Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Cap and Trade

Rate this topic


Schtank

Recommended Posts

In this podcast, Dr. Peikoff takes a position similar to that of George Reisman's which I quoted previously, the quote which began with: "The individual should not be punished for consequences that can occur only as the result of the actions of the broader category or group of which he is a member, but do not occur as the result of his own actions."

Episode 21 -- July 14, 2008

00:54 "Is government intervention in business ever justifiable for environmental purposes?" (First question in the podcast.)

[by the way, the intro music, the piano tune, for Dr. Peikoff's podcasts is his own playing of one of the "tiddlywink" pieces of music that Miss Rand liked, "Mucki Aus America"?

Episode 08 -- January 28, 2008 (04:52): "Who is the musician that you play at the beginning of your podcast?"]

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more from Dr. Peikoff on this issue in another of his podcasts, Episode 25 -- August 11, 2008, in which he responds to the following question:

08:40: "How does Objectivism approach the arguably collective problem of polluting externalities of industries and governments of multi-national corporations as an attempt to promote development and innovation at the same time?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this podcast, Dr. Peikoff takes a position similar to that of George Reisman's which I quoted previously, the quote which began with: "The individual should not be punished for consequences that can occur only as the result of the actions of the broader category or group of which he is a member, but do not occur as the result of his own actions."
I don't see Peikoff as making the same argument as Reisman. Peikoff's point is about the benefits that come from modern civilization, and the fact that we may not sue to (in principle) roll those back, just because they come with some specific downside.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The individual should not be punished for consequences that can occur only as the result of the actions of the broader category or group of which he is a member, but do not occur as the result of his own actions."

Or, in other words, if specific effects cannot be causally conected to specific actions by a specific individual there is no basis to accuse this individual of a crime. And if no crime has been commited, there is no basis for the use of force against him by the government - and such a use would be initiation of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

*** Mod's note: merged topics. sN ***

To my satisfaction, I am not convinced of the case for anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but if carbon could be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be man made, a one to one single direction causation between carbon output and temperature, and a cause of disastrous environmental changes to the planet, would it be proper to treat it as a problem of the commons and sell private rights to pollution?

When confronted with the problem of a mining company dumping mercury in a river, for example, the obvious problem I see is that no one owns the river. If they did it would be a tort issue and they would be responsible for damages, possibly criminally.

If the assumptions above are given as true, would a cap and trade system that privatizes the "destruction of the planet" be proper?

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged topics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...