[Update- apology] The Road Not Taken III: Stephan Kinsella plugs his ears on the Austrians` obstinate, willful irrelevancy in the climate debate?
[Note: Stephan Kinsella tells me he has NOT put my posts on his thread on moderation. I believe him, and so (even as I fail to understand why I was unable to post a particular comment after a number of attempts), as noted I would in my original post, I withdraw my charge that he put my comments on moderation, and offer my sincere apology to Stephan (and to LvMI readers) for my mistake and for the offense that I imagine I may have caused to his sense of fair play. I am happy to do this, though of course I deeply regret my mistake.
Stephan, I`m sorry. I take your word that the conclusion I jumped to was wrong.
I am still trying to puzzle through what happened; below I have restored an edited version of my prior post, with the unjustifed portions deleted.
Meanwhile, the discussion continues at the Mises Blog, at the above thread.]
In my preceding post I commented on Austrian (dis)engagement on climate issues, as exemplified by Stephan Kinsella`s Mises Blog post, “Physicist Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims”.
[clip]
Instead of the usual cheerful message LvMI provides when comments
are accepted (“Confirmation… Your comment has been submitted!)”, my
attempts to comment are now met with the message, “Thank you for commenting. Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.”
While there are times that this message is automatically served up
for technical reasons, such as not providing proper email address
(i.e., by accidently typing in “.comh” instead of “.com”) or providing
too many links (which may trigger a spamblocking feature), this [seemed to me] to be fairly clearly NOT one of those occasions – I had just successfully
posted a couple of comments that included links, and my “failed” post
included my usual email address (properly formatted, as I can confirm
simply by backing up) and no links.
[clip]
I copy below the comment that I
[had supposed] turned his playful non-responsiveness (see his comment to my prior post) into stony silence/silencing:
- Published: October 31, 2009 1:00 PM
-
Stephan, if I may, I am appalled and offended by your shallow and
fundamentally dishonest engagement here. That there are a string of
others who have preceded you in this regard is no excuse.You: (i) post without significant comment a one-page letter from a
scientist – as if the letter itself is vindication, victory or a
roadmap for how we should seek to engage the views and preferences of
others,(ii) refuse to answer my straightforward questions (both above and
at my cross-linked post, which you visited) on how we engage others in
the very active ongoing political debate, in a manner that actually
defends and advances our policy agenda, (putting aside the
insulting and disingenuous “Tokyo asked me to respond” and “it’s so
rambling I am not sure what to respond to”); and(iii) then proceed to present your own view of the science, the
motives and sanity “watermelons” (as if they`re running the show), a
few helpful, free-market libertarian “solutions”, like open-air
explosion of nuclear weapons to bring about a “nuclear winter” effect!And my attempt to bring your focus back to the question of how we
actually deal with others in the POLITICAL bargaining that is, after
all, underway is met with silence – other than your faithful report
back from your trusty climate physicist expert policy guru friend about
…. science (all being essentially irrelevant to my question, not
merely the cute little folksy demonstration about how the troubling
melting and thinning of Antarctic ice sheets actually now underway
simply CAN`T be occurring, but also a further failure to address the
very rapid ocean acidification our CO2 emissions are producing)!Maybe it`s me, but I find this type of insincere and shallow
engagement on such a serious issue to be a shameful discredit to the
Mises Blog (even if it does cater to those who prefer to think that the
big to do about climate – which may very well result in a mass of
ill-considered, costly and counterproductive legislation – is really
groundless and so can simply be ignored, aside from a bit of internal
fulminations here).If you are not actually interested in discussing policy on a serious issue, then consider refraining from posting on it.
Maybe it`s not my position to expect better, but I do.
Sincerely,
Tom
[Note: I had intended to excise the following from my comment,
but it`s just as well that it slipped in, as it serves to illustrate
what productive Austrian approaches to climate issues might look like.
I`ve added a link to Roy Cordato.]
Roy Cordato (linked at my name) said this:
“The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal
seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute
plans within the context of their goals. … [S]ocial welfare or
efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. [C] that
similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to
catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being
captured by prices.”
“Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the
heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that
is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal
plan formulation and execution.”
“The focus of the Austrian approach to environmental economics is
conflict resolution. The purpose of focusing on issues related to
property rights is to describe the source of the conflict and to
identify possible ways of resolving it.”
“If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in
either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant
resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist.
This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly
all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998;
Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective
on pollution from one of “market failure” where the free market is seen
as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the
market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the
necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced
property rights, is not in place.”
Conza88, you misunderstand me. If libertarians have the slightest interest in persuading anyone, they kinda have to actually, you know, TRY.
“The only way that Austrians can achieve their purposes is by seeking to influence others AND government.”
It is against the self interest of the politicians to reduce their power, wealth and influence. No state / political in the history of the world has ever done so voluntarily.
To contend as such is naive and ignorant of history, as well as strategy. How has this strategy worked for CATO? How has it worked for every single free market think tank the world over, in their respective countries?
It never has.
Stephan, I`m sorry; you have my full apology, as I`ve noted above.
Since you`ve provided some substantive comments, let me respond briefly:
– my point is not at all that you`ve had the nerve to publish something someone else has written, but the fact that you`ve done so with a piece that just a little scratch reveals is mainly twaddle and that you don`t at all address how Mises blog readers ought to engage others on this issue, including particularly whether we ought to consider engaging the various people fighting over the wheel of government in ways that might to help improve on the status quo and to advance the cause of freedom.
– as to your views of the science, of course I have no problem at all you stating whatever those views might be. My point is that you were not at all responsive to my question about whether it would be more productive than calling enviros evil to engage them (and the big boys who use them as puppets) in discussing changes that Austrians would like to see that might advance the enviros` (and others`) agendas.
– “discussing policy” is how socialists describe it when the foregone conclusion is that the state is going to intervene, and we need to just have a nice cozy chat about what knobs to twiddle to satisfy or balance this or that “interest” against others. Real libertarians don’t “discuss policy”–they talk about property rights.
The only way that Austrians can achieve their purposes is by seeking to influence others AND government. My point is not at all “socialistic”.
Real libertarians DO discuss policy, AND property rights, AND, like Ostrom points out, the way communities can, without government interference, devise their own rules to manage commons.
I stand by my point, that we ought to be vigorously discussing all of these things, including, in the context of climate change concerns:
– ending counterproductive public utility monopolies;
– allowing immediate write-off of capital investments;
– ending favoritism under the CAA for the dirtiest coal-fired power plants;
– ending licensing of nuclear power (and federal insurance caps); etc.
Well… this has to be the worst blog I’ve ever read.
Tom,
I didn’t moderate or block anything. This is the first I’ve heard of it.
“You: (i) post without significant comment a one-page letter from a scientist – as if the letter itself is vindication, victory or a roadmap for how we should seek to engage the views and preferences of others,”
How, how DARE I publish something someone else has written! The nerve!
“(ii) refuse to answer my straightforward questions (both above and at my cross-linked post, which you visited) on how we engage others in the very active ongoing political debate, in a manner that actually defends and advances our policy agenda, (putting aside the insulting and disingenuous “Tokyo asked me to respond” and “it’s so rambling I am not sure what to respond to”);”
I have no obligation to respond to your rambling comments. I don’t know what you are jabbering about.
“(iii) then proceed to present your own view of the science,”
How, How… DARE I present my own opinion! The nerve!
“If you are not actually interested in discussing policy on a serious issue, then consider refraining from posting on it.”
“discussing policy” is how socialists describe it when the foregone conclusion is that the state is going to intervene, and we need to just have a nice cozy chat about what knobs to twiddle to satisfy or balance this or that “interest” against others. Real libertarians don’t “discuss policy”–they talk about property rights.