Trebor Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) 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 July 15, 2009 by Trebor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 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?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I'm not sure then where we part. If you're in agreement with what Dr. Peikoff has to say, then we agree in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 "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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 (edited) *** 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 January 5, 2010 by softwareNerd Merged topics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wolf Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 (edited) Annie Leonard, miss anti-human anti-capitalist extraordinaire thinks Cap and trade is a bad idea! *Universe explodes* http://www.storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/ Edited January 6, 2010 by Black Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.