'Gary Johnson Backs CO2 ‘Fee’ To Fight Global Warming'

[Natural Citizen]

Of course all taxes have their negatives but it really doesn't get more evil than a carbon tax, except maybe having a tax on life itself.

Ha. Funny you mention that. Consider what you say here about a tax on life itself in context with gene editing, Patent Law, and a SCOTUS which acts administratively and outside of the parameters of checks and balances. Now, there's a reason that the language switched from genetic engineering to genetic editing. Reason is, by theirown admission, that it can't be regulated. And I'm certainly no fan of regulation. But there is a fundamental difference in what regulation means in a Man-over-Governmnent scenario versus a Government-over-Man scenario.

 

[Krugminator2]

Yes, incredibly so. Much like the property tax is un-libertarian. In a libertarian society, a person who grows his own food could live hypothetically live his life without having to be a part of the system. Even if you have sales tax, if he provides for himself and doesn't sell anything he wouldn't need money. Property tax makes this impossible, you need money to pay your yearly rent.

A carbon tax would likewise make everyone a slave.

Pollution is aggression. You can't put toxic waste in the water people drink. You have to have pollution rules. If a factory pollutes that is incurring a cost that can't be easily solved in the courts. The way to deal with the problem is either through regulation (which is essentially a tax) or a direct tax.

A carbon tax only taxes those who pollute, so I don't see how that makes everyone a slave.

I don't support a carbon tax because the people pushing it tend to be very anti-capitalistic. I see a carbon tax similar to a VAT. Economists like them but they probably get abused in practice.

St. Milton addresses this at 8:50. He doesn't endorse the idea but says it is within the bounds of reason.

 

[euphemia]

All these fees and taxes are a slippery slope. At what point is the balance between producing necessary goods and pollution? As Thomas Sowell says, there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If a company dumps toxic waste into a river, the company can be sued out of business. But if a company dumps toxic waste into the air, everyone shrugs their shoulders and says "oh well"....

If CO2 emissions did constitute pollution (i.e. cause property damage of some kind), it would be perfectly justifiable to force the people emitting the CO2 to compensate their victims (as with any other pollution or other type of property rights violation). Given the impossibility of identifying which specific CO2 emission caused which specific tort (cow fart in Wisconsin contributes to something or other 1500 miles away), normal civil litigation is not really possible, and a tax might be a plausible alternative: victims wouldn't be compensated, but at least violations would be deterred.

This is a common view among market economists, which is not entirely without merit, and I'm sure this is what Gary had in mind.

The problem is that we have no idea what (if any) damage is actually being caused by CO2 emissions, so the tax rate would be arbitrary.

Until and unless we have that knowledge, a tax makes no sense.

So I'll have to disagree with Gary on this one.

....continuing to support him though as he's on balance still infinitely better than Trumpllary.

 

[presence]

So, what is the better way? It is to remove the impediments that are blocking progress.

https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313509

Best way to fight "carbon emissions" is to stop subsidizing the oil industry; the biggest subsidy, and rarely mentioned in context is state military protection of private oil rigs and tankers, shipping lanes, middle eastern oil fields, etc.; the tax payer funded global oil security apparatus which also happens to be one of the biggest consumers of oil.

2nd best way to fight global warming is to completely deregulate the auto manufacturing industry, suddenly 100+ mpg transportation would become the norm.

3rd best way eliminate uncle's control of #muhroads


3 easy steps, no taxes required and I guarantee drastic reductions in US carbon footprint.

It seems little or no analysis has been applied to the third option: “Reduce existing market distortions’. There may be significant advantages of that option, such as: avoid the need for bureaucracy, world government and the compliance cost of measuring, monitoring and reporting emissions (for all GHGs) and disputation.

https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313514

 

[r3volution 3.0]

He is as socialist as any candidate we have ever seen.

Yes, socialists are always talking about returning to the gold standard and cutting federal spending 43%.

Straight out the Communist Manifesto no doubt.

 

[William Tell]

Pollution is aggression. You can't put toxic waste in the water people drink. You have to have pollution rules. If a factory pollutes that is incurring a cost that can't be easily solved in the courts. The way to deal with the problem is either through regulation (which is essentially a tax) or a direct tax.

Grilling a burger is not aggression, I'm sorry. But it's the kind of thing that would be subject to a carbon tax. Now, if I grill with some toxic substance that actually causes real harm to my neighbors then I am liable. Having simple logical property rights would clear up that sort of thing. The idea that every time we emit carbon through some activity that we are sinning against humanity and so we need to pay uncle Sam for indulgences is stupid.

A carbon tax only taxes those who pollute, so I don't see how that makes everyone a slave.

Taxing carbon output classifies us all as polluters.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Straight out the Communist Manifesto no doubt.

A few of his openly stated positions actually are. Would you like to go over them? I gotta few minutes to kill. That's really all it'd take.

 

[Krugminator2]

Grilling a burger is not aggression

Taxing carbon output classifies us all as polluters.

No one classifies it like that and I am certain Johnson does not.

Having simple logical property rights would clear up that sort of thing

No it wouldn't actually. That is the whole reason for the need for a tax or regulation.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...pv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=negative externality examples

 

[Natural Citizen]

I am certain Johnson does not.

Here's the thing about the government having unlimited power to arbitrarily tax. It's the potential danger of it that is worrisome. The potential danger of unlimited power to arbitrarily tax is the fundamental reason for constitutional safeguards that provide protection against such over-reach.

Rev actually made a pretty good point about CO2 not being able to have its danger truly measured. Same thing goes with having unlimited power to arbitrarily tax. The dangers of unlimited power also cannot be measured.

 

[William Tell]

No one classifies it like that and I am certain Johnson does not.

Are you saying we do not all "pollute" with carbon every day?

 

[Krugminator2]

Here's the thing about the government having unlimited power to arbitrarily tax. It's the potential danger of it that is worrisome. The potential danger of unlimited power to arbitrarily tax is the fundamental reason for constitutional safeguards that provide protection against such over-reach.

OK

I don't support a carbon tax because the people pushing it tend to be very anti-capitalistic. I see a carbon tax similar to a VAT. Economists like them but they probably get abused in practice.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Why are you pushing the issue, then, if you don't support a carbon tax?

 

[Danke]

Grilling a burger is not aggression, I'm sorry. But it's the kind of thing that would be subject to a carbon tax. Now, if I grill with some toxic substance that actually causes real harm to my neighbors then I am liable. Having simple logical property rights would clear up that sort of thing. The idea that every time we emit carbon through some activity that we are sinning against humanity and so we need to pay uncle Sam for indulgences is stupid.

Taxing carbon output classifies us all as polluters.

And people that benefits from more CO2 should owe producers like you when you grill.

 

[William Tell]

And people that benefits from more CO2 should owe producers like you when you grill.

That makes more sense actually. But you won't see a politician advocate that because it doesn't help them.

 

[anaconda]

No, he doesn't.




No, it isn't.

Polls say Johnson hurts Hillary.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/gary-johnson-poll-hurts-hillary/

 

[Natural Citizen]

Polls say Johnson hurts Hillary.

About Polls

 

[anaconda]

About Polls

What is your explanation for Johnson having a net negative impact on Trump?

 

[RandallFan]

Fidel Johnson

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Everything I have seen since the General started says Johnson is pulling 2 to 1 from Hillary over Trump. And it make sense -- just listen to him. I think he's campaigning left of Jill Stein...