I had no idea that my recent article “Standards of Environmental Good and Evil: Why Environmentalism Is Misanthropic” would be so successful that it would persuade even Tokyo Tom. Yet it apparently has. See his blog comment on my article, where, in the midst of what seems to be considerable agitation, he concedes my essential points. He writes:
I`m with you, Dr. Reisman!! You`ve convinced me. Hating America and hating the human race are wrong . . . .
This is what I was hoping to accomplish with you all along, Tom. If you’re sincere and you’ve really abandoned your misanthropic views and the kind of hate-America attitudes held by your namesake “Tokyo Rose,” then you no longer have anything to be so ashamed of that you cannot reveal your identity. I look forward to learning who you are.
Who knows, in years to come, people may look back on your intellectual awakening and say that you were the first environmentalist to become a “Born-Again Human Being.”
P.S. I certainly hope that no one will accuse me of taking Tom’s concession out of context, and thus using statements against him that he didn’t really mean. Because that would imply that he doesn’t think it’s wrong to hate America and the human race.
{ 40 comments }
Dr. Reisman,
Shouldn’t you have just replied to “Tokyo Tom”‘s post in the comments section of your older post?
I don’t see why this warranted its own blog post.
I think this is funny, but maybe that’s because I can’t stand “environmentalists”.
Environmentalists don’t “love nature”. Instead, they are just greedy and rabidly arrogant, obnoxious, and ultimately a leafy spurge – http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/eues1.htm.
This is called sarcasm. Tom didn’t concede anything, as far as I can see.
It seems to me that you’re both having an incredibly silly arguments regarding the particular narrow topics (which none of you know enough about to have anything resembling informed opinion – to be fair, nearly all “experts” in the field aren’t any better informed) while missing the very simple, and hardly controversial for anyone with any familiarity with libertarian ethics, approach to the protection of the environment:
- demanding compensation for damage to parts of the environment and proven harm to health of specific people and their animals is right and just.
- governments forcing any rules the bureaucrats and their cheerleaders can think of are wrong and injust.
- the way to protect environment is to let it to be privately owned, as fully as possible. The owners have rights – the “environment” itself is mindless, and cannot have any rights.
- dealing with diffuse effects of pollution can be easily achieved by means of forming voluntary associations of wronged parties – who can prove their damages collectively – and extracting appropriate redress (compensation or clean-up) from the polluters (who can, similarly, form associations for the purpose of defence and negotiation). Those who think that terms achieved by collective negotiation are unfair can always pursue the redress on their own – at their own cost.
- when there is no proof of harm (present or reasonably certain in the future) there cannot be any compensation for damages, or any restraint of somebody’s actions.
- past liabilities do not expire. If someone polluted environment with a substance thought to be harmless, which later was discovered to be harmful, he is still oblidged to compensate the victims (although there cannot be any punitive damages for acting in bad faith). If there’s no government-granted limited liability, this alone would make businesses to be extra cautious about using substances and practices with controversial safety.
Congratulations Tokyo Tom! Welcome back to the human race. The next step is to rediscover personal hygeine.
This week-end, I was just allowed to end my energy delivery contract thanks to the slow opening of the energy market in Belgium, and I picked the cheapest producer who offered a 25% “green†energy source warranty, as compared to the more expensive, more “dirty†old State monopoly…
Dr. Reisman,
A nice riposte to a very weak debating technique!
Dear Dr. Reisman:
Thank you so much for your kind note! You know, I have just had so much fun playing along with your gag over the last eight months, as you and others have posted a number of light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek posts on natural resource and environmental issues. The von Mises Institute is just so fortunate to have someone like you who can use his delightful sense of humor to entertain us while helping us to explore the deep insights that Austrian economics can share on modern economic and political problems, and I have truly been honored to assist you.
You for your part have pretended to throw Misean principles out of the window by ignoring the problems of (i) corporate statism, and (ii) the Misean understanding that environmental conflicts stem from lack of clear or enforceable property rights with respect to open-access resources, while instead acting like the real problem lies not with the failures of the resource management regime, but with one side of the resource conflict – the environmentalists.
It has been really hilarious how you have ignored the systemic problems and gone after the enviros, calling them “a lower, more lunatic form of collectivist than were the old socialists”, “fundamentally antihuman”, the “mortal” and “philosphic enemy of mankind”, comparing them to Nazis, communists and serial killers, and drumming up fears that if these evil people might gain political power they might end up being mass murderes – as happened with the communists and the Nazis – because “there is a lot of hatred and hostility in many people that is just looking for something to attach itself to.”
Most of us do not have the depth of historical experience as you do, so it is delightful how you play on that by giving us the thrill of imagining what it would be like if our rather ignorant friends and neighbors who are concerned about the envrinment really were a dark and evil threat to modern society. Of course that fact that you use such Manichean imagery – virtually identical to that the Republicans used in beating the war drums for the invasion of Iraq to deal with the “existentialistic” “Islamofascist” threat (a threat that the Republicans used for electoral gains in 2002 and 2004, has cost us $500 billion so far, with the meter running at $150 million per day, and the lives of countless Iraqis) – shows your hand that you do not really place enviros on the same plane as Nazis and Commies, or even the Bush administration, but see them as a combination of muddle-headed and venal.
And I have played the straight guy in your routine, citing for the benefit of other readers to the writings of href=”http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf”>Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Roy Cordato and others in explaining that pollution is not about harming the environment but about human conflict over the use of physical resources, and that the Austrian approach to environmental economics focusses not on the parties’ motives or philospohy so much as on issues related to property rights in order to describe the source of the conflict and to identify possible ways of resolving it.
My task has been a bit dry, but nonetheless vital, and I am honored you have provided this small role to me. For example, we know that the Coaseans and Pigouvians introduced the concept of social costs, which has led to the “dehumanization” of issues related to the environment by disembodying and impersonalizing costs. To them, a social problem occurs because some goods are “overproduced” while other goods are “underproduced.” As Cordato notes, “in its more extreme form this has led to a separation of the concepts of costs and harm from human beings completely, substituting notions such as ‘costs to the environment,’ and damage to the ecosystem.” Since we know you don’t consider the Coaseans and Pigouvian to be evil, but merely idiots, we know you don’t hold economically uninformed enviros to a tougher standard.
Rather, as Cordato noted,
You have allowed me to continue to seek to apply this focus on property rights as a touchstone in seeking a framework to resolve the issues that have so upset the enviros. There are quite alot of difficult issues to address, so let’s continue, shall we? You go on pretending that the environmental problems are the dark fantasies of evil, misanthropic and collectivists, and I’ll go on trying to puzzle through how Miseans actually try to resolve resource problems. http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/environmentalismorconservation/commons.shtml
We make a good partnership, don’t we?
That “environmentalist who hides under the name ‘Tokyo Tom’”
TT
Mr. “Carbon Tax” Yancey:
A “riposte” is a move when you’re sparring with someone. Since Dr. Reisman and I are really playing tag-team, it is not appropos.
Regards,
TT
averros, thanks for favor of your comments. You once succinctly said what I have elaborated to little effect:
“The current problem with environmental protection is that “nobody” owns the environment. The lack of ownership makes what could’ve been straightforward action against vandalism and tresspassing into a muddle of legistlation by disinterested govenment busybodies weakly responding to the pressure from emotional and generally misinformed environmental activists who are not at all concerned about the rights of other people.”
Regards,
Tom
Sigh.
Dr. Reisman seems intent on playing out Rothbard’s prediction that people end up specializing in the area where they are on the weakest intellectual basis. Seeing Dr. Reisman bloviate about climate science reminds of nothing so much as some chemical engineering Ph.D.’s I know when they bloviate on economics and the need for a technocracy.
And the ad hominems that he immediately resorts to in almost every post is a big warning sign: “Here there be idiotic babbling”.
He’s missing a great chance to educate people on the economics of the possible risk (i.e., that a free market will deal with the risk better than any state solution could hope for – something Dr. Reisman is eminently qualified to do in detail) and instead focusing on calling “evil incarnate” all who (subjective valuation, anyone?) feel the risk is important enough to worry about (an issue that divides highly knowledgable – much more so than either Dr. Reisman or TT – scientists who spend their entire lives studying the phenomenon).
It’s truly sad that he would blow this chance with demagougery. I hope the increase in his book sales is worth the damage he inflicts on rational discussion of the topic.
TT,
What’s up with you? You, above, freely quote Cordato, on one hand, then, expound on the great good of “Cap ‘n Trade”–the rules of which, and the enforcement thereof–would be in the hands of the same feckless group that has incubated the problems you identify, on the other(hand).
How does that work?
averros
I don’t think that anything that Prof Reisman has written opposes your bulleted points (posted above). They appear sensible. Interestingly enough they are related to a challenge I posted for Tokyo Tom and the other environmentalists months ago (when this debate appears to have got its start). What TT was asked was to demonstrate a series of proofs for his contentions. I requested for proof that the climate was getting warmer, proof that if so it wasn’t a natural occurrence anyway, proof that the mechanism was caused by CO2 alone and not some other mechanism, proof that the CO2 was the result of Man’s activities, proof that the results would be necessarily bad for Man, proof that any action should be taken and proof that collectivisation was justified as a result. Not one of these proofs was he able to supply. Not even one. Nothing at all. He had nothing to contribute to back his claims. Instead he resorted to position statements, numerous repetition of unbacked claims, citation upon citation, appeal to authority, ad hominem, sarcasm and so forth. Not proof. Not even one. He certainly was swift to demand the application of swingeing energy taxes on hydrocarbon fuels though. So much for recognition of property or individual freedom.
His reasoning went thus; the activity of Man causes climate change and therefore there should be immediate collective action. His appeals to taxation demonstrated that he expects such action to be compulsory and coercive. He is a self-admitted collectivist.
Some while later TT discovered an article by R Cordato. He started citing this paper but without understanding it (for example he ignores the principle of prior use and the implications of that). He committed the indecency of trying to use it to support his collectivist view. It was shortly after this piece of intellectual dishonesty I gave up one him (as the Matai taught, all collectivists are dishonest- it’s a necessity for them to tell lies, a part of their nature). He is not supportive of the Austrian economics system of thought. I figured him as wilfully dishonest, hence amoral.
The main point remains that environmentalism (as expressed in the present political movement) is harmful to Man. It is the last irrational gasp of twentieth century collectivism. Previous versions of collectivism were promoted on the basis of race, the nation, the working class (proletariat), a place in history, blood and honour, the future, the past, the ancestors, the faith, the grand-children, the culture, the state, the intelligentsia and so on. In each case collectivisation of individuals, subsuming them to a higher authority, resulted in destruction and impoverishment and suffering and death and criminality on a vast scale. These are the necessary results of collectivisation of individuals.
The previous versions of collectivism were justified by their proponents as being good for Man in the long term. Man had to be remade in some fashion, reorganised, reformed, reborn into a state of perfection or a better state then he found himself in. The suffering of a few individuals in the short and medium term was an unpleasant necessity to be borne as reactionary elements were “cleaned up” and obstacles to the ultimate goal of the ideal collectivised state removed. Of course those obstacles were usually other people. People other than the ones in power. People with different ideas from the ones wielding authority. People who disagreed with the “experts” and the “specialists”. Too bad for them, eh? After all, as one of the most famous of the collectivisors stated, “You must break a few eggs to make an omelette…”
With the evidence available today demonstrating that all forms of collectivisation (of people) necessarily are evil and bad for Man, what is left for those who lust for collectivisation? How can collectivism be defended? How are those wonderful ideas of central planning, central authority and the dreams of academics and technocrats and bureaucrats and know-alls and busy-bodies going to be justified, let alone implemented? How can they seek the control over other peoples’ lives they lust for?
Instead of recognising that collectivism is wrong and abandoning it their approach has been to forgo the claim of improving Man’s situation altogether. Now the objective is to collectivise for the sake of the “environment” (whatever that may happen to actually be- it’s usually undefined). Man becomes identified as an evil or as an evil doer (likely this idea is revenge for Man’s nature frustrating previous attempts at collectivisation). He must be collectivised, not for his benefit but for that of the environment (however this happens to be defined at the time). Of course this approach is irrational but it is rather tidy in that the objection that collectivism does not work for Man is neatly evaded. Man is to be collectivised as it is good for the environment, not because it is beneficial or good for Man. Who cares about him? Now anything is on. Too bad if the result is suffering for individuals. They are not important now or in the future. Too bad if the politics of environmentalism results in the deaths of millions (as it already has). The goal is not about Man’s welfare anyway. This irrational strain of collectivism is the most dangerous for precisely this reason. There is no intention (pretence or otherwise) to be acting towards the good of Man.
What is of concern is that the arrogance of collectivists (in that they think they know better than any other person how to live that person’s life) allows them to use any device, twist any virtue, use any vice to exploit the gullibility of individuals. In this case many people value beautiful nature. They are being misled into believing that the politics of environmentalism is a necessary corollary of that value. Aint so. That is a lie.
If a lie or deception is an acceptable idea to base an entire political movement (and philosophy) upon, then what can be expected from its real world application? Dishonest at theory and dishonest in practice; how many need to be harmed or killed before people awaken to the evil of this latest version of collectivism?
Now it is clear that most people do not think in terms of principles or of systems of thought. This makes it easy for them to be fed all sorts of weird notions. Most silly ideas they can reject on the basis of personal experience of life. Some ideas are not so easy to reject in this way. Those notions require thorough evaluation to understand. That can be difficult to do. Time is in short supply (especially when bringing up fractious children, paying a titanic mortgage and dealing with a demanding professional working life!). The trouble is that many people passively accept the political ideas presented by environmentalists through ignorance (after all there is that so-called “consensus” of “scientists” & politicians presented in the popular media) and lack of opportunity to evaluate them properly (time is tight, reading and analysing von Mises, Rothbard, Reisman et al is demanding and requires a certain level of education- all too rare unfortunately). They may not accept enviromentalist nonsense in the decisions they make during their day to day living but they do accept it in the politicians and bureaucrats that rule over them. This is a grave mistake. It may be an unwitting or honest mistake but there are consequences. Incremental surrender of freedoms is not justified by the politics of environmentalism, but that is what people are being led towards.
Finally, the debate is not on a narrow basis by any means. This is an important topic that is going to affect how people are ALLOWED to live (or whether they are allowed to live at all). I for one do not accept that people such as TT and the ideas they promote should ever determine how I live my life. What about you?
Talofa!
Sione
PS TT’s “sarcasm” is his concession. It’s all he has left. He caught and convicted himself. Hoist by his own petard! (and not for the first time either)
Thanks, Vatu.
Sione – I agree with what you said, however let me say that I do not think that this forum is an appropriate place for debating science of global warming.
For all I know it may be real, may be an artifact of pseudoscience, or anything in between – I don’t know enough to have an opinion.
The issue, really, is ethics of environmentalism, not its science. (Although I can safely say that in many instances it is decidedly un-scientific).
BTW, I just finished reading Lee Smolin’s “The Trouble with Physics” – if one gets past his leftist pronouncements, his insights into the broken nature of the state-supported science are fascinating. Apparently even the politically neutral fundamental physics got really screwed up; I hate to think what kind of “science” goes on in more policicised fields.
quasibill:
And the ad hominems that he immediately resorts to in almost every post is a big warning sign: “Here there be idiotic babbling”. He’s missing a great chance to educate people on the economics of the possible risk (i.e., that a free market will deal with the risk better than any state solution could hope for – something Dr. Reisman is eminently qualified to do in detail) and instead focusing on calling “evil incarnate” all who (subjective valuation, anyone?) feel the risk is important enough to worry about ….
I used to agree with you completely, but then I realized that Dr. Reisman has just been putting us on the whole time, just so you, I and others could explore the Misean terrain on our own. I am sure he has never intended to either slight or sidestep the difficulties in applying Austrian principles to climate change or environmental problems generally simply by attaking the motives of certain environmentalists.
Mark:
What’s up with you? You, above, freely quote Cordato, on one hand, then, expound on the great good of “Cap ‘n Trade”–the rules of which, and the enforcement thereof–would be in the hands of the same feckless group that has incubated the problems you identify, on the other(hand). How does that work?
Easy. As Cordato says, “defining and enforcing property rights already stands as the fundamental way in which interpersonal conflicts of all kinds are avoided or dealt with”, but this Austrian approach to solving pollution problems faces implementation problems with certain “tough cases” at the margin. I simply see climate change, along with certain classes of other environmental issues, as one of the tough cases.
The caveat, of course, is that I see no panacea anywhere, including in government action, so you wrongly cast me as being enamoured with Cap’n Trade. Rather, I am a huge fan of recognizing that there are difficult issues relating to open-access resources for which clear and enforceable private or community rights have not been established.
I am also a fan of reason, so I oppose emotional overreactions, ad hominems and “bloviation” as inappropriate distractions (except when coming from Dr. Reisman and his supporters here, in which case they are completely justified).
Regards,
Tom
Mr. Vatu:
I have never failed to respond to you in depth and with respect. This I am beginning to regret as a waste of time and manners.
Others who are interested can view our prior exchanges on climate issues here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005667.asp
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005248.asp
http://blog.mises.org/archives/004842.asp
You choose not to engage me directly or respond to my posts, grossly misstate my positions, ramble on about collectivists and then hurl ad hominems: “intellectual dishonesty” “I gave up one him (as the Matai taught, all collectivists are dishonest- it’s a necessity for them to tell lies, a part of their nature).” “I figured him as wilfully dishonest, hence amoral.”
In this regard, you reveal much more about yourself than you do about me. With respect to the economics of environmental matters, regretably you fail to take the opportunity to provide any substantive insight, but go straight for the ad hominem. In this, perhaps the shoe provided by quasibill’s comment concerning Dr. Reisman’s rhetoric and shallow discussion may also fit you?
As to the science, I second averros’s post.
Both of these are points I made to you five months ago, when I said:
“1. I hope you will read closely the above data with an open mind [with respect to your request for "proofs"]. I agree that the mere identification of a problem does not dictate the appropriate solution, if indeed one is desirable or feasible.
“2. I’m sorry, but I think your “collectivist” rhetoric gets in your way. My view on environmental problems is that they arise due to property rights failures (including government mismanagement of “public” resources, misregulation, and favoritism for statist corporations and other rent-seekers). This is an Austrian perspective; see this by Roy Cordato on this site: http://mises.org/daily/1760.”
You also, like Dr. Reisman, find it easier to attack the motives of a few rather than addressing the substance of complaints which are being made by many others (unless of course you intend to sweep the whole universe of people concerned about environmental issues – scientists, economists, business leaders, politicians and citizens – into the term “collectivists”). Most of these people, of course, care very much about the welfare of man, and give the more extreme enviros the time of day only because they share a concern, explicable through Misean analysis, that there are real and serious resource issues. Why not address the issues?
In your eagerness to bash “collectivists”, you have never bothered to examine the possiblity that the supposed collectivists might be concerned about actual problems for which Austrians have important insights. (I note that I have taken no firm positions as to the policy implications and prescriptions in my own posts, but rather been requesting suggestions and providing counter-comments.)
Finally I note that you, once again, accuse me of making ad hominem attacks. I previously asked you to substantiate that charge, and repeat that request. As an aside, can I inquire as to whether you have yourself been banned or cautioned for making ad hominemn attacks?
Good day.
Averros,
Reading Smolin is a fascinating look into the “politics” of academia at its highest levels. In fact, the whole string theory debate is a fascinating study in how “science” is actually done at the highest levels.
No, it wouldn’t.
Averros
You are probably correct that this is not the forum to debate global climate change, whether it exists, whether it is man-made and whether it is harmful etc. This likely is not the place to discuss (& debunk) the “science” (or rather, the PR fluff promoted as science) that has been so aggressively and mindlessly promoted around the show either. The lack of proofs from TokyoTom renders those debates pointless & superfluous, a rather basic point he continues to evade.
Meanwhile, certain political and economic aspects of “environmentalism†are relevant. I think that Prof Reisman has a point and that those issues do indeed need to be identified, considered and discussed. Unfortunately the insistent urgings of TokyoTom tend to distract from certain issues that the Professor is attempting to call attention to.
What is it that the global warming politicians, academics, bureaucrats, assorted hangers-on and cronies are strenuously attempting to foist upon everyone? What philosophy are they promoting?
I’ll go get the book you recommend. Sounds interesting.
Talofa!
Sione
Sione is like Dr. Reisman; he leaves others to discuss the substance.
Sione says “the insistent urgings of TokyoTom tend to distract from certain issues that the Professor is attempting to call attention to.”
I disagree. The professors is trying to establish that enviros are misanthropes; I have agreed with him that very many are. I have simply added that enviros also frequently have a point: for some matters they are statists opposing other statists who are trying to manipulate the levers of government, and for other matters that concern them there are no effective property rights, leading to tragedy of the commons situations.
Sione asks “What is it that the global warming politicians, academics, bureaucrats, assorted hangers-on and cronies are strenuously attempting to foist upon everyone? What philosophy are they promoting?”
I can`t speak for anyone else, but I am just asking people to open their eyes, instead of denying all evidence simply because they are unwilling to consider whether there is a problem that needs to be confronted. I`m not foisting anything one anybody. What`s this philosophy? I call it responsibility.
Hate the misanthrope, love the problem, I say!
TT,
Leave the State, States, and Supra-States, out of it–further manipulating us, and mangling the Market.
See if you can view the elegant simplicity of the approach enjoined by these individuals, and whether, or not, you’d concede that their approach, in general, could halt the Tides CO2, and, other, much worse, pollutants:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061126/business_documentaries.html?.v=2
Simple Sunshine cures many ills, especially those that fester in the dim recesses of our Ignorance.
Educate to Change, not Change to Indoctrinate.
Something tells me that you, and your merry band of self-annointed super-seers won’t readily cleave to such an accessible idea, especially one that provides so much access to the previously inaccessible.
TT writes: “I can`t speak for anyone else, but I am just asking people to open their eyes, instead of denying all evidence simply because they are unwilling to consider whether there is a problem that needs to be confronted. I`m not foisting anything one anybody.”
Here TT attempts to foist the burden of proof onto anyone who so much as doubts his position (let alone disagrees with it). It is a demand to prove the negative. That’s an invalid approach. The burden of proof falls on he who asserts the positive. In this case it is TT who asserts there is a “problem” (see his previous posts, especially the earlier ones where he learly reveals his position, lately he has been more circumspect- less direct). As he asserts so he must prove. It is to him the burden of proof falls. Without proof there is no need to consider his assertions any further.
That IS the substance of the matter. Rather basic stuff. But it’s the central problem for him to attend to. Pity he evades and misleads instead. That’s completely dishonest.
Sione
PS TT’s statement, “I note that I have taken no firm positions as to the policy implications and prescriptions in my own posts” is likewise dishonest. TT has posited that he was in favour of energy taxes on fossil fuels. And that surely is the approach of a big-govt collectivist!
Mark:
Thanks for your comments.
Me and my(?) “merry band of self-annointed super-seers”? Hardly merry, and what band? Here it is quite lonely indeed marching to a different drummer. I have no doubt that even if I were to advocate a purely libertarian approach to climate change, I would still be dismissed by the likes of Mr. Vatu, who prefers questioning the ideological purity of others’ motives to examination of facts and arguments.
As to simple sunshine – of course it’s a good idea. But is it sufficient? Here’s what Walter Block says:
“Toward this end it was decided that the jurisprudence of the 1820s and 1830s was a needless indulgence. Accordingly, when an environmental plaintiff came to court under this new system, he was given short shrift. He was told, in effect, that of course his private property rights were being violated; but that this was entirely proper, since there is something even more important that selfish, individualistic property rights. And this was the “public good†of encouraging manufacturing.
“And what of the “green†manufacturer, who didn’t want to foul the planet’s atmosphere, or the libertarian, who refused to do this on the grounds that is was an unjustified invasion of other people’s property? There is a name for such people, and it is called “bankrupt.†For to engage in environmentally sound business practices under a legal regime which no longer requires this is to impose on oneself a competitive disadvantage. Other things equal, this will guarantee bankruptcy.”
Is Walter Block wrong?
Regards,
Tom
Hate the misanthrope, love the problem!
Oops; here’s the link:
http://mises.org/etexts/environfreedom.pdf
Sione:
You are a broken record; you bore.
Just take a whack at this, will you?
“enviros also frequently have a point: for some matters they are statists opposing other statists who are trying to manipulate the levers of government, and for other matters that concern them there are no effective property rights, leading to tragedy of the commons situations.”
Are all of these statements wrong? When Cordato, Block and Rothbard suggest solutions to open-access resource problems, are they implicitly acknowledging that such problems exist and should be discussed on their merits?
Or should they adopt the simpler approach that you and Dr. Reisman advocate, of simply dismissing all of those who point to “environmental” problems as mankind-hating collectivist?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Your favorite evil person,
TT
TT,
Block’s aperature could use a fish-eye, as opposed to the telephoto lens he was obviously using.
I’d submit, that if he saddled closer to understanding the visceral nature of the marketplace that each and every entrant faces as a matter of course, he’d come to a different view, at this time.
He, and you, TT, in specific, should understand the market shifting power incumbent in this:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061126/business_documentaries.html?.v=2
approach. Coupled with our day’s “inter-tubes”, a communications platform nonpareil v. any other, in our known History, this type of Journalism has the ability to reach out, and show the Technicolor of the very viscera, to the customer, informing him/her/trans- of the very nature of the Nature they are intending to consume.
This, coupled with a return to Common Law common sense–that will beging dehydrating the “Alphabet Soup” of the Executive branch, and its extra-Jurisdictional powers, could radically alter the ease, of which you object, of polluters to pollute, palm-greasing, notwithstanding.
Show people, the Show, and not: “The Show for the People”, and you may very well be surprised how rapidly things might change.
As I said before, The State, States, and Supra-States, need not apply.
TT,
As well, to what degree would you think that this: “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
—Upton Sinclair
Applies to yourself?
Mark, I thought you were going to ask how I thought it applied to Sione!
To me? Less than to most. That I’m willing to post where I am unwelcome shows my willingness to seek enlightenment, and commenting here has nothing to do with my livelihood.
I am finding from VMI that libertarianism means not reason, but hatred of misanthropes. This has lanced the boil of my own arrogance, which now is released and being washed in a cleaning stream of Manichean purity.
Seriously, I am learning a thing or two, but my worldview is perhaps more resistant than most to change.
Skipper(aka TT),
With this: “my worldview is perhaps more resistant than most to change.”, you should be clear why it is I call you Cap’n Trade.
Why not take a swipe at responding to the post above the one you responded to?
Wriggle. Wriggle. Wriggle! Watch & see as TokyoTom tries to evade once again.
TT has asserted global warming exists, that Man is the cause, that this is necessarily bad and that restrictions be applied (taxation being an example). The substance of the issue is that HE must provide the proofs for HIS contentions. Now unless his position has altered (in which case he should retract his earlier missives) the burden for proof remains with TT and he must provide it- boring or not. THAT is the central issue. It remains the challenge, the one that TT attempts to avoid facing.
Note: Given that he has no proofs to supply, his contentions remain baseless.
Now, TT writes: “enviros also frequently have a point”. This assertion is intended to mislead. It must be considered in the knowledge of TT’s earlier claims regarding global warming and Man’s industrial activities as causal. It utterly relies on proofs he lacks. Of course he’s hoping that people read this comment without recalling the specifics of the assertions he made previously (about global warming) and his unbacked premise.
The TT position is completely undermined in the absence of proofs. One wonders how many times this rather basic point need to be explained for him. It can’t be evaded with appeals to authorities or social metaphysics (in recent posts TT resorts to these devices yet again- weakness revealed).
Before railing that an alleged problem requires solution, the existence of the problem itself requires formal proof. That is the necessary first step.
Sione
Mark, thanks for your reminder about your earlier post.
With reference to Block, in other words, you concede that Block, in the passage quoted, disagrees with you that the market can cure itself when statism has skewed laws to the benefit of special interests and at the expense of others; you think he’s wrong and that if he’s thinking correctly he would agree with you. The latter part of that is clearly how most of us operate – if only others could see more clearly, they’d see as we do.
Well, I acknowledge that my vision is constrained, and I do think that you have a point that (1) markets – given better information – deserve more credit than most give them and (2) one may be forced to wait a long time indeed if one expects the government to cure the problems that government has created, so that it may be most fruitful to turn to nongovernmental means.
I have always agreed that there is leverage in what you suggest. However, I think that your glasses are far too rose-colored. Our ability to process information is severely constrained to begin with, and we cannot always we looking at videos prepared by the latest concerned citizen who wants to tells us why our preferred choices with respect to every consumer product in the world is wrong. Thus the dynamic that Block mentioned will always be at work. Inevitably, our consumer choices are based on mainly on price and qualtity, with a little other information added in. It is great that the cost of information is falling, but there remain severe limits.
My own view is that we should always turn the spotlight on the predictable ways that government fails; this will better enable us to pare it back and to make corrections. We can get the state out of the resource ownership business, for example.
It is also helpful to provide information on the many cases where open-access resources are beig over-exploited due to lack of enforceable property rights. This can inform helpful consumer action. In addition, it can aid private efforts to build the infrastructure appropriate to the resource.
We differ I suppose in that I do not concede that government always acts badly, and I see a role for government to play in helping to coordinate the establishment of appropriate management structures for open-access resources.
Mr. Vatu, obviously you don’t care to discuss property rights issues in the context of climate change. Perhaps we can try something else. Shall we discuss global fisheries and whaling? What about government mismanagement of forests, grazing land and mineral resources?
No? I thought not. It is remarkable how willing you are to dodge the discussion of Misisean principles to resource issues. Yeah, I know – there are no problems, just misanthropes. Boy I wish I had your unconstrained vision.
Other than that, I think my posts above capably summarize (and link to) about all that I can say to you. I guess I am simply too leprous for you to touch. That’s fine; please just stay away, while I stumble along, announcing myself with each step as “unclean, unclean”!
Skipper,
You sail forth with: “…and that if he’s thinking correctly he would agree with you(re: Block). I had said: “that if he saddled closer to understanding the visceral nature of the marketplace that each and every entrant faces as a matter of course, he’d come to a different view, at this time.”
Suggestion that one offer himself a different viewpoint, from which to reconsider, is hardly equivalent to accusing the man of “not thinking correctly”. But, that’s what makes discussing these things with you, so very tedious. Block is, obviously, well capable of thinking for himself, he should continue doing so.
That you toggle from: “Our ability to process information is severely constrained..”, to: “It is also helpful to provide information on the many cases where open-access resources are being over-exploited due to lack of enforceable property rights.” actually brings into question your cognitive function. That you endorse the slurping from the progagandists’ teat, yet no nourishment from the marketplace of ideas, should tell all, much of what they need to understand from your unquenchable stream of agitprop.
Your compass thus fouled, rudder, seemingly, adrift, you circle back, fueled only on the hot air from your own billious bellowing, to the same Port in your imagined Storm: State, State, and more State.
Dr. Reisman was certainly correct in tagging you as Tokyo Rose’s doppelganger. It is no wonder he sees you as a misanthrope. For your end is not toward Liberty.
Mark, wow, so many words in one post! Did you just set a record?
But what did you really say, and on what basis?
- you acknowledge that Block disagrees with you, as I pointed out. Who’s being tedious except you in your two paragraphs suggesting that Block might avail himself of a different perspective? A hamstrung market limps; no surprise there. Can the government that crippled it then provide the cure? Good question. Why is this unproductive to discuss?
- I suggest there is a limit on the abilities of individuals to process data about every economic actor in the world when making purchase or investment decisions, and that a smart consumer would focus on understand big-picture issues first (where are the property-rights failures); you question my cognitive function. Hmmm. I guess I AM slow.
- You state: “That you endorse the slurping from the progagandists’ teat, yet no nourishment from the marketplace of ideas, should tell all, much of what they need to understand from your unquenchable stream of agitprop.” Okay, I guess I AM clueless. What endorsement, what propaganda (what teat!), what agitprop, and what marketplace of ideas did I miss – Block? you? Corrigan?
- “billious bellowing”: what a felicitous turn of phrase! I commend you. But it means nothing, at least nothing apt. You, Mr, Vatu and Dr. Reisman have bile; I have only equananimouly posed questions and observations. BTW, rudders, not compasses are fouled.
- You imagine that I have circled back to the State as the only port in a storm. Read a little more carefully. I have repeatedly said that I “focus on property rights as a touchstone in seeking a framework to resolve the issues that have so upset the enviros”, and have acknowledged the virtues of what you suggested, though indicating their limits. You on the other hand have not even acknowledged the property rights analysis, but insist on faith in a hobbled market. Who is being most productive? Why no effort to establish that state action is always wrong (including state action to pare itself back)? Why the escape to Manicheaen imagery rather than seeing common ground?
What is the sound of one hand?
Unclean Tom
Skipper,
“Manichee
——————————————————————————–
A believer in the doctrines of Manes, a Persian of the third century A. D., who taught a dualism in which Light is regarded as the source of Good, and Darkness as the source of Evil.”
My point to you, that you seek other than Liberty, is no escape.
In view of your retorts to Vatu, and your accusations toward me, I suggest that you enquire, at the Cineplex, for a new vocation. Take a vacation from the disservice you are doing, employ yourself, in line with your obvious comparative advantage, as a Projectionist.
You inveigh me to “seek common ground”, your Siren call, heard after your sirens, is as frought with danger, today, as the ones of yore were, for those blinkered Sailors of yesterday.
There are no points, in the middle, that long remain. The illusion of such, being, is only created by (man,Land)’s invention. The reality, not still, is that of flow, toward limits. Study your Calculus, Mathematic, not Political. Toward 0, or 1, are the only two answers.
Your Political Calculus, Your ‘Third Way’, is a Fraud. That ‘Polaroidism’, whose Fractal growth(in acceptance) was, catalysed by JMK’s GT, a fabulous work of PoliSci, a recipe book of dual purpose–Crafting of State/Crafting of Chains.
That you, obviously, have the audacity to bind the Future to your static frame, is your problem.
That you choose to foist it on the developing, is our problem. That you seek to make your underexposed take, the picture of our Future, needs to be known.
Again, Reisman is correct, as I told you before, he’s been correct, more than once.
Mark, well thanks again for so many words that simply confirm your black and white view, which seems rather static to me. It lets you rail against state invention and enviros, but never to move away from the status quo. How do we resolve environmental problems created by government without using the state to get the state out of the natural resource business? How do we lessen burdensome and wasteful environmnetal regulation without deregulating? And if we have to use the state, why is that not a middle ground? Sorry, but I just don`t think there are simple answers to many problems (and I think Block agrees – shall I quote him again?).
Good rhetoric, but again it masks a lack of perspective. I`m exerting no siren call, but merely responding to you. You don`t like my questions, you don`t need to respond.
My accusations to you? Are we reading the same posts?
And as to how right Dr. Reisman is, perhaps quasibill above has been much tougher than me.
I realize I`m unclean here, but there are plenty of other libertarians willing to debate:
See “Libertarians Debate What (If Anything) To Do About Global Warming”, http://www.reason.com/blog/show/116006.html.
But then again, maybe don`t look.
Tom
Skipper,
In your most recent ________…
“My accusations to you?”
You disfigure, the below, as: “which seems rather static to me.”
“The reality, not still, is that of flow, toward limits.”
Hope that allows you to see.
Mark, I’ve said a number of times that I am not committed to any particular policies, but am interested in understanding what are Misesean views on how to deal with environmental issues. For example, here: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005669.asp
“I have some policy preferences, but really have not prejudged, except that I think it clear that a PURE Misean solution, involving solely private action, can`t work given the multiplicity of parties and jurisdictions.”
“Spare me that crap about looking for more government and less liberty. When ranchers on the high plains realized their use was unsustainable and started to close off the ranges to outsiders, were they looking for more government and less liberty? Consider me an advocate for the closure and privatization of the atmospheric commons.”
The literature I read is that the principles are clear, but the application may be less so. The blog discussion unfortunately seems to be even less nuanced, and you seem determined to make yourself a paragon exhibit.
As I said, your view seems static (and to avoid further confusion, let me note that this is an observation, not an accusation, just like observing that Block disagrees with you in not an accusation). You talk about flow towards limits, but refuse to discuss how one might assist the flow towards the desired direction.
My understanding of your approach is that we can want less government, but not talk about how to have less of it. We cannot talk about problems resulting from insufficient property rights, nor talk about solutions. It’s all rather sterile and meaningless, but it remains fun to throw barbs at dissenters (and let me make it clear that the throwing is very much one-sided; I challenge, you and others thrown names. And yes, it hurts.).
You might not like talking about how we should approach natural resource problems, short of castigating enviros, but there remains a debate to have. Too bad there is so little interest here in it, especially as failure to participate meaningfully in the debate leaves the field open to those who fail to understand the problems with which government action is fraught.
I guess I will just have to have the discussion by myself; you feel free to throw more stones.
Here are a few interesting quotes from the Reason Foundation Roundtable on Global Warming that I mentioned in my previous post:
Shikha Dalmia, “Property Rights Approaches to Global Warming: Scope and Limits”, http://reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060907.shtml:
“the possibility of an overheating planet raises exceedingly knotty issues for those who favor free-market or property-rights-based approaches to environmental problems.
“Global warming represents a classic tragedy of the commons. Earth’s atmosphere is a vast un-owned frontier that everyone has an incentive to exploit – and no one has an incentive to protect. It is widely recognized that the best way to address this type of tragedy is by extending property rights – as opposed to restricting or regulating the activities of the people who use them. For instance, fish populations in oceans are thriving in countries and communities that have given fishermen harvesting rights. By contrast, the United States, that until recently relied predominantly on a regulatory approach limiting or banning fishing, continues to confront massive overfishing.
“But the global atmospheric commons are not an obvious candidate for privatization. Some years ago, Terry Anderson and Bishop Grewell, explained why in a seminal paper, “Property Rights Solutions for the Global Commons: Bottom-Up or Top-Down?”"
Don Boudreaux, “The Missing Elements in the “Science” of Global Warming”, http://reason.org/commentaries/boudreaux_20060907.shtml and http://www.reason.org/roundtable/globalwarming.shtml:
“Being neither an atmospheric scientist nor a former U.S. vice-president, I haven’t the expertise to judge whether or not global warming is a reality or the extent to which humans cause it. Experts who I trust, however, persuade me that science does indeed show that global temperatures are rising and that industrial activity is at least part of the reason.”
“Still open to debate are subsidiary issues such as the role of command-and-control regulations versus market-based approaches like tradable emissions permits. But the Big Issue – humans’ harmful effect on the climate and our consequent need to correct the problem – is settled.”
“But, of course, establishing man-made climate change and the fact that it might have certain derivative environmental consequences is not, standing alone, a scientifically complete case for government action to combat climate change. Political science matters, too – especially, in my view, that species of political science that is (shall we say) most “reality based”: public choice.”
“Public Choice economics offers objective theory and evidence that political institutions are so prone to malfunctioning that entrusting them with great powers courts great trouble.”
“But if democratic decision-making doesn’t offer a cure for the real possibility of negative externalities – that the gain pursued by rational individuals might generate an overall outcome in which everyone is worse off than if each person been constrained to follow an available different course of action – what should be done about the kinds of activities that contribute to global warming?
“It is hard to admit, but unless solutions are realistically available that do not themselves pose serious risks of unleashing other problems worse than the one sought to be solved, the externality is best left alone. Public Choice reveals the risks of seeking such solutions from government. More general economics reveals yet other risks: stifling, if not killing, the goose laying our golden eggs, namely industrial capitalism.”
Julian Morris, “The Role of Market Institutions in Enabling Adaptation to Climate Change”, http://reason.org/commentaries/morris_20060907.shtml:
“In general, the best policy for reducing the vulnerability of people to potentially negative aspects of climate change is one that enables people to prosper and thereby avail themselves of all the adaptive measures that the wealthy can afford. But what will lead to this clean, green growth? The overwhelming body of evidence suggests that the key is to ensure that society is governed by appropriate “institutions.” Institutions are the framework within which people act and interact – they are the rules, customs, norms, and laws that bind humans to each other and act as boundaries to human behavior.
And the institutions that are most conducive to sustainable development are the institutions of the free society – property rights, contracts, and the rule of law (see http://www.sdnetwork.net for more on this point). These institutions enable adaptation by fostering resilience in the face of uncertainty. The absence of such institutions creates poverty and vulnerability to change in general.”
Response by Jerry Taylor, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute, http://www.reason.org/roundtable/globalwarming.shtml:
“Donald Boudreaux argues that politicians can’t possibly know the “right” level of emission controls to impose because that knowledge can only arise through market interactions, and voter preferences are notoriously incapable of mimicking real consumer preferences. Fair enough, but as Don confesses, transaction costs prohibit market interactions that might reveal that information. But his conclusion – that because of the above, the state should do nothing – is unpersuasive. After all, one can make exactly the same argument about national defense expenditures, but we wouldn’t conclude that this suggests that the state should not provide for national defense. The problems he highlights are very real, but the global atmosphere is a public good and all public goods present the same problems to policymakers. Don’s argument is, in essence, an argument against libertarianism (which explicitly acknowledges the need for the state to provide public goods, however imperfectly they might do so) and for anarchism, but I don’t get any sense that Don appreciates that.
“Julian Morris’ essay is the best of the lot, but he ducks the tough issues. For instance, it’s all well and good to say that the state should protect property rights as a means of ensuring that we can adjust easily to future warming, but one can make a strong argument that protecting property rights requires action against greenhouse gas emissions. If economic transactions between coal-fired generators and their customers in the Midwestern United States or China, for example, increases global temperatures to such an extent that disastrous flooding occurs in Bangladesh, couldn’t Bangladeshi flood victims reasonably argue that their property rights were violated by the owners of coal-fired power generators? The response – “if you Bangladeshis were richer, less damage would have been done” – might be quite right but is utterly irrelevant from a libertarian standpoint. Libertarians can’t simply dismiss the economic damages that warming might inflict on others because it will be offset by economic gains elsewhere.”
Yeh, I know – more proof of my closed mind, and another example of how I oppress discussion. (Oops, was it only Sione, Roger and Francisco who have said that?)
Unclean Tom
Mark:
I am curious if you will inveigh against this latest act of government relating to establishment of property rights in fisheries, or see it as an important step in the right direction: http://www.env-econ.net/2006/12/welcome_itqs.html?
Is to try to explain the basis for steps towards a “middle ground” on natural resource matters a “siren call” of those trying to lure the unsuspecting onto the rocks of state coercion and away from Liberty?
Comments on this entry are closed.