Originally Posted by Finch

There is a sense (as evidenced by the discussion on this thread over the last few days) from both sides of this New Culture War divide that the other side will reach for the sort of, err, final solutions that were in vogue during the last 4T.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, there isn't. It's only one side of the debate -- and not mine -- that seems to suspect that about the other, at least here on this forum. Wrongly, of course.

I was speaking more broadly than this forum, but it applies even so. Certainly the dittoheads suspect the liberals (esp. the Greens) of plotting to establish a New World Order, but the converse is also true. I, for one, see the invasion and occupation of Iraq as part of a deliberate effort to instigate a global military conflagration.

Originally Posted by Finch

I was speaking more broadly than this forum, but it applies even so. Certainly the dittoheads suspect the liberals (esp. the Greens) of plotting to establish a New World Order, but the converse is also true. I, for one, see the invasion and occupation of Iraq as part of a deliberate effort to instigate a global military conflagration.

There is a populist conservative I know of who is convinced that the case for global warming is a front for a hard leftist plot to control the working people by making it impossible for them to own cars thus forcing them into mass transit where they will be at the mercy of public authorities. He considers me a good intentioned dupe who just isn't high enough up the "liberal food chain" to know how "evil" my "leaders" are.

Originally Posted by Finch

I, for one, see the invasion and occupation of Iraq as part of a deliberate effort to instigate a global military conflagration.

Well, yeah, but the ones on this thread on the other side of the debate from me (Justin, The Rani, etc.) despise that crap as much as I do.

I don't doubt Bush League would love to create a fascist dictatorship but he really had no opportunity even at the height of his popularity, and if he tried it now he'd be lynched. As for the dittoheads, I'd stop way short of accusing them of even wanting to. They want policies I don't, and some of them lean authoritarian in bad ways. That's still not fascism.

Originally Posted by Finch

There is a sense (as evidenced by the discussion on this thread over the last few days) from both sides of this New Culture War divide that the other side will reach for the sort of, err, final solutions that were in vogue during the last 4T.

The speed with which various vocal parties on both sides jump to that conclusion makes it hard for me to believe that they are not at least contemplating such an approach themselves...

I see it more as a problem with the culture of this site than American culture as a whole. When I am not browsing the T4T forum, I seldom encounter arguments of the form, "All [ liberals / conservatives / environmentalists / libertarians / etc...] are [ communists / fascists / religious fanatics / anarchists / etc...]. Here in the T4T forums, going Godwin as soon as one starts having the slightest difficulties scoring points in a discussion is a bad habit too many people have gotten into. This is not a universal trait of American culture. It is our problem.

For the record, one of my schticks is keeping an eye on spirals of rhetoric and spirals of violence that might lead to revolution or civil war. I believe regulars here will be aware that my default answer, when anyone brings up the possibility of organized domestic political violence, is that I see no developing spirals of violence or rhetoric. There seems to be a broad consensus in the USA that terrorism is not the solution to political problems, that democratic due process, though flawed, is the proper approach to solving domestic disagreements.

The first bad sign is when agitators or pundits start saying that such and such a wrong cannot be corrected through due process, and that violence is justified. The next bad sign is the first examples of violence. The third bad sign is escalating violence, a feeling that it is necessary to respond to any act of violence by the other side with a more extreme act to retaliate.

For the record, outside of extreme nuts with trivial followings, I see no issue that has reached even the first problematic level. For the record, there is no domestic issue where I see democratic due process as having catastrophically failed to the point of justifying violence.

This is not to say that democratic due process is so robust in America that democracy can't possibly ever fail. The Tree of Liberty, in theory, might yet again have to be fertilized with the blood of patriots and tyrants. I am sincerely hopeful that the theory might remain theory.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, how come it's ok to say that Dubya is Hitler, but not anyone else?

It isn't. (The forum requires a post of at least 10 characters. It really isn't.)

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, how come it's ok to say that Dubya is Hitler, but not anyone else?

Umm, because nobody else commands the largest army in the world?

Who else would you list as a contender for the title: Michael Moore? George Soros? Hillary Clinton??

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I see it more as a problem with the culture of this site than American culture as a whole. When I am not browsing the T4T forum, I seldom encounter arguments of the form, "All [ liberals / conservatives / environmentalists / libertarians / etc...] are [ communists / fascists / religious fanatics / anarchists / etc...].

Heh. You obviously don't listen to AM radio (even the nascent lefty stations like KPTK here in Seattle.) Frames like the above are more than points of discussion, they are practically articles of faith.

Originally Posted by Finch

Heh. You obviously don't listen to AM radio (even the nascent lefty stations like KPTK here in Seattle.) Frames like the above are more than points of discussion, they are practically articles of faith.

Correct. I don't. Am I missing anything worth listening to?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, how come it's ok to say that Dubya is Hitler, but not anyone else?

Dubya's only a Hitler wannabe. Hitler-lite, you might say. Or closer to Charlie Chaplin, only not on purpose.

Edit: And not as funny, either.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Correct. I don't. Am I missing anything worth listening to?

Well, if you're looking for productive discussion, then no. But if you're keeping an eye out for signs of incipient spirals of violence, then that's certainly the place to look. (Recall Mr. X's repeated reference to the Rwandan genocide being incited and initiated through radio broadcasts.)

Originally Posted by Finch

Umm, because nobody else commands the largest army in the world?

Who else would you list as a contender for the title: Michael Moore? George Soros? Hillary Clinton??

Commanding the bigest army in the world doesn't make you Adolph Hitler. It might make you Caesar Augustus, but it doesn't make you Adolph Hitler.

And no, I do NOT think Dubya is Caesar Augustus. Li'l Augie was competent.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Li'l Augie was competent.

Thank goodness Bush is not! And thus cannot duplicate Augustus' accomplishment. We still have a Republic -- for now.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the evidence is sufficient to convince you that anthropogenic global warming is real. Now, let's talk solutions. Take a look at the needed action (reduction in, or ideally elimination of, net human-caused greenhouse gas emissions) and see if you can find ways to produce that outcome that don't violate personal liberty. Remember that the government already interferes in the energy economy, so AT WORST we want solutions that don't have it interfering any more than it does, although of course it would have to interfere in different ways. We absolutely want to avoid situations where the state is rationing energy or otherwise telling individuals how to live their lives.

I'll have some suggestions of my own, and comments, and of course anyone else can dive in. And we'll come back to the science afterwards. If nothing else, surely you can agree that the exercise will be interesting.

Hmmm, yes, quite interesting. In order to even begin to address the question, we have to understand just how deeply the government is involved in energy policy. If you believe (as I do) that the US military's primary current role is enforcement of US energy policy (or resource policy in general), then its intervention is simply massive, as in a trillion dollars a year.

So, step 1: eliminate the US military. Completely. 100%. Transfer all existing hardware to the various states. Demobilize all US soldiers worldwide.

That action alone (well, once the demob is complete) would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by a huge amount, probably a larger amount than the entire reduction target for the Kyoto treaty.

Finch, you totally boggle the mind. (I mean that in a good way, of course.)

Granted that, at present, the chief role of the U.S. military is to secure the nation's energy supply, that's mainly because our energy supply is so precarious. Disband the U.S. military totally and we lose the leverage that's currently giving us first pick of foreign oil production. We lose that, we hit energy shortages, and HAVE to go green(er) because otherwise we starve. So I guess it might work, at that. But we're still left with the question of just how we would work the transition under the pressure.

Also, having the states control the military is what permitted a certain other Crisis to shape out the way it did in the 19th century. I have my doubts about the wisdom of that course for that reason.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Finch, you totally boggle the mind. (I mean that in a good way, of course.)

Aw, shucks. BTW, my meatspace name is Rick. I posted as "Helter Skelter" for a while, until I saw "V for Vendetta" and was blown away.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Granted that, at present, the chief role of the U.S. military is to secure the nation's energy supply, that's mainly because our energy supply is so precarious. Disband the U.S. military totally and we lose the leverage that's currently giving us first pick of foreign oil production. We lose that, we hit energy shortages, and HAVE to go green(er) because otherwise we starve. So I guess it might work, at that. But we're still left with the question of just how we would work the transition under the pressure.

Hmm. Good point. OTOH, a trillion dollars can buy an awful lot of goodwill. And solar panels.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Also, having the states control the military is what permitted a certain other Crisis to shape out the way it did in the 19th century. I have my doubts about the wisdom of that course for that reason.

Eek. Good point there too. OTOH, the current cultural divide is urban/rural, not North/South, and the US is far too interdependent for any geographical division. No amount of tanks or planes will protect LA if the Inland Empire decides to cut off its water supply -- or conversely if LA decides to cut off the Inland Empire's fuel supply.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the evidence is sufficient to convince you that anthropogenic global warming is real. Now, let's talk solutions. Take a look at the needed action (reduction in, or ideally elimination of, net human-caused greenhouse gas emissions) and see if you can find ways to produce that outcome that don't violate personal liberty. Remember that the government already interferes in the energy economy, so AT WORST we want solutions that don't have it interfering any more than it does, although of course it would have to interfere in different ways. We absolutely want to avoid situations where the state is rationing energy or otherwise telling individuals how to live their lives.

A very good question. Good enough that it deserves some time in thought before I formulate an answer.

However, thanks to the other-side-of-planetness, Finch beat me to the offering of a first answer. His first swing is superb, IMO, and I would back it up 100%. Most every energy expenditure serves at least some tangentially-productive purpose except for that one. Add in the fact that as a government function its level of activity is completely isolated from level-of-demand moderation, or in fact from any real cost/benefit calculation at all -- its safe to assume that an enormous part of the military energy-expenditure represents pure waste at best (or at worst, the expenditure of energy to destroy things that will require yet still more energy to recreate). Get rid of it; devolve it down to the lowest level of scale possible (you pick, anything lower than what we have now would be an improvement as the cost/benefit analysis would be that much less diffuse). It makes a good start.

Next, subsidies -- not just on fuel, even the corn (for example) subsidy represents an encouragement energy expenditure for sub-optimal output -- should all go.

Next, the elimination of limitation-of-liability. The consequences of actions (all the consequences) should fall to the ones who were in a position to control those actions.

I'll let things bounce around in my head and get back you with more suggestions.

---------------

By the way:

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It isn't. (The forum requires a post of at least 10 characters. It really isn't.)

Awesome, Bob!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Next, subsidies -- not just on fuel, even the corn (for example) subsidy represents an encouragement energy expenditure for sub-optimal output -- should all go.

While nowhere near the scale of the military subsidy, I understand that crop subsidies comprise the bulk of gross income for most farmers, small or large. Combined with rapidly rising prices for fuel and petroleum-derived fertilizers, a loss of subsidies means commodity food prices would rise sharply, by a factor of 400% or more.

Of course, this could easily be counterbalanced by eliminating much of the, err, food chain. I recall that for the average packaged food item in the grocery store, the packaging itself contributes as large a share of the cost (11%) as does the foodstuff itself.

Farmers markets would and should proliferate.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Next, the elimination of limitation-of-liability. The consequences of actions (all the consequences) should fall to the ones who were in a position to control those actions.

Hmm, not so sure about that. Legal liability is another area where supply/demand is completely out of whack*. The current legal system is no more predictable or reliable than a lottery ticket. How can we restructure the tort system so that it doesn't become just another government-sanctioned system of takings?



* Byron King wrote in a recent Whiskey And Gunpowder newsletter that in this calendar year, China expects to award about 10,000 academic degrees in geology -- the US, perhaps 200. But the US does expect to award over 40,000 law degrees.

Originally Posted by Finch

While nowhere near the scale of the military subsidy, I understand that crop subsidies comprise the bulk of gross income for most farmers, small or large. Combined with rapidly rising prices for fuel and petroleum-derived fertilizers, a loss of subsidies means commodity food prices would rise sharply, by a factor of 400% or more.

You mean, to their actual price level? That's in no way a bad thing. People are always best when they see things for what they really are.

The current legal system is no more predictable or reliable than a lottery ticket. How can we restructure the tort system so that it doesn't become just another government-sanctioned system of takings?

Take out the government-sanctioning. All that does anyway is put a layer of isolation between the perpetrators and the victims (regardless which side is victim in any particular case) and in doing so ultimately encourages malfeasors on the margins. Let there be several various schemes worked out by their respective interested parties; the cross-pollination of good ideas aloneshould make it worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

..its safe to assume that an enormous part of the military energy-expenditure represents pure waste at best (or at worst, the expenditure of energy to destroy things that will require yet still more energy to recreate). Get rid of it; devolve it down to the lowest level of scale possible

I can see how this would reduce emissions so it addresses Brian's question

Next, subsidies -- not just on fuel, even the corn (for example) subsidy represents an encouragement energy expenditure for sub-optimal output -- should all go.

This certainly won't discourage energy expenditure on sub-optimal output from a GW standpoint. In fact it will probably increase greenhouse emissions. At best, this is tangential to Brian's question.

Next, the elimination of limitation-of-liability. The consequences of actions (all the consequences) should fall to the ones who were in a position to control those actions.

Would this exend to the elimination of the corporation and LLC as forms of business organizations?

I also do not see how this addresses emissions. It too seems tangential.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We've been letting Zilch get away with Godwin nonsense forever, on all issues.

Well Zilch mostly applies his Godwinning to his own side with all that Bush sucks stuff.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I also do not see how this addresses emissions. It too seems tangential.

Tangential? If the anthropogenic nature of GW is assumed to be a given, then it represents possibly the biggest 'externality' in the history of mankind. How else would you characterize a situation where a person's decision to operate a particular type of tool would have a direct detrimental impact on the majority of persons all over the planet?

So then, to get rid of externalities, you have to make them stop being external -- that is, the main idea is to get people fully connected to the consequences of their actions. Limited liability is in direct opposition to this desperately-needed state.

And yes, this would include the LLC and such. While they make it much more convenient for [some] entities to exist in their present forms, or to grow to their present sizes, the fact is that such entities as cannot exist without such insulation-from-consequences come only at a cost which fighters of anthropogenic GW must find unacceptable.

Or does that one fall too far to the wrong side on your cost/benefit analysis?

As for the elimination of subsidies, I'm sure you know from your working life that the most efficient use of resources can only be achieved when the parameters are fully and accurately known. If this is not the case, some additional waste will inevitable come about due either to excessive attention being given to a less-significant point or, worse, insufficient attention being given to a more-significant point.
The direct effect of subsidies is to mask a good's economic reality. Subsidies cheat us out of an accurate understanding of the demand for a good relative to all the other potential uses to which the energy that goes into producing that good could be put. Energy is wasted that need not be.

In this extent, Brian and I are -- have been for as far back as I can remember the issue coming up -- on the same page. The first, and primary, answer to energy questions is improved efficiency. We're at such a low level now in terms of the overall energy paradigm that we can do a whole lot before bumping into serious entropic issues.

The direct effect of subsidies is to mask a good's economic reality.

Yes. But it doesn't have any effect on decisions made wrt to externalities, which are not part of economic reality. This is why I said it was tangential at best.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

So then, to get rid of externalities, you have to make them stop being external.

This is what a carbon tax does, It takes an externality, CO2-induced climate change, and converts it into a cost of doing business. But you didn't suggest this or any other specific method. You suggest that ...

the main idea is to get people fully connected to the consequences of their actions

How?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

In this extent, Brian and I are -- have been for as far back as I can remember the issue coming up -- on the same page. The first, and primary, answer to energy questions is improved efficiency. We're at such a low level now in terms of the overall energy paradigm that we can do a whole lot before bumping into serious entropic issues.

Energy efficiency is not an externality. It does get optimzed by the marketplace. Energy efficiency is NOT all that low relative to its economically optimal level. You and Brian are worlds apart.

For example, I could have bought a more efficient car in August 2005 than I did. I didn't do so because the additonal cost of the more efficient car was greater than the benefit I would obtain from using less gasoline over the projected life I would own the car. It's been nearly 2 years now and my decision has so far been a sound one--as gas prices have failed to even approach, much less rise above, the $4 level average level for 2005-2009 I used for the calculation.

On the other hand, the next car we buy will be a hybrid.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The direct effect of subsidies is to mask a good's economic reality.

Yes. But it doesn't have any effect on decisions made wrt to externalities, which are not part of economic reality.

Not under the legal-limitation-of-liability that now holds sway. But the reality is that even those things now 'externalities' are in fact direct consequences of the actions taken in pursuit of goods. And to the extent that they represent harms done to people, those harms also come as a direct result of those actions. The cost of remediating or making whole those harmed is therefore a cost of those actions.

That is economic reality. An action imposes a cost.

The reason it has no effect now is that the current system protects people from suffering the full liability for their actions.

This is what a carbon tax does, It takes an externality, CO2-induced climate change, and converts it into a cost of doing business.

But it doesn't get the business-doers any closer to taking into account the actual costs of their actions. All it does is arbitrarily shift the bar a little bit. And one would have to assume that businesses who pay their carbon taxes would in doing so be legally shielded from liability in the event that the calculations on GW were a bit off and Tuvalu still ends up going underwater?

Who are you trying to help with those carbon taxes, anyway?

the main idea is to get people fully connected to the consequences of their actions

How?

By taking away all of the shields and buffers that they are currently given. It'd be a start...

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Energy efficiency is not an externality. It does get optimzed by the marketplace. Energy efficiency is NOT all that low relative to its economically optimal level. You and Brian are worlds apart.

For example, I could have bought a more efficient car in August 2005 then I did. I didn't do so because the additonal cost of the more efficient car was greater than the benefit I would obtain from using less gasoline over the projected life I would own the car. It's been nearly 2 years now and my decision has so far been a sound one--as gas prices have failed to even approach, much less rise above, the $4 level average level for 2005-2009 I used for the calculation.

You talk about economically optimum levels, and then use as your baseline comparison the price of gasoline? Do you recognize the absurdity of that? Gasoline has got to be one of the most economically-distorted of all the goods out there. There's the price of military interventions; the price of propping up middle-eastern dictators; the subsidies and taxes all up and down the chain of production and distribution; the constant efforts to regulate the at-pump price for political reasons -- to say nothing of the (since we're basing our discussions on the assumption that it exists) costs associated with contributing to the rise in global temperatures. Neither you, nor I, nor anybody else has even the slightest idea what the true cost is of a gallon of gas. Your hybrid-car calculations are vapors.

Energy efficiency is nowhere near its economically optimal level -- we don't even have the slightest idea what that level is!

That's basically the first step I'm trying to get at. People actually knowing what they're dealing with.