs are not free open borders per se but very much in line with JHs statement “we get to choose who comes here”.
Its a bit like saying ALS get to cherrypick which climate datapoint and measures they accept as JQ notes above. Yet they cherry pick and support climate change denialism for one reason and one reason only….because of a deeper committment to the objective of lower taxes and smaller government,.
Why not just come out and admit that that is the primary objective of ALS, to which all other stated beliefs are secondary and “made to fit”rather than come up with loopy schemes whereby “voluntary private donations” will solve the problem of environmental damage from over production.. All the other statements about individual freedoms or acceptance of climate change, are secondary to that one overriding objective (small government / no government / lower taxes / no taxes), which is as others note above, a purely political objective.
Alice – the criteria was not white or rich asian. Your deliberately trying to infer a racist intent where none exists. The criteria was democratic nations which are developed to a comparable level to Australia and who might with negotiation prove receptive to a bilateral open boarder agreement along the lines of the one we already have with New Zealand. We can’t unilaterally create free movement between Australia and the world because we only preside over the regulation of the flow in one direction. Bilateralism seem like a quite logical way to progress the immigration agenda towards greater openness. A multilateral agreement EU style would be even better but it would be harder to get started.
The reason large poor nations (eg Indonesia)are not included in the outline of free immigration agreements is because no political party in Australia is going to be in power for more than 30 seconds if they open that door. You are asking me to be ideologically pure and without any pragmatism. And yet in the next breath you essentially accuse me of being ideologically driven and impractical.
Having said that I think FIAs with the smaller pacific nations could be readily accommodated although they may not be as open to such an agreement.
A simple question for you. Should Australia unilaterally open it’s borders? If you say yes then let us know why. If you say no then like John Howard (and every major political party) you’re saying the Australian government should decide who comes here. You can’t have it both ways.
Alice I present ideas in good faith and I’m transparent about my motives. I’m happy to discuss this with you but please don’t play silly word games. This isn’t some trick designed to oppress people who are not white and your attempt to frame it in those terms is quite offensive.
Actually your point seems to be that libertarians will (maybe) accept the universal scientific consensus, but only if they hear it from the likes of RON PAUL and stop hearing it from people on the “Left”. How… “Objective”.
It just confirms that they are completely irrational and have a cult-like, tribalist view of reality, which is JQ’s point.
Alice – we could introduce a large tax on CO2 emissions and shrink the size of government quite massively at the same time. I don’t think we will but there needn’t be any conflict at all between the two agendas.
For the record, I don’t agree with an “open borders” policy since that would not be sustainable ecologically. OTOH Howard’s policy is not the only alternative. A better option was outlined the other day on RN by the Dean of the Melbourne University Law School — which would involve having a robust funded agreement between the wealthiest nations to resettle those needing it on one basis or another.
As to the comparatively trivial numbers who come here as irregular arrivals and seek asylum, there’s absolutely no good reason why these people could not be managed in the community after some fairly brief basic health and security checks, particularly if there are existing communities into which they can feasibly be inserted. We here in Australia have nothing like the numbers of arrivals that states with large land frontiers have.
The problem with Howard’s policy was that he saw electoral wedge advantage in brutalising disadvantaged foreigners. That policy sullied us all.
@Fran Barlow
says “We here in Australia have nothing like the numbers of arrivals that states with large land frontiers have.”
We also have nothing like the water resources and infrastructure required. This would require Govts to get back on track (from being badly off track) in so far as initiating essential large infrastructure projects but these days you are lucky to get a pothole repaired quickly. The dual carriageway required on the Pacific Hwy is no better example of their extreme neglect Fran. Unfortunately higher taxes for these infrastructure improvements upsets the lower taxes wanted mob (and I am a bit over that view). Last night on TV Maxine Mckew said “well – it will get to the point soon where the major cities just cant cope with anymore people”.
Well even our major cities are a lot smaller than many in the US that still cope a lot better than us due to a higher quality infrastructure. Trains in many countries are far superior to ours. Even elevated freeways to get people up and over and out of the city will be needed (are needed bow)…but there is no effective planning for these things going on. Plus, in most states the different departments (rail, road, etc) are uncorordinated. In my opinion, these gross failings of public infrastructure provision are partly due to the voices of those who absolutely clamoured for the past three decades for lower income taxes and more private provision. Now we reap the mess that such ideas have sowed.
Fran – I’m not advocating Howards policy. I’m advocating bilateral free immigration agreements.
Alice – Are you in favour of open borders?
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Im was not attempting to frame the debate in any racist sense Terje…. I merely used immigration and the problem of refugees and border controls perhaps as an example of regulation that ALS may not object to. I am relieved that you acknowledge the need for pragmatism over “ideological purity.”
I do see (quite often in here) the mere mention of the word regulation, government intervention sees a vivid NO response from libertarians in this thread and there is much emphasis placed on individual freedoms. I was wondering how far that belief extended, thats all.
To my mind, even the development of only a regional FIA, reduces the “pure ideology” of ALS with pragmatism and I would like to see more pragmatism applied by ALS in terms of the role of government in society.
What I see has occurred is a series of governments in Australia who have attempted to pander to the views of the smaller government lower taxes voices, yet it stands out to most, even to the Business Community, that the infrastructure maintenance and provision in many of our major cities, but more spectacularly in Sydney, has been woefully inadequate.
I do not want to go back to the ugly days of children kept behind razor wire Terje (ever again) but in order to accommodate both us and immigrants…into the future…we need major public investment in infrastructure once more. We have done it before in the 1800s in response to the goldrush, technology and waves of immigration. We shouldnt be afraid of bigger government and higher taxes if it improves the quality of all our lives (and lowers our individual costs in other areas).
A simple case…how much petrol are we wasting idling in a traffic gridlock? How many more emmissions is this infrastructure debacle contributing to AGW? Another example, by permitting comapnies like Coles and Woolies (and their alliances) a duopoly over petrol retailing they have ruined petrol infrastructure and distribution outlets by condoning market concentration. A case of inadequate insufficient competition regulation.
I refer to the soon to be withdrawal of Exxon from petrol retailing, involving the Quix chain – expect to see many more cleared closed down petrol station sites. What is the cost to an individual of having to drive further to find a petrol station? Will Coles and Woolies have sufficient incentives to increase outlets to compensate for the withdrawal of Exxon Mobil?
No. Not at all. If we have to drive further to refuel our tanks they make more money because we buy more petrol. These sorts of problems impose higher costs on individuals, and soon erode any benefits of lower income taxes. They have been allowed to occur in this country because an unjustified (and unpragmatic) market faith has crept stealthily and insidiously into policy prescriptions over three decades, along with excessive and counterproductive criticism of the role and function of governments.
I seek only to see some genuine pragmatism.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Im not in favour of the totally unfettered liberty of the individual Terje and nor am I in favour of the totally unfettered liberty of firms. Your question on open borders, therefore, is irrelevant. I believe pragmatism is required in the free movement of people, firms, capital and technology. I also see the ability of an economy to be self sustaining in food production as imperative, and that requires protection over the country’s arable resources.
@Alice
Nevertheless Alice, if those who think the greatest wisdom is to be found in the operation of free markets were consistent they’d advocate open borders.
@Fran Barlow
That was a point I was trying to make Fran. Even the operation of free trade within trade blocs reduces “free” markets in the purest sense of the word by carving up the world into insiders and outsiders. FIAs act in the same fashion in terms of labour and the “free movement of people”. Those outside the FIA are excluded and there will always exist people with few individual liberties within countries that will never have much of anything to trade in the global markets, assuming they could even access them, and that must rely on aid from wealthy countries (through foreign aid which is of course generated by our taxes). By knowingly having an truly open border policy, as opposed to an FIA, without the accompanying investment in infrastructure or technology to accommodate it, an economy risks depletion of its own resources and that wont be of any assistance to needy nations in the world economy.
The more precise point I was also trying to make about the purported “liberty of the individual” in the libertarian view Fran, is that it is very much a secondary objective to the major objective of lower income taxes and smaller government and can be “adjusted to fit.” Just like environmental concerns. The assumption that smaller government leads to more individual liberty is also a flaw, a serious flaw.
Fran – open borders would maximise human welfare but the democratic nation state generally excludes outsiders in it’s welfare calculus. However I would personally vote for open borders across the world in the blink of an eye. Just because I advance far more modest and pragmatic policy does not mean I deny the merit of the ideal. However with closed borders being the norm over the last century uncorking the bottle in a single instance would certainly be disruptive to a lot of established interests. I expect there would be undesirable political responses as there usually is with any highly disruptive change.
When the Berlin wall came down 20 years ago it was a good thing, however it was disruptive (much more disruptive than the more recent opening up of Germany to the rest of the EU). If Australia and Indonesia opened the borders tomorrow it would cause an even more massive human shockwave. We would survive and prosper and the people of the two nations would on aggregate be better off but there is no denying it would be disruptive. And not everybody would see themselves as a winner.
Alice – on the issue of immigration you are but a slither of foil away from John Howard. On the basis that I advocate more free movement you criticise me for wanting our government to control who comes here, when in fact that is your exact position. You are intellectually dishonest. It is welfarists like you and John Howard that can’t stand the prospect of foreigners disrupting neat plans for the shape of cities and Australian society. John Howard just had the guts to be more honest about it while you have fantacies about moral superiority.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
“You are intellectually dishonest.”
An absolute stretch Terje and a distortion of what I said. Not at all. I stated my beliefs. In fact it was the right who put people behind razor wire and now claim “we stopped the boats coming”. That is dishonest because they did not stop the boats coming at all. I think once here, it would be far more productive to allow them able to work and earn income whilst they apply for their status. That is hardly welfarist.
What I said to you is
Im not in favour of the totally unfettered liberty of the individual Terje and nor am I in favour of the totally unfettered liberty of firms. Your question on open borders, therefore, is irrelevant.
I think the idea that you can solve problems by “opening borders in an instant” is foolish and naive in the extreme and I dont think the ideal you seek of “everyone being better off in aggregate” is guaranteed by that, at all. To accommodate additional population requires preparation and investment in infrastructure, and in Australia particularly water… and some are not willing to invest in that, particularly libertarians and global firms who actively avoid taxes in many countries now.
I continue to maintain that the real objective of libertarians is political and involves lower taxes, rather than “everyone being better off in aggregate”. You have ignored my examples in the petrol industry (thats intellectual dishonesty) whereby lack of regulation imposes higher costs and less freedom on individuals choices, but Ill give you another one Terje.
What of a woman’s free choice as to whether she wants to reproduce or not ie birth control – what are ALS policies on that Terje (I sincerely hope they are not bound up in the policies of the christian right)?
@jquiggin
“[I] have started to entertain the view that there is either an actual or perceived conflict between reality and libertarian ideology.”
Thanks for this concession, John, but of course this is true for ANY ideology (as well for the rest of us more perfect humans who always have to battle with cognitive conservatism). And yes, it leads to a combination of tribalism and wishful thinking, and in some cases a denial of inconvenient science.
Sea Bass says it well: “So what we have is many libertarians, who are usually not experts on the science of climate change, being asked to blindly accept scientific conclusions that are often promoted by people and organisations whose political beliefs are antithetical to their own.”
Thinking that libertarians are more susceptible to “delusion” than anyone else is itself a cognitive trap – one that provides comfort to those who believe that there is a serious cause for concern about climate change (me too), and that it`s one easily addressed by government, and leads them to ignore the empirical evidence for the ways governments screw up (and are manipulated, and to conclude that those who oppose government action are evil.
I`ve made several references to the empirical case for caution in thinking that government is going to make things better rather than worse; the work of Lin Ostrom and the reasons the Nobel Prize committee gave her the award are a recent one. But as I noted in comments to a post by Tim Lambert earlier this year on the “economists`s consensus”:
85 “Free market people do not argue that all government allocation of goods is ineffective. It simply suffers from a high incidence of moral hazard and inefficiency, and if it does not account for the market (which it has little incentive to do as it is mostly about politics) any growth from it will likely be unsustainable.”
Well said, Craig; commonsense examples of moral hazard and inefficiency can be seen in:
* our oversupply and overuse of our “defense”, e.g., Iraq & Halliburton, Homeland Security, domestic spying, military-industrial stuff generally;
* our agricultural pork: price supports, ethanol, sugar;
* the government’s provision of “war on drugs” to save us from mad reefer smokers, etc., resulting in Prohibition-like crime/corruption/stifled inner city growth, trampled stae and local rights and troubles in all supplying/conduit countries;
* cheap oil/gas/hardrock mineral/timber/grazing leases;
* an oversupplied but underperforming levee system;
* huge bonuses and huge risks generated at Freddie and Fannie;
* an FDA and Ag Dept that notes bad peanut butter mfg but says nothing, yet prohibits small dairy and meat producers from advertizing hormone-free milk and mad cow disease-free beef, etc.
Who couldn’t want more of this?
Posted by: TokyoTom | February 17, 2009 6:47 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/02/the_economists_consensus_on_gl.php
All issues that Tim – and you, too, apparently – just conveniently don`t seem to see at all, or at least have a tough time finding the time or space to address, preferring to delve into arcania about various libertarian cults. But of course now there are lots of environmentalists, voters, pundits and even scientists like Jim Hansen who are decrying what looks like an enormous C&T road wreck emerging as the preferred climate option in Washington.
Just as I am working hard to make sure that libertarians are not blunting their own message by hiding their heads in the sand on the science, so do I think that those who (rightly I think) are concerned about AGW ought to be paying quite a bit more attention to the problems pointed out by libertarians about the misuse of government by powerful insiders, the knowledge problem and bureaucratic perversities.
Sadly, there seems to be little interest by most in exploring the very wide middle ground of undoing the screwed up policies that have helped to generate the frustrations that many feel today and the engender what has become a snowballing fight over the wheel of government.
Why can`t we have a little more exploration of root causes and common ground? Must it remain a no-man`s land, while partisans battle, and corporate interests scheme?
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/03/a-libertarian-immodestly-makes-a-few-modest-climate-policy-proposals.aspx
Alice – the ALS does not have policies. It is a talk shop not a political party. The closest thing Australia has to a libertarian political party is the LDP. The LDP position on birth control is that women should be free to use birth control, including abortion. The policies are in black and white on the LDP website if you care to read them.
The Christian right are conservatives not libertarians. Libertarians think people own their own bodies. Libertarians typically think adults should be free to do with their own body as they wish including injesting heroin, drinking beer, smoking tobacco, voluntary euthanasia, sex work, having an abortion, nipple piercing, playing poker, rock climbing, riding without a helmet, learning karate or just sitting around doing not much.
The Howard government locked innocent children behind razor wire. It’s a policy they inherited from the ALP but pursued with vigor. I think it was an awful policy. I think it was probably effective at somewhat reducing the flow of boats but that does not justify it. I hope it is a policy that is gone for good.
Kudos to you for rejecting the policy, but I think you are mistaken in your inference here. There’s simply no evidence that those seeking asylum thought a camp in Indonesia or any other place from which a boat might come was as appealing as one of Howard’s hell holes. These people are fleeing for their lives. They have given up everything. Living in a first world jail would seem eminently preferable.
All this “sending a signal” stuff is so much cant. In most cases, the supplicants are illiterate in English and often enough even in their own language. The idea that people considering paying for a ride on a boat they suspect might sink or have to be scuttled would attach any significance to the claims about Australian policies regarding irregular arrivals by people with a vested interest in getting them to pay them for passage, still less acquaint themseleves with the analysis required to unpick them, is simply ludicrous.
As recent events show, nothing less than the expectation that an Australian camp would be worse than the Indonesian camp they endured for five years, plus a standard of living comparable to that in Indonesia would suffice. And we aren’t about to institute anything of the sort, so we should stop enduring witgh good grace those who make such claims.
I would love to hear someone call “bulls**t” next time one of the Libs makes this claim.
@Alice
My interpretation of liberty is being free, I am not sure how you can be both free and restricted.
[…] TokyoTom November 6th, 2009 at 14:03 | #34 […]
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Ok – thanks Terje. It helps to know who is who – Im completely confused with all the divisions on the right. It might take a minor thesis to sort it out I suspect. On your last comment we are in complete agreement Terje. The political pointscoring Joe Hockey is playing on this issue is obscene (“we stopped the boats coming”).
Fran (re calling out BS to the Libs.) – exactly. Im getting sick of the lies.
Alice – stop presuming everybody is right wing and just take them as you find them and you may have less problems.
“all the divisions on the right.”
I object to this. I didn’t want to get into it with Fran, as it was a derailment, but I can’t let false assertions enter the record unchallenged. Libertarians share some views with what could loosely be called the right wing. They also share some views with the left. And with centrists. And with radicals. This does not mean you can lump libertarians in with any of them.
As much as it might inconvenience you, you’re going to have to deal with libertarians as they are, not as you wish to pigeon-hole them.
As much as it might inconvenience you, you’re going to have to deal with libertarians as they are, not as you wish to pigeon-hole them.
Wonderfully hypocritical because libertarians like nothing more than declaring that all lefties are brain damaged, the all greenies are nutters, and all governments are good for bugger all.
Jarrah, libertarians can argue black and blue that they are a broad church but until such time as they recognise this is equally true of those they so frequently condemn they are just engaging in blah blah blah, blah blah blah.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
WellTerje – I think that is also a wide call “stop presuming everybody is right wing” but whatever Terje. There are plenty who come in here raving on about the “left”. I would hope you can both take your own advice in return.
Jarrah
Likewise.
I dont really know what the right wing is; I think it was created by the left to describe all those who disagreed with them.
The left being la rive gauche
All those misogynist gas bags sitting around all day puffing smelly fags and spongeing off their relatives, who were invariably the detested bourgeois.
@rog
And Terje and Jarrah – I draw your attention to the rude comment immediately above by Rog. He is sufficiently lacking in culture to realise some of our most famous artists habituated la rive gauche.(Rog – sorry you must be a bogan).
Speaking of putting people in boxes the libertarian quiz does a form of it. I’d be curious to know which box it puts Alice and Fran in if they are incline to tell?
http://libertarian.org.au/quiz/
@John H.
Hey, I’m not political-spectrumist – some of my best friends are lefties! (Seriously)
Actually most of my friends consider themselves leftwing and, from my experience, most intellectuals tend to be progressives. Which is part of the problem – they recognise they are intelligent, and this seems to make them think they know how to best organise society, as if other people are chess pieces that must be manoeuvred to bring about some optimal, socially-pleasing outcome.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Ha ha Terje – you will have to make one more lefty friend! I did your quiz. Im a democratic socialist in the middle of that box left lower corner. “my economic freedom index is 2.5, and my social freedom index is 6.5.”