For madnak/borodog/etc

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a big time preferences thing. I think hmkpoker once said that he doesn't think AC should happen until businesses are disincentivized (from consumer backlash and/or just being cheaper to use something environmentally safe) from polluting the environment.


maybe I should have just waited for borodog since I haven't really said anything. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you said something but I may not have got it. Do you mean that a "mature" AC society would have dealt with it ok. Ie that AC is not just what we have today minus government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well here's the thing. In a free market if a business does something that pisses others off they lose business to others. However, polluting the environment may only be ruining the environment for people not born yet. Obviously people who are living now care, but will they care enough not to do business with them? With the current population probably not, because of time preferences, which is a big part of Anarchocapitalism. Ironically, if what they were doing would take effect very soon after, this wouldn't be a problem, because there would certainly be backlash from consumers.

[HumanACtor]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this a specific example where states have served us better than AC would have?


[/ QUOTE ]

What are the most ozone-damaging products?

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
I keep forgetting which it is. So when we make the switch to AC, are we going to give the moon to Neil Armstrong's heirs?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes.

Also, although some have denied it, it also follows from their premises that the American Indians still own most of the United States.

My question is: What happens if they don't want AC???!!!

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a big time preferences thing. I think hmkpoker once said that he doesn't think AC should happen until businesses are disincentivized (from consumer backlash and/or just being cheaper to use something environmentally safe) from polluting the environment.


maybe I should have just waited for borodog since I haven't really said anything. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you said something but I may not have got it. Do you mean that a "mature" AC society would have dealt with it ok. Ie that AC is not just what we have today minus government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well here's the thing. In a free market if a business does something that pisses others off they lose business to others. However, polluting the environment may only be ruining the environment for people not born yet. Obviously people who are living now care, but will they care enough not to do business with them? With the current population probably not, because of time preferences, which is a big part of Anarchocapitalism. Ironically, if what they were doing would take effect very soon after, this wouldn't be a problem, because there would certainly be backlash from consumers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is my point. Doesnt a state deal better with the situation where the costs to be born occur many years later (assuming everyone agrees on the prospective outcomes being undesirable)?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this a specific example where states have served us better than AC would have?


[/ QUOTE ]

What are the most ozone-damaging products?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know for sure, but I believe it's chlorofluorocarbons.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The first person to mix their labor with the ozone layer would own it.

[/ QUOTE ] Wrong!...Their theory of ownership is now "homesteading" which is the same thing with a different name, re-named because it is so blatantly preposterous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep forgetting which it is. So when we make the switch to AC, are we going to give the moon to Neil Armstrong's heirs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like you, I had assumed the foundation of AC was Lockean logic. Now I'm beginning to wonder if investing a signifigant portion of my net worth in street sweeping equipment may have been a bit premature.

[Borodog]

Leaving aside your particular examle (for the moment; I will come back to it, I promise), if the state has the power to unilaterally coerce entire industries into not using CFCs, what else does the state have the power to unilaterally coerce? In other words, even if I concede that you have found an example where the state has done something "better" than the market, that doesn't make any difference at all, since the bad that the state does massively outweighs any possible good.

But to return to the point in question, and pollution in general, answer me this: Why is it that the state cares about the ozone layer, or the environment in general?

Because the public cares, of course. If no one in the public gave a rat's ass about the environment, do you think the state would even pretend to care about it? No, of course not. It is only because a significant chunk of the population cares about such issues that the state acts on them.

What difference does this make? All the difference in the world. Because the population are not only participants in the political apparatus of the state as voters, they are participants in the market as consumers. Factories belching smoke and dumping waste into streams is extraordinarily bad for business.

This is why most major pollution indeces were already on their way down before implementation of any major "anti-pollution" legislation after World War II.

Let's also not forget that government is also the source of most of our pollution problems. Governments are the largest polluters, by far. Governments prevent private property rights in the air and water. Government outlawed class action suits in the case of air pollution. Government subsidizes pollution by massively subsidizing highways and by sanctifying pollution and creating "markets" for it (an oxymoron, since pollution is aggression, it is a violation of rights; you can't have a right to violate rights).

In the particular case of CFCs and the ozone layer, I am dubious, as I usually am, because such issues are so massively politicized. However, I am not an expert on the chemistry of the situation, so I will presume that the effect works as advertised, i.e. CFCs destroy ozone which then allows higher intensities of UV to penetrate to the Earth's surface, potentially increasing skin cancers (one of the reasons I am skeptical, by the way, is that the sunblock propaganda craze has led to a host of health problems associated with not getting enough enough sun, like Vitamin D deficiency, which can contribute to, you guessed it, skin cancer; but that's beside the point).

If scientists can credibly show the mechanism and causality in such a situation, a class action suit can be filed.

If scientists cannot credibly show a mechanism and causality, then of course nothing should be done. But under a state, things are often done rashly, "just in case" (quite often at the behest of a powerful politically connected competitor).

Think how many hystrical and contradictory news reports we hear about the healthfulness or dangerousness of practically every product. Essentially, any product is subject to being banned at any time on the whims of politicians and bureaucrats. The potential for corruption and personal and economic harm is incredible.

For example, consider the banning of DDT. DDT got banned in the US because of (false) hysteria about it thinning the shells of bird's eggs. That's fine in the US, where we had already wiped out malaria (with DDT). The rest of the world followed our lead (because hey, if America is banning it, it must be dangerous, and because we threatened and cajoled with economic sticks and carots). The result is that of order 100 million people have died from malaria that could have been saved by the use of DDT.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a big time preferences thing. I think hmkpoker once said that he doesn't think AC should happen until businesses are disincentivized (from consumer backlash and/or just being cheaper to use something environmentally safe) from polluting the environment.


maybe I should have just waited for borodog since I haven't really said anything. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you said something but I may not have got it. Do you mean that a "mature" AC society would have dealt with it ok. Ie that AC is not just what we have today minus government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well here's the thing. In a free market if a business does something that pisses others off they lose business to others. However, polluting the environment may only be ruining the environment for people not born yet. Obviously people who are living now care, but will they care enough not to do business with them? With the current population probably not, because of time preferences, which is a big part of Anarchocapitalism. Ironically, if what they were doing would take effect very soon after, this wouldn't be a problem, because there would certainly be backlash from consumers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is my point. Doesnt a state deal better with the situation where the costs to be born occur many years later (assuming everyone agrees on the prospective outcomes being undesirable)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. Who says the state cares? As I said people may not care enough about pollution is it's outcomes only affect people not living yet. The state is not filled with benevelent demigods, it's made up of people. It's just a [censored] situation where either way the way things are going to be changed either through (1) consumers being smarter or (2) new ways to create energy that is environmentally safe and better for business.

Also, if everyone agreed that the outcomes are undesirable then we wouldn't need a state to make businesses not pollute.

I mean, uh, what borodog said [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The first person to mix their labor with the ozone layer would own it.

[/ QUOTE ] Wrong!...Their theory of ownership is now "homesteading" which is the same thing with a different name, re-named because it is so blatantly preposterous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because certainly, the first person to appropriate something from nature believing he owns it is "preposterous."

Go peddle crazy somewhere else.

[bunny]

Thanks again for your answers.
[ QUOTE ]
Leaving aside your particular examle (for the moment; I will come back to it, I promise), if the state has the power to unilaterally coerce entire industries into not using CFCs, what else does the state have the power to unilaterally coerce? In other words, even if I concede that you have found an example where the state has done something "better" than the market, that doesn't make any difference at all, since the bad that the state does massively outweighs any possible good.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed - I didnt mean that this one example should sway anyone on its own. Even if it's a "killer blow" it may be one against a whole host of blows the other way.

[ QUOTE ]
But to return to the point in question, and pollution in general, answer me this: Why is it that the state cares about the ozone layer, or the environment in general?

Because the public cares, of course. If no one in the public gave a rat's ass about the environment, do you think the state would even pretend to care about it? No, of course not. It is only because a significant chunk of the population cares about such issues that the state acts on them.

What difference does this make? All the difference in the world. Because the population are not only participants in the political apparatus of the state as voters, they are participants in the market as consumers. Factories belching smoke and dumping waste into streams is extraordinarily bad for business.

This is why most major pollution indeces were already on their way down before implementation of any major "anti-pollution" legislation after World War II.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that things will eventually be valuable enough to people that they will start to pay for it - my question was whether coercion (sp?) by the state was quicker. Again, assuming the results are uncontroversially bad as they seem to be with CFCs - I dont recall there being anywhere near the opposition to the claims as there is against global warming for instance.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's also not forget that government is also the source of most of our pollution problems. Governments are the largest polluters, by far. Governments prevent private property rights in the air and water. Government outlawed class action suits in the case of air pollution. Government subsidizes pollution by massively subsidizing highways and by sanctifying pollution and creating "markets" for it (an oxymoron, since pollution is aggression, it is a violation of rights; you can't have a right to violate rights).

[/ QUOTE ]
This goes back to your first point and I agree that 1 success doesnt necessarily prove states are saints. Nonetheless, in thinking about AC it seems best to contrast it with states in the areas where it is weakest. There's no point considering how personal freedom or economic efficiency would fare for example. I leave considerations like that to when I am considering statism.

[ QUOTE ]
In the particular case of CFCs and the ozone layer, I am dubious, as I usually am, because such issues are so massively politicized. However, I am not an expert on the chemistry of the situation, so I will presume that the effect works as advertised, i.e. CFCs destroy ozone which then allows higher intensities of UV to penetrate to the Earth's surface, potentially increasing skin cancers (one of the reasons I am skeptical, by the way, is that the sunblock propaganda craze has led to a host of health problems associated with not getting enough enough sun, like Vitamin D deficiency, which can contribute to, you guessed it, skin cancer; but that's beside the point).

If scientists can credibly show the mechanism and causality in such a situation, a class action suit can be filed.

If scientists cannot credibly show a mechanism and causality, then of course nothing should be done. But under a state, things are often done rashly, "just in case" (quite often at the behest of a powerful politically connected competitor).

Think how many hystrical and contradictory news reports we hear about the healthfulness or dangerousness of practically every product. Essentially, any product is subject to being banned at any time on the whims of politicians and bureaucrats. The potential for corruption and personal and economic harm is incredible.

For example, consider the banning of DDT. DDT got banned in the US because of (false) hysteria about it thinning the shells of bird's eggs. That's fine in the US, where we had already wiped out malaria (with DDT). The rest of the world followed our lead (because hey, if America is banning it, it must be dangerous, and because we threatened and cajoled with economic sticks and carots). The result is that of order 100 million people have died from malaria that could have been saved by the use of DDT.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree again that states can get it wrong.