tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post3160934577581335650..comments2023-10-19T01:44:50.017+01:00Comments on Liberal Polemic: The environment and liberalismLiberal Polemichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-35586582032982592502007-11-01T19:17:00.000+00:002007-11-01T19:17:00.000+00:00I don’t think that Tristan is suggesting that soci...I don’t think that Tristan is suggesting that social choices are ‘evil’. I think he is suggesting that they are no more than the sum of their parts; a collection of individual choices made my all within society. For example, we all agree to accept freedom of speech, and consequently have to tolerate rudeness and ignorance, because we recognise that society benefits from it. However, these ‘social choices’/norms must by nature be basic and fundamental if the whole of society is to buy into them. Thus freedom of speech and property rights are fundamental norms whereas raising VAT on gas-guzzling cars is not.<BR/><BR/>That being said, it is entirely possible to have a broad principle of respect for the environment; in fact, I would argue that there <I>is</I> such a principle, broadly agreed. The debate is about how to codify it without infringing on other principles, such as freedom of property and the norm that the law should not be arbitrary. Pigovian taxes do that; a lot of current environmental measures do not.<BR/><BR/>But you’ve left now, so I’m talking to myself!Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-60632556621349245272007-11-01T16:42:00.000+00:002007-11-01T16:42:00.000+00:00Rights are a creation of societies - or rather of ...Rights are a creation of societies - or rather of the interaction between individuals - I agree with that.<BR/>What I disagree with is the concept of a social choice. Only a person can make a choice, a society cannot.<BR/><BR/>In the case of property rights, nobody made a choice to have these rights.Tristanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15395992764678278326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-15046457916280629872007-11-01T15:57:00.000+00:002007-11-01T15:57:00.000+00:00Tom,I'm not presenting anything as a zero sum game...Tom,<BR/><BR/>I'm not presenting anything as a zero sum game. Again, I largely agree with what you say.<BR/><BR/>What I am getting at is that certain social choices are inescapable - including whether or not to protect drinking water. It is no good, as Tristan seems to do, to dismiss all social choices as evil, and then turn around and assert the few social choices one would support - such as the protection of property - as not just a natural right, but some kind of natural law.<BR/><BR/>None of this justifies coercion. Coercion is a wrong social choice. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, not throwing away the possibility of good social choices.<BR/><BR/>Off for a day or two now, I'm not ignoring you.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-88386591857371694882007-11-01T15:49:00.000+00:002007-11-01T15:49:00.000+00:00Tristan, to clarify, there are two meanings of the...Tristan, to clarify, there are two meanings of the word 'right'. <BR/><BR/>A legal right is claim that is recognised and protected in law and by society. A moral right is one that morally ought to be recognised and protected in law and by society.<BR/><BR/>Moral rights to property exist - at least according to moral realists like myself. Legal rights to property are, contrary to what you suggest, the creation of human societies.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-24165884456392728602007-11-01T15:26:00.000+00:002007-11-01T15:26:00.000+00:00Joe,I’m really not interested in the argument betw...Joe,<BR/><BR/>I’m really not interested in the argument between “economic liberalism” and “social liberalism,” both of which I consider to be unhelpful phrases that have done more to divide liberals than cast light on the subject.<BR/><BR/>The difference within the social choices that you describe is between setting broad principles for society (freedom of expression; protection of property rights) and limiting the choices individuals may wish to make (buy a large car, fly to Newquay). <BR/><BR/>The debate is between whether one wants a free society, where general principles apply that allow individuals to lead their lives free from coercion, or whether one wants a society where interest groups (environmentalists, Christians, the temperance brigade) can use the rules to force others to follow their prejudices. I think it is a very coherent part of libertarian philosophy.<BR/><BR/>You present the problem as a zero sum game (either I do not urinate of you drink polluted water). The aim is surely to create a positive sum outcome (you get clean drinking water; I get a sewer) with as little coercion as possible.Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-54965163877591417632007-11-01T15:19:00.000+00:002007-11-01T15:19:00.000+00:00These choices are political choices. They are made...These choices are political choices. They are made by politicians. True the context in which they gained power influenced the choice to do it, but they cannot be called choices made by society.<BR/><BR/>Other institutions come about without conscious choice - property rights are a good example of this, nobody has said 'there will be property rights' yet they exist.Tristanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15395992764678278326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-61911667844088266192007-11-01T15:04:00.000+00:002007-11-01T15:04:00.000+00:00Oh and by the way, I thought I was mostly demolish...Oh and by the way, I thought I was mostly demolishing the arguments in Reinventing the State.<BR/><BR/>I am sympathetic to the values of the social liberal. (Largely I share them, except where they turn woolly.) What I object to is when they see these values as grounds to attack economic liberalism.<BR/><BR/>You guys are in danger of losing me this argument I am making in defence of economic liberalism.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-4691388903799156302007-11-01T14:58:00.000+00:002007-11-01T14:58:00.000+00:00Tom, Tristan, if the decision to introduce pigovia...Tom, Tristan, if the decision to introduce pigovian taxes is not a social choice, what kind of choice do you think it is?<BR/><BR/>How dare you thrust aside the smaller group of individuals who think the environment is worthless and object to any value being imputed to it in this way by the tyrannical majority?<BR/><BR/>This argument leads to anarchy, of course. At some point the "non-initiation of force" principle will usually be invoked as a last ditch attempt to avoid the complete slide into anarchy. I doubt it would stick to be honest, it is not really a coherent part of libertarian philosophy, more an afterthought to make it appear non-monstrous.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I consider your pissing in my drinking water to be an initiation of force, and you don't. So where does that get us?Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-62630797790693913012007-11-01T14:42:00.000+00:002007-11-01T14:42:00.000+00:00Joe,I don’t see why pigovian taxes fail to affect ...Joe,<BR/><BR/>I don’t see why pigovian taxes fail to affect personal choices. Some people may ignore (or rather bare) the taxes, but at the margin people will be discouraged so it will work in aggregate. Of course if one has other (“social”) motivations as well it becomes diluted and also leads to arbitrary policymaking. As somebody said to me on Friday, “If we just tax plastic bags, it means rich people will be able to use them while poor people can’t,” to which I replied “I don’t really care as long as fewer bags are used.”<BR/><BR/>As for what kind of usage we like, I agree with Tristan. “Social choices” are just a collection of individual choices that have acquired a critical mass and can thrust aside a smaller group of individuals. That is <I>exactly</I> the kind of policy making that pigovian taxes are trying to avoid; otherwise, why not just ban what the majority dislikes and impose what it approves of?<BR/><BR/>Tristan,<BR/><BR/>LVT is perfectly compatible with this. If one is prepared to pay the full best-commercial-use rate, one may put it to whatever <I>actual</I> use one sees fit. <BR/><BR/>It is perfectly reasonable to create a massive parkland, but not at the expense of other people’s housing. LVT resolves this problem by establishing the “cost of land” and then leaving individuals free to set the “use of land”.Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-46814319966894054392007-11-01T14:39:00.000+00:002007-11-01T14:39:00.000+00:00Tristan, you speak as if LVT is manna from heaven,...Tristan, you speak as if LVT is manna from heaven, but it can only be introduced by some sort of social choice. The same goes for the protection of property rights, enforcement of contracts, and all the other institutions that make capitalism possible.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-37108970728250894512007-11-01T13:56:00.000+00:002007-11-01T13:56:00.000+00:00The term 'social choice' appears to be nonsense to...The term 'social choice' appears to be nonsense to me.<BR/><BR/>Society cannot make a choice, only individuals can. When people start acting for society or trying to work out what society 'believes' you end up with arbitrary decisions and the tyranny of the majority with the ensuing loss of personal freedom.<BR/><BR/>Quite how you internalise people's value of a location I'm not sure, but as a start if people like the area as it is sufficiently, land would be expensive discouraging the use of it for damaging purposes (how would LVT affect the situation though? I suppose it depends upon what the most economically efficient use of the land is...)Tristanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15395992764678278326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-15419465465399851452007-11-01T11:59:00.000+00:002007-11-01T11:59:00.000+00:00While I agree with what you say, Tom, I don't thin...While I agree with what you say, Tom, I don't think this is the whole story. At least it will be hard to convince anyone that it is the whole story.<BR/><BR/>What pigovian taxes and subsidies do in capturing externalities, is influence commercial choices the correct amount. Their influence on personal choices is still good, but is less clear. <BR/><BR/>But there remains social choices to be made. For example, how much do we prefer one kind of land use policy over another if it gives us a more pleasant environment? The answer to this question may affect the rate of some pigovian taxes down the line, but it is still a question we have to answer first.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.com