Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Libertarians, Gun Control, Abortion (Pt. 4) | Michael Shermer | FREE SPEECH | Rubin Report" video.

Personally - as a libertarian - I've been chocked about how many who call them selves libertarians who have completely misunderstod the ideology by thinking it makes sense to deny the science of climate change in order not to have to find a solution to the problem within the ideological basis.
5
jonnyhan You don't have to be unable to follow logic to be a libertarian. Wrt. climate change the problem with CO2 in the atmosphere is obviously a "tragedy-of-the-commons" (look it up). It is well known that there's only 2 ways to solve such a problem: Privatization or regulation. So ... unless someone comes up with a magical way to privatize the atmosphere, so we can all pollute our own little part of it at our own expense, the only solution IS regulation. Now ... it's only a matter of finding the most free market way of doing that regulation. To say otherwise is not "libertarian" - it's just being stupid.
1
jonnyhan "Thank you, you made a beautiful case for why you are NOT A LIBERTARIAN" Did you read what I said at all? That the only solution is regulation is not a political standpoint. It derives from basic economic facts. It's simply meaningless to deny. "You can apply your line of thinking to justify any sort of collectivism and any sort of regulation" No. I Can't ... since many other examples of tragedy-of-the-commons actually do have another solution: PRIVATIZATION But not this one. ... unless you can tell me how we privatize the atmosphere. "I am assuming you are a leftist." I'm from Europe...American political labels make little sense here. Your "left" is not like our "left". You have twisted the term "liberal" and most americans seem to have trouble telling the difference between a social democrat, a socialist and a communist. What you call "right wing" libertarian is probably what would be called "anarko-capitalism" here. ... an ideology, I find just as utopian as communism. You say you live by the non-aggression principle. And that sound very fine. I regard it as a sound liberal (in the classical European sense) principle that your freedom extends precisely so far as to not trespass on others equal freedom. However... (to take the example of climate)... when you emit non-trivial amounts of CO2 into the air it's a scientific fact that you actually ultimately harm other people. If you have to deny that scientific fact to make your world view function, then there's something wrong with your ideology - or at least the way you think about it. In order to be a strict anarko-capitalist and never allow any regulation of CO2 pollution, you not only have to deny scientific facts, but also economic facts and even basic liberal (again in the classic sense) principles like that your freedom doesn't extend to the point where it limit other peoples equal freedom. I'm a libertarian - but I don't see it as a duty for a libertarian to deny facts about the real world to avoid having to solve real problems.
1
jonnyhan "All I am saying is that my knowledge and choice on climate change is irrelevant. Because I am a libertarian first and foremost" That is exactly what I base my understanding of you position on. I can't see I'm misinterpreting it. Here we have a problem, clearly defined by science for which basic economic theory says that there's no solution to which doesn't involve regulation (besides pure luck) and which has the potential to end civilization (*) And you say that we should not try to solve it because of ideological dogma. That's a position I have a hard time respecting. If one think ones ideology is the best, then it must be because believing its principles can solve any problem the real world will throw at us. If you have to give up and declare that a problem so decisive as potentially making the climate unlivable for not-to-be-solved, then it's a red flag that there's something fundamentally wrong with that way to thinking. *: Bear in mind that though it's probably not the most likely scenario, it's a very real possibility that we will trigger something like the Perm/Trias event or the PETM and unless you learn to breath H2S, then it's game over for civilization as we know it. Now ... I didn't actually say anything about which kind of regulation I - as a libertarian - would suggest/prefer. So most of you comment was pure speculation. I don't just want any kind of regulation. Specifically, I'm very much against government picking winners and losers. What I would prefer is to harness the forces of the free market to solve the problem. Market forces can do impressing thing if the market actually works freely and all costs are factored in. However... one have to notice that that's not the case today. No-one pays the cost they impose on other people (or future generations) when they emit CO2. There are HUGE negative externalities in the current marked. IMF have tallied this up to effectively trillions of dollars in yearly subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. So to make the market work towards a solution and not against, you have to correct that market error. That's why I support a fee-n-dividend carbon-tax as proposed by James Hansen. Bear in mind that this solution (although named a "tax") will actually not increase the overall taxation. All it does is to correct a market error, so the marked becomes actually free and functioning. And no - it doesn't involve a global tyranny. There's no global regulation going on here. it will however have a better chance at global effect, due to simple incentives. The only "global" legalese involved in this the the WTO provisions for allowing border-adjustments in import. Also... for the record. I have nothing against Nuclear power. Though... it's not dwarfed by Solar. In terms of physics, the Sun provides the earth with more than enough energy. We only need to have more effective technology to capture it.
1