A few more "delusional" thoughts to John Quiggin on partisan perceptions & libertarian opposition to collective action
Further to my preceding posts regarding John Quiggin`s post on “Libertarians and delusionism“, I copy below a few of the comments that I left there:
John,
thanks for raising the topic more widely. However, I think you`ve
wandered a bit astray yourself by missing the problem of cognitive
traps, as well as missing a libertarian point or two.
I respond more fully here: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/04/john-quiggin-plays-pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey-with-quot-libertarians-and-delusionism-quot.aspx
Tom
John,
I note that I have made a few additional comments, chiefly in an effort
to clarify my understanding of libertarian views on property:
I look forward to your further thoughts.
Tom
November 5th, 2009 at 00:43 | #48
John, obviously my own experience at Mises (and at the libertarian law
blog Volokh Conspiracy) is that while decidedly irrational “skepticism”
and wishful thinking predominates, it is not universal. But those like
me who believe that climate concerns are justified and want to analyze
policy (and who are critical of ad homs directed toward “enviros”)
always face challenges and criticism from those who feel too threaded
to venture out into a discussion of policy.
However, outside of boards like that, it seems to me that there is a
general swing by libertarian commenters on climate to an acceptance of
a rather mainstream science view, though there remains natural policy
disagreements. Ron Bailey, science correspondence at Reason and Jon
Adler, a resources law prof at Case Western, Lynne Kiesling at
Knowledge Problem blog, David Zetland, who blogs on water issues, come
to mind. Others, at AEI, CEI, IER and Master Resource are partly in the
business of running cover for fossil fuel interests, and so frequently
challenge both science and policy.
There have been several open disputes, where Bailey, Kiesling and
others have challenged skepticism at CEI and elsewhere, as I noted on
my recent “libertarian views” summary post. Readers might also find
this upbraiding of Penn & Teller to be interesting: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/05/penn-amp-teller-quot-bull-quot-artists-get-ready-to-change-their-quot-skeptical-quot-stance-on-climate-change.aspx
BTW, I note that one self-described libertarian group in California
has specifically proposed carbon taxes, though this is a rather obscure
group and their “Pay Your Air Share” proposal appears to be
little-discussed: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/13/quot-pay-your-air-share-quot-libertarian-think-tank-advocates-carbon-taxes.aspx
-
November 5th, 2009 at 17:08 | #36
@Freelander
“It is the collective action that is required that extreme libertarians hate so much. ”Libertarians don`t oppose collective action per se, but are opposed
to “collective” actions that are dictated by the state -because it
hampers the ability of communities to respond to problems on their own,
weakens links between resource users and the relevant resource,
frequently locks in benefits for powerful insiders (viz., the big firms
that profess to love markets but really love their deals from
government that lock in their advantageous position) – thereby setting
up enduring fights over the wheel of government -and because the
“knowledge problem” generally ensures that solutions will be ham-handed
and generate a need for further interventions.You, John and others might not have noticed, but these are some of
the chief conclusions of the empirical research by “tragedy of the
commons” expert Elinor Ostrom, and her writings about how
counter-productive stated-led “development” and commons-management
efforts have been is precisely the reason why the Swedes awarded her
the Nobel Prize in economics. -
November 5th, 2009 at 17:19 | #37
@Alice
Alice, on the topic of “watermelons”, surely the libertarians have a
point that many environmentalists really do not understand how markets
or free societies function, but typically this term is used not to
explain, but as an ad hom, both to dismiss concerns over climate
science and to avoid the heavy work of arguing over policy, as I`ve
noted here: -
November 5th, 2009 at 17:33 | #39
John,
to sum up, while clearly many libertarians are guilty of wishful
thinking as to the climate science, by the same token many
environmentalists and leftists seem to blithely ignore all of the
problems that are associated with state/bureaucratic responses.Yes, there are self-deluded on both sides, but to seek to explain
away (or dispense with considering) the opposition of others is itself
a flight from reason and responsibility.That this is understandable , human and a common phenomenon in the
case of tribal or partisan conflict – as Nick Kristof points out: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/04/17/nick-kristof-on-politics-why-we-conclude-that-i-m-right-and-you-re-evil.aspx
– makes it something that we should all the more try to avoid, rather
than indulge in, which seems to be the drift of this post and many of
your commenters.On this point, I would recommend that you and others take a look at
some of the opposition to cap-and-trade now springing up on the left in
the US; see the comments of two EPA lawyers and of Dr. Janese Hansen
here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/epa-lawyers-challenge-cap-and-trade-for-climate/Says Hansen: “I hope that Williams and Zabel give decision makers
pause. This is no time to be rushing into costly ineffectual
legislation. It is time to call a halt on any legislation this year,
and take time to understand the matter. It would take 20 years to fix
the mess that Congress, with the help of special interests, seems
intent on creating.”Regards,
Tom
Recent Comments