Wikipedia's article on Libertarianism

[Symmetry]

@The Greek Dog

Have your arguments with Player convinced you yet that Libertarianism is largely a niche of American politics?

[BigBallinStalin]

Why not provide polluting industries with subsidies that reward compliance toward environmental rules and regulations? In other words, pay a portion of the costs for building "air filters" on smokestacks, or subsidize their toxic waste disposal costs, etc.

I have suggested something similar, though I think the industries should pay ALL the costs, not just part. In particular, a per unit tax on pollution for cleanup, etc. You got pretty irate about it being a bad idea and just an excuse for more taxes, an open wallet for the government.

If I got irate on giving subsidies for conforming to environmental regulations, then quote me on it.

I'm not supporting these subsidies; my point is that the subsidies produce stronger incentives to comply with government regulations.

And, yeah, it's definitely going to cause problems, but it produces better incentives compared to the option of punishment through fines and taxes. That just creates bad incentives--like dodging the regulations, cutting corners, BP-Haliburton-Transocean oil spills, etc.

[PLAYER57832]

Why not provide polluting industries with subsidies that reward compliance toward environmental rules and regulations? In other words, pay a portion of the costs for building "air filters" on smokestacks, or subsidize their toxic waste disposal costs, etc.

I have suggested something similar, though I think the industries should pay ALL the costs, not just part. In particular, a per unit tax on pollution for cleanup, etc. You got pretty irate about it being a bad idea and just an excuse for more taxes, an open wallet for the government.

If I got irate on giving subsidies for conforming to environmental regulations, then quote me on it.

I'm not supporting these subsidies; my point is that the subsidies produce stronger incentives to comply with government regulations.

And, yeah, it's definitely going to cause problems, but it produces better incentives compared to the option of punishment through fines and taxes. That just creates bad incentives--like dodging the regulations, cutting corners, BP-Haliburton-Transocean oil spills, etc.

I was not supporting subsidies. I was supporting taxes to pay for damage, taxes that would be used for the cleanup.

The problem with offering subsidies is that they have to be paid. I am not in favor of giving free money to companies that are in business to make a profit, except when it really is in the national security interest (and even then only cautiously.. things like steel, NOT oil, etc.)

But, you can combine those 2 ideas. That is effectively what per unit taxes do. There is incentive for companies to cut even small amounts of outputs. The "devil is in the details" though, because you can have systems like that that are utter failures and you can have ones that are successes.

I would say that it the biggest problem with such heavy emphasis on current economic analysis. Its like looking at ecology models to determine if I should plant Echinacea or a daisy in my yard. Ecology is great for the big picture, overall view. It is not good for the details. Neither is economics in most cases. It is good at looking at overall trends, but when you want to make decisions on individual companies or even industries, you need a lot of specifics.

or, in another example, I would never support communism on a large scale. However, it can and has worked in small communities, particularly religious communities where they have a unified goal. Also, while I would not normally agree to limits on most things/rationing. In times of war, it can be necessary.

Right now, so much discussion is polarized to the extremes, real solutions are almost impossible. The answer is not to just throw everything and everyone out, its to get folks actually talking and listening.. but they have to include folks with real data and information when it comes to specific issues, particularly the environment.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why not provide polluting industries with subsidies that reward compliance toward environmental rules and regulations? In other words, pay a portion of the costs for building "air filters" on smokestacks, or subsidize their toxic waste disposal costs, etc.

I have suggested something similar, though I think the industries should pay ALL the costs, not just part. In particular, a per unit tax on pollution for cleanup, etc. You got pretty irate about it being a bad idea and just an excuse for more taxes, an open wallet for the government.

If I got irate on giving subsidies for conforming to environmental regulations, then quote me on it.

I'm not supporting these subsidies; my point is that the subsidies produce stronger incentives to comply with government regulations.

And, yeah, it's definitely going to cause problems, but it produces better incentives compared to the option of punishment through fines and taxes. That just creates bad incentives--like dodging the regulations, cutting corners, BP-Haliburton-Transocean oil spills, etc.

I was not supporting subsidies. I was supporting taxes to pay for damage, taxes that would be used for the cleanup.

The problem with offering subsidies is that they have to be paid. I am not in favor of giving free money to companies that are in business to make a profit, except when it really is in the national security interest (and even then only cautiously.. things like steel, NOT oil, etc.)

But, you can combine those 2 ideas. That is effectively what per unit taxes do. There is incentive for companies to cut even small amounts of outputs. The "devil is in the details" though, because you can have systems like that that are utter failures and you can have ones that are successes.

I would say that it the biggest problem with such heavy emphasis on current economic analysis. Its like looking at ecology models to determine if I should plant Echinacea or a daisy in my yard. Ecology is great for the big picture, overall view. It is not good for the details. Neither is economics in most cases. It is good at looking at overall trends, but when you want to make decisions on individual companies or even industries, you need a lot of specifics.

or, in another example, I would never support communism on a large scale. However, it can and has worked in small communities, particularly religious communities where they have a unified goal. Also, while I would not normally agree to limits on most things/rationing. In times of war, it can be necessary.

Right now, so much discussion is polarized to the extremes, real solutions are almost impossible. The answer is not to just throw everything and everyone out, its to get folks actually talking and listening.. but they have to include folks with real data and information when it comes to specific issues, particularly the environment.[/quote]

If environmentalism calls for curbing pollution and stemming global warming, then subsidies for complying with environmental regulations is most likely the most effective way to make businesses comply.

[PLAYER57832]

If environmentalism calls for curbing pollution and stemming global warming, then subsidies for complying with environmental regulations is most likely the most effective way to make businesses comply.

And who pays? Why is it taxpayers responsibility to pay for private businesses to stop damaging our world? That's like saying I need to pay my neighbor not to throw litter on my lawn.

[thegreekdog]

@The Greek Dog

Have your arguments with Player convinced you yet that Libertarianism is largely a niche of American politics?

No, that is not why I'm aware (or convinced if that is what you want) that Libertarianism is a niche group in American politics. I've always believed (or acknowledged, if you want) that Libertarianism is a niche group in American politics.

It would be helpful to me if I could understand what you're trying to get out of this discussion. If you're trying to get me to acknowledge that Libertarianism is not a mainstream political party, I will gladly and handily agree. If, instead, you're trying to get me to agree that Libertarianism is not a worthwhile pursuit, I cannot agree to that.

[BigBallinStalin]

If environmentalism calls for curbing pollution and stemming global warming, then subsidies for complying with environmental regulations is most likely the most effective way to make businesses comply.

And who pays? Why is it taxpayers responsibility to pay for private businesses to stop damaging our world? That's like saying I need to pay my neighbor not to throw litter on my lawn.

Sure, and the US pays Egypt to not invade Israel. It's still effective.

Going off your claims, the taxpayers pays from the "real" costs of pollution. Wouldn't paying people to reduce pollution would increase everyone's welfare overall?

[PLAYER57832]

If environmentalism calls for curbing pollution and stemming global warming, then subsidies for complying with environmental regulations is most likely the most effective way to make businesses comply.

And who pays? Why is it taxpayers responsibility to pay for private businesses to stop damaging our world? That's like saying I need to pay my neighbor not to throw litter on my lawn.

Sure, and the US pays Egypt to not invade Israel. It's still effective.

Going off your claims, the taxpayers pays from the "real" costs of pollution. Wouldn't paying people to reduce pollution would increase everyone's welfare overall?

There are 2 parts to this question.

First, when externalities are paid, the consumer does pay. That is appropriate. The problem comes when paying for the externalities means the business cannot succeed. I say, in that case, with a very few exceptions, those are industries that don't need to exist, for which we need and CAN find alternatives.

However, the other part to this is that most of us just cannot currently afford to pay for the cleanup and mitigation of damage already done. In fact, our very ability to make money to pay for things is threatened by the damage done in various ways. Yet, we are being told this is our fault, we have to just "buck up"... while the corporations (not all who caused the damage, but most were a party to it in some fashion or other) and wealthy see their wealth increasing.

[Gillipig]

I consider myself a Librarian.

[BigBallinStalin]

If environmentalism calls for curbing pollution and stemming global warming, then subsidies for complying with environmental regulations is most likely the most effective way to make businesses comply.

And who pays? Why is it taxpayers responsibility to pay for private businesses to stop damaging our world? That's like saying I need to pay my neighbor not to throw litter on my lawn.

Sure, and the US pays Egypt to not invade Israel. It's still effective.

Going off your claims, the taxpayers pays from the "real" costs of pollution. Wouldn't paying people to reduce pollution would increase everyone's welfare overall?

There are 2 parts to this question.

First, when externalities are paid, the consumer does pay. That is appropriate. The problem comes when paying for the externalities means the business cannot succeed. I say, in that case, with a very few exceptions, those are industries that don't need to exist, for which we need and CAN find alternatives.

However, the other part to this is that most of us just cannot currently afford to pay for the cleanup and mitigation of damage already done. In fact, our very ability to make money to pay for things is threatened by the damage done in various ways. Yet, we are being told this is our fault, we have to just "buck up"... while the corporations (not all who caused the damage, but most were a party to it in some fashion or other) and wealthy see their wealth increasing.

I'm not excluding the possibility of companies paying for provable harm done to others via pollution or what have you.

So, going off your claims, the taxpayers pays from the "real" costs of pollution. These real costs are significant, and it would be better to remove them significantly. Since that's the goal, wouldn't paying people to reduce pollution would increase everyone's welfare overall?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not excluding the possibility of companies paying for provable harm done to others via pollution or what have you.

So, going off your claims, the taxpayers pays from the "real" costs of pollution. These real costs are significant, and it would be better to remove them significantly. Since that's the goal, wouldn't paying people to reduce pollution would increase everyone's welfare overall?

First, not all people universally pay the same. More importantly, most people are not aware of how much they pay. In fact, the disinformation out there on the subject is so phenomenal that I typically get labeled idiotic or crazy when I present contrary evidence. Worse, the real, proven and verified information, always somewhat hard to find, is becoming increasingly ,more difficult while the garbage is getting easier and easier to find. The way engines like Google, etc are structuring themselves, most people soon won't even know that they are not getting real information unless they truly go out of their way to find it. And, given the state of education, particularly science, more and more people don't understand even what constitutes real proof. (ergo the rise of Creationism... which is both a symptom and a cause).

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not excluding the possibility of companies paying for provable harm done to others via pollution or what have you.

So, going off your claims, the taxpayers pays from the "real" costs of pollution. These real costs are significant, and it would be better to remove them significantly. Since that's the goal, wouldn't paying people to reduce pollution would increase everyone's welfare overall?

First, not all people universally pay the same. More importantly, most people are not aware of how much they pay. In fact, the disinformation out there on the subject is so phenomenal that I typically get labeled idiotic or crazy when I present contrary evidence. Worse, the real, proven and verified information, always somewhat hard to find, is becoming increasingly ,more difficult while the garbage is getting easier and easier to find. The way engines like Google, etc are structuring themselves, most people soon won't even know that they are not getting real information unless they truly go out of their way to find it. And, given the state of education, particularly science, more and more people don't understand even what constitutes real proof. (ergo the rise of Creationism... which is both a symptom and a cause).

It seems like estimating the "real" costs of negative, environmental externalities is exceedingly difficult. I'm glad you've seen that.

So, how is taxation an effective means of promoting desired behavior when the costs of negative externalities is difficult to estimate? There's going to be improper taxes applied equally to producers who contribute different negative externalities. That's not really fair or effective, so why not resort to subsidies?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not excluding the possibility of companies paying for provable harm done to others via pollution or what have you.

So, going off your claims, the taxpayers pays from the "real" costs of pollution. These real costs are significant, and it would be better to remove them significantly. Since that's the goal, wouldn't paying people to reduce pollution would increase everyone's welfare overall?

First, not all people universally pay the same. More importantly, most people are not aware of how much they pay. In fact, the disinformation out there on the subject is so phenomenal that I typically get labeled idiotic or crazy when I present contrary evidence. Worse, the real, proven and verified information, always somewhat hard to find, is becoming increasingly ,more difficult while the garbage is getting easier and easier to find. The way engines like Google, etc are structuring themselves, most people soon won't even know that they are not getting real information unless they truly go out of their way to find it. And, given the state of education, particularly science, more and more people don't understand even what constitutes real proof. (ergo the rise of Creationism... which is both a symptom and a cause).

It seems like estimating the "real" costs of negative, environmental externalities is exceedingly difficult. I'm glad you've seen that.

It is NOT as difficult as you, the media or "pundits" like to insist. It just means paying attention to data instead of garbage. However, becuase corporations have no reason to push it, they don't. People cannot be bothered, unless educated to the need. I am not talking propaganda, talking data and understanding data.. no more propaganda than learning to add and subtract . Unfortunately, too many people have not gotten that and now consider even basic science facts to be "propaganda". Its why so many people here complain about CC dice. They don't get statistics and probability.

So, how is taxation an effective means of promoting desired behavior when the costs of negative externalities is difficult to estimate? There's going to be improper taxes applied equally to producers who contribute different negative externalities. That's not really fair or effective, so why not resort to subsidies?

Its difficult, not impossible. Also the estimation issues don't change whether its a tax or a subsidy. Either way, there is incentive to reduce. That's the goal. With subsidies, you increase everyone's cost to benefit a company. With taxes, you charge the company their own costs, force them to make that a part of their cost of doing business.

However, none of that alone will fix anything. You also need rules and some upper limits, plus more money into research for solutions and alternatives.

We were able to go to the moon, to the deep ocean, miles underground... but cannot convince companies to stop polluting and hurting our citizens? Only if you let the corporations decide the rules.

[PLAYER57832]

Was just reminded of 2 great examples, one historical and one modern.

Historical -- the dust bowl. The depression was caused by over investment, etc (much like the problems today), but what really pulled the trigger was the dust bowl. What caused the dustbowl? Ignorance of the land. This was, as today, partly spurred on by the misguided idea that development meant automaticl progress.. then land into agriculture, today its more mineral and water withdrawels. To a point, true, BUT... not when done unthinkingly, unknowingly, without limits. Folks plowing and plowing, along with some normal variations in climate and you woun dup with an extreme situation that did destroy millions of lives, almost brought our country down.

The solution? Most important was creation of the soil conservation service.

Fast forward to today and we have huge swaths of agriculture, large cities, etc all dependent on an aquifer that is losing 3 foot of depth a day, (note this figure may be off a bit, but there is no dispute it is being seriously drained). Texas is being hit hard by a drought, but so is Oklahoma. You don't hear quite as much about Oklahoma mostly because they rely more on irrigation.

So, what happens when that water goes? Of course, long before that wealthy people wind up getting the water and other people have to do without.. move or go out of business, etc. Solution BEFORE that happens? Move to dry land crops. I cannot remember specific crop demands right now, but to generalize that would mean not growing cotton, likely replacing corn with either dry wheat or maybe rye (tritacle??) for the short term. It also means we need to invest more in dry crops, including maybe some of the native historic grains such as perhaps Amaranth or Quinoa (?. Again, I am not sure that those particular ones are good examples, but the point is that there ARE other crops out there. This doesn't require genetic engineering, at least not yet (we are being pushed to the point where rushing will require genetic engineering). For now, simply selective breeding can do it. That does take investment, research and testing. Of course, just telling farmers to grow, this grain nobody has heard of doesn't mean people will leap out to the market to buy it. So, this IS a case where we need research into not just production, but also use. AND, there have to be measures that make this new grain more attractive to people. Taxing is probably one of the best ways and would fit in well with the whole picture. Added taxes to water and on the high water use grains (note, ideally just the tax on the water use would be enough, but right now it could be that the situation is so dire, it might not result in things changing quickly enough).
The research and mandates do have to come from above, from the government (no matter how "softly" they are structured or designed they ultimately mean taxes and mandates).

That is just a couple of very small examples, but with big impact. And yes, I realize there are complications that would have to be worked out.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not excluding the possibility of companies paying for provable harm done to others via pollution or what have you.

So, going off your claims, the taxpayers pays from the "real" costs of pollution. These real costs are significant, and it would be better to remove them significantly. Since that's the goal, wouldn't paying people to reduce pollution would increase everyone's welfare overall?

First, not all people universally pay the same. More importantly, most people are not aware of how much they pay. In fact, the disinformation out there on the subject is so phenomenal that I typically get labeled idiotic or crazy when I present contrary evidence. Worse, the real, proven and verified information, always somewhat hard to find, is becoming increasingly ,more difficult while the garbage is getting easier and easier to find. The way engines like Google, etc are structuring themselves, most people soon won't even know that they are not getting real information unless they truly go out of their way to find it. And, given the state of education, particularly science, more and more people don't understand even what constitutes real proof. (ergo the rise of Creationism... which is both a symptom and a cause).

It seems like estimating the "real" costs of negative, environmental externalities is exceedingly difficult. I'm glad you've seen that.

It is NOT as difficult as you, the media or "pundits" like to insist. It just means paying attention to data instead of garbage. However, becuase corporations have no reason to push it, they don't. People cannot be bothered, unless educated to the need. I am not talking propaganda, talking data and understanding data.. no more propaganda than learning to add and subtract . Unfortunately, too many people have not gotten that and now consider even basic science facts to be "propaganda". Its why so many people here complain about CC dice. They don't get statistics and probability.

So, how is taxation an effective means of promoting desired behavior when the costs of negative externalities is difficult to estimate? There's going to be improper taxes applied equally to producers who contribute different negative externalities. That's not really fair or effective, so why not resort to subsidies?

Its difficult, not impossible. Also the estimation issues don't change whether its a tax or a subsidy. Either way, there is incentive to reduce. That's the goal. With subsidies, you increase everyone's cost to benefit a company. With taxes, you charge the company their own costs, force them to make that a part of their cost of doing business.

However, none of that alone will fix anything. You also need rules and some upper limits, plus more money into research for solutions and alternatives.

We were able to go to the moon, to the deep ocean, miles underground... but cannot convince companies to stop polluting and hurting our citizens? Only if you let the corporations decide the rules.

You can yell has much as you like, but the real costs of negative externalities of pollution are extremely difficult to estimate--if not impossible. They're practically impossible because questions like "Suppose one spends roughly 5 hours outside every day and is 8.2 miles from a natural gas plant which uses chemicals B, C, and D at differing proportions. How many costs is that one plant incurring on that one person? How does one separate this vague amount of damage from other producers of pollution, like people who drive their cars to work, or suppose the guy smokes, or doesn't exercise, etc.?"

You can't calculate that, or even accurately estimate it.

Given that, why not create the strongest incentives to curtail pollution (while maintaining jobs in the US) by giving subsidies?

Taxation does motivate companies to avoid punishment, but that also induces bad behavior such as cutting corners...

[BigBallinStalin]

Was just reminded of 2 great examples, one historical and one modern.

Historical -- the dust bowl. The depression was caused by over investment, etc (much like the problems today), but what really pulled the trigger was the dust bowl. What caused the dustbowl? Ignorance of the land. This was, as today, partly spurred on by the misguided idea that development meant automaticl progress.. then land into agriculture, today its more mineral and water withdrawels. To a point, true, BUT... not when done unthinkingly, unknowingly, without limits. Folks plowing and plowing, along with some normal variations in climate and you woun dup with an extreme situation that did destroy millions of lives, almost brought our country down.

The solution? Most important was creation of the soil conservation service.

Fast forward to today and we have huge swaths of agriculture, large cities, etc all dependent on an aquifer that is losing 3 foot of depth a day, (note this figure may be off a bit, but there is no dispute it is being seriously drained). Texas is being hit hard by a drought, but so is Oklahoma. You don't hear quite as much about Oklahoma mostly because they rely more on irrigation.

So, what happens when that water goes? Of course, long before that wealthy people wind up getting the water and other people have to do without.. move or go out of business, etc. Solution BEFORE that happens? Move to dry land crops. I cannot remember specific crop demands right now, but to generalize that would mean not growing cotton, likely replacing corn with either dry wheat or maybe rye (tritacle??) for the short term. It also means we need to invest more in dry crops, including maybe some of the native historic grains such as perhaps Amaranth or Quinoa (?. Again, I am not sure that those particular ones are good examples, but the point is that there ARE other crops out there. This doesn't require genetic engineering, at least not yet (we are being pushed to the point where rushing will require genetic engineering). For now, simply selective breeding can do it. That does take investment, research and testing. Of course, just telling farmers to grow, this grain nobody has heard of doesn't mean people will leap out to the market to buy it. So, this IS a case where we need research into not just production, but also use. AND, there have to be measures that make this new grain more attractive to people. Taxing is probably one of the best ways and would fit in well with the whole picture. Added taxes to water and on the high water use grains (note, ideally just the tax on the water use would be enough, but right now it could be that the situation is so dire, it might not result in things changing quickly enough).
The research and mandates do have to come from above, from the government (no matter how "softly" they are structured or designed they ultimately mean taxes and mandates).

That is just a couple of very small examples, but with big impact. And yes, I realize there are complications that would have to be worked out.

People won't conserve the water because water prices are mandated by the state.

[PLAYER57832]

People won't conserve the water because water prices are mandated by the state.

They just go and spend $1.50 on a pint of bottled water some advertising executive has convinced them is "better", even if it really is not.

[Symmetry]

Bump, for BBS.

[Phatscotty]

Nobody messes with these guys!


Were do the gay Tea baggers fit in the poll option? You better get an option for them, or else!!!!

[Phatscotty]

Bump, for BBS.

necrobump!

[Symmetry]

Meh- BBS posted on my wall about libertarianism, it's always worthwhile wondering what people mean by libertarianism, as it can pretty much mean anything.

[Phatscotty]

Meh- BBS posted on my wall about libertarianism, it's always worthwhile wondering what people mean by libertarianism, as it can pretty much mean anything.

One thing it means for sure, LIBERTY!!!!!! I think even you will enjoy this

[Symmetry]

I liked him better in Sideways.

[Phatscotty]

I liked him better in Sideways.

what do you think about what he said concerning Liberty?

[notyou2]

Sym you forgot the gun toting Disenfranchised Libertarian option