Germany has high taxes on gasoline. People buy more efficient cars.
Norway has taxes on ICEs but no taxes on EVs. Lots of people buy EVs.
Land value taxes reduce the economic loss caused by rent seeking.
Carbon taxes reduce CO2 emissions.
>This happens time and time again yet people still believe government is not only the "best" way to control things, but more stockily believe it is the "only" way to do so despite 1000's of years of historical record proving otherwise
Who cares about the last 1000 years of historical record when the necessity of government activity only depends on the current state of the economy? There are barely any absolutes in economics, almost everything depends on the situation in question.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/if-you-want-to-save-the-e...
In practice it is heavily simplified and you don't get to own portions of the atmosphere, instead you get usage rights, which means the right to pollute a certain amount. This is done via cap and trade already.
Either way, we're asking a lot of the comperence of the system. If the air were privatized we'd still need a legal system that isn't corrupted by special interests. Since it'd still be (I'm assuming) a representative democratic process that creates that system, corporatism is still possible. Thoughts?
I've always seen a pollution tax as a Libertarian friendly solution to air pollution. A libertarian system needs to raise some tax money, so isn't it better that all tax money comes from a tax on externalities ? If we don't tax externalities then aren't we left to tax productive activity which is even worse?
But that is not in the cards, and no one is proposing that, they want to ADD these externality based taxation ON TOP of the tax on productivity
But at the same time, the tax itself seems to follow from a first principles examination of Libertarian axioms.
Negative externalities can be seen as a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. The role of the state in a Libertarian framework is to protect individuals from such unwanted force by enacting force onto the aggressor. An externality tax would be one practical way to achieve that, and therefore seems wholly consistent with the Libertarian view.
(1) If the externality tax is used to raise funds for basics such as the police, then it's the lesser evil to have it go to the general ledger. Where else would public funds be raised to fund these basics?
(2) In the rare case that the externality is so broad, it can go to the general ledger, such as with carbon pollution (to the extent that it's harmful). Trying to figure out who is harmed and by how much is itself a bureucratic and potentially wasteful process that can be coopted by government corruption, so we should be weary of that.
First principles of libertarian axiom is not the Non-Aggression Principle as many believe, in fact there are some serious flaws with that [1], libertarianism is more accurately stated as having a foundational principle of Self Ownership [2], from this the non-aggression principle can be derived however like with many other things non-aggression can not be viewed as an absolute, if it is then every breath you exhale is an act of aggression....
[1] https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ
>> The role of the state in a Libertarian framework is to protect individuals from such unwanted force by enacting force onto the aggressor.
That is an extreme over simplification of what a libertarian framework is, and stated in the way you have could betray the libertarian principles as it seems to have with in it a justification for the initiation of violence, something that would counter the libertarian ideology
What would be the Libertarian solution to that, and what would be its justification?
I've heard Yaron Brooks, who I usually agree with, on this topic but he seems to downplay negative externalities, which I view as a non-starter, given that they clearly exist and in some cases are large in magnitude (e.g. dumping of chemicals in a river).
> serious flaws with that [1]
> That is an extreme over simplification
What state apparatus do they want? Police, courts, etc. These all have the purpose of protecting individual A from individual B by using force (arrest, prison, fines, etc) on individual B if they commit violence/fraud/etc against A.
I perhaps shouldn't have used the word "Libertarian" for that though since that's a broader category.
Governments do not have a track record for being trust worthily enough to be placed in charge of controlling externalities, it would inevitably be used to usurp power, and liberty from the people, while unjustly enriching their political allies. This happens time and time again yet people still believe government is not only the "best" way to control things, but more stockily believe it is the "only" way to do so despite 1000's of years of historical record proving otherwise