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

[undergroundrr]

But to the extent that one does so, one moves out by just that much along the radius of the Blockian circle, until eventually ...

As in Walter???

 

[Occam's Banana]

But to the extent that one does so, one moves out by just that much along the radius of the Blockian circle, until eventually ...

As in Walter???

"As in Walter," what?

If you are referring to his "Libertarians for Trump" nonsense, that is a matter of strategy, not of substance.

As foolish or counterproductive as that (or any other) strategy may be, I was referring to categorically anti-libertarian policies (such as a tax of any kind). This was made clear in the sentence preceding the one you quoted, which you elided: "One may be a 'libertarian' and still advocate for categorically anti-libertarian things (such as a tax of any kind). But [...]"

Strategies are value-neutral and are not susceptible to being denoted as "libertarian" or "not libertarian."

So far as I know, Walter Block does not endorse any kind of tax or other categorically anti-libertarian policy.

(If you are not referring to Block's "Libertarians for Trump" nonsense, then I don't have the vaguest clue what you're getting at.)

 

[r3volution 3.0]

One may be a "libertarian" and still advocate for categorically anti-libertarian things (such as a tax of any kind)

Ah, I understand your definition now.

However, I'd argue that taxation per se is not unlibertarian. Taxes to support a minarchist state are not unlibertarian - they serve to minimize aggression (the alternative to the minarchist state being not anarcho-capitalism [which is impossible] but another type of state [which would, by definition, be more aggressive than a minarchist state), and anything which serves to minimize aggression is libertarian. Putting aside the debate over anarcho-capitalism, granting me arguendo that it's impossible, would you agree with this reasoning? If the minarchist state is the best possible form of social organization, the one which every libertarian should attempt to establish, nothing essential to its existence (like taxes) can be unlibertarian?

P.S. Mises reasoned similarly:

Thus, peaceful human cooperation, the prerequisite of prosperity and civilization, cannot exist without a social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, i.e., without a government. The evils of violence, robbery, and murder can be prevented only by an institution that itself, whenever needed, resorts to the very methods of acting for the prevention of which it is established. There emerges a distinction between illegal employment of violence and the legitimate recourse to it. In cognizance of this fact some people have called government an evil, although admitting that it is a necessary evil. However, what is required to attain an end sought and considered as beneficial is not an evil in the moral connotation of this term, but a means, the price to be paid for it.

Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, p. 97

 

[undergroundrr]

"As in Walter," what?

I just wasn't aware of the concept of Walter Block defining some kind of consensus libertarian target ala the Nolan Chart.

If I disagree with the validity of evictionism does it move me away from the center? Totally off topic, I know.

Despite his follies, I don't disrespect him. It just seemed a little out of left field.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If you read it right, the general welfare Clause is merely a declaratory statement qualifying the reasons to collect taxes and extends no new powers.

Which means...it served as limitation on the power to tax. As I said. Again...what is authorized. Consent. Just powers. Congress lacks the power to decide what is the General Welfare. They lack the power to decide such things arbitrarily.

For clarity read Federalist no 83, 17, 31, 45 and 10 that contain language specific to the taxing clause. The Federalist Papers are the authority in matters of understanding the constitution for its specific intent. Congress does not possess "general legislative authority." It is granted zero power to exceed its constitutional authority or responsibilities at the expense of the American people's income or other money or property. Zero.

The only way they could possible weasel around it would be to say it's a matter of national security. Which, interestingly, they're beginning to say that climate change is a matter of national security. The fact that they're even using that particular language now should suffice as proof that they fully know that it is unconstitutional and that they lack the taxing power. They're trying to weasel around their lack of taxing power by using that language.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

...dupe

 

[Occam's Banana]

I just wasn't aware of the concept of Walter Block defining some kind of consensus libertarian target ala the Nolan Chart.

The "Block circles" device doesn't purport to be any kind of dispositive "test" like the Nolan chart. It's not nearly as "neat and tidy" as the Nolan chart pretends to be; nor was it designed as a recruiting or proselytizing tool, as the Nolan chart was.

It's just an informally illustrative device he's used in a few presentations I've seen over the years, as part of Block's answer to people who ask him whether folks like Milton Friedman are "really" libertarians or not.

Just off-hand, I can't find any of the videos in which he uses the device. I did find this brief clip (part of a longer interview) in which he identifies Hayek and Friedman as libertarians, though he doesn't go into the "circles" thing. (However, it should be noted that in other more formal and rigorous contexts, such as this paper, Block denies that Friedman is a "libertarian" and identifies him as a "classical liberal.")

If I disagree with the validity of evictionism does it move me away from the center?

I'm sure Walter would be the first to say that it would not. He has, for example, explicitly acknowledged Rothbard's disagreement with him on "evictionism." The whole abortion issue, in this context, revolves around whether and how the NAP should apply to the unborn vis-à-vis mothers. Even those at the very "center" of Block's circles can disagree over the answers to such questions.

 

[euphemia]

When I boil this down, there is no way this is not another transfer of wealth. In my opinion, taxes and fees should never be used to engineer economic output or personal behavior. When some kind of social or economic change is the goal, then it is a tax, and it is a transfer of wealth.

 

[anaconda]

Does the military need to pay the carbon tax while waging wars around the planet?

And don't forget the depleted uranium recycling fee.

 

[TheTexan]

I sometimes act like I might vote for him, to impress my hipster friends.

I wouldn't actually ever do it of course - he's way too libertarian for my tastes

 

[undergroundrr]

Here's Gary Johnson's position:

"If any of you heard me say I support a carbon tax...Look, I haven't raised a penny of taxes in my politicial career and neither has Bill [Weld]. We were looking at—I was looking at—what I heard was a carbon fee which from a free-market standpoint would actually address the issue and cost less. I have determined that, you know what, it's a great theory but I don't think it can work, and I've worked my way through that.

"And I support a person's right to choose, so when it comes to vaccinations we should be able to make the decision whether we want to vaccinate our kids or not. I choose to vaccinate my kid and you never say never. Look, in the case of a zombie apocalypse taking over the United States, and there is a vaccine for that, as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine." - Gary Johnson, Aug. 25, 2016.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The Constitution does not allow mandating vaccines for a "Zombie Apocalypse" either.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm sure Walter would be the first to say that it would not. He has, for example, explicitly acknowledged Rothbard's disagreement with him on "evictionism." The whole abortion issue, in this context, revolves around whether and how the NAP should apply to the unborn vis-à-vis mothers. Even those at the very "center" of Block's circles can disagree over the answers to such questions.

As for me, I do not believe "evictionism" is valid at this point in time, but I do believe that it will become valid one day when we are technologically capable of gestating a fetus in artificial wombs. It will become valid when a child can be removed from the womb and gestated artificially without harming it. Until that point, "evictionism" is invalid because that child did not ask to be conceived, it is not there of it's own free will.

 

[euphemia]

No rep to give you, Gunny. Heroic post there.

 

[Occam's Banana]

As for me, I do not believe "evictionism" is valid at this point in time, but I do believe that it will become valid one day when we are technologically capable of gestating a fetus in artificial wombs. It will become valid when a child can be removed from the womb and gestated artificially without harming it. Until that point, "evictionism" is invalid because that child did not ask to be conceived, it is not there of it's own free will.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

You just perfectly described my own assessment of "evictionism."

I recall speculating way back in the day in an Intro Philosophy paper that a lot of abortion controversy might be mooted by technology someday.

[snip]

I'm going to get around to replying to this sooner or later ...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyFreedom again.

You just perfectly described my own assessment of "evictionism."

I recall speculating way back in the day in an Intro Philosophy paper that a lot of abortion controversy might be mooted by technology someday.

I also believe for reasons separate from politics, that no fetus will be viable for an artificial womb, until after the development of a placental blood gas exchange. I also pray that there are not very many mistakes in the learning of that, even if they never do know exactly why.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Really, the way certain things tend to work in synchronicity with natural law, I would also expect the technology to only be feasible once the fetus has developed a placental blood gas transfer, and then the machine would likely connect via the fully operational placenta.

God does not tend to leave those kinds of things to chance, I think.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Maybe he is trying to help Trump get elected

Johnson is definitely driving sane undecided voters to the Trump camp when he spouts off with this kind of Communist dementia.

 

[nikcers]

Johnson is definitely driving sane undecided voters to the Trump camp when he spouts off with this kind of Communist dementia.

Then Trump says something twice as stupid and drives sane undecided voters back to apathy.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Is a carbon tax in and of itself un-libertarian?

Yes.

You have to penalize or restrict pollution.

Carbon dioxide is not pollution. The very idea is a transparent lie. This lie is anti-life and anti-human. Only demonic statists peddle this garbage.

there are a lot bigger things to complain about with Johnson than this.

False. This carbon tax idea is at least as bad as the unConstitutional global-government TPP, and indeed probably worse. A huge-command-and-control taxing every aspect of our daily lives and the economy multiple times over? A penalty for breathing? GTFO. This is the most outrageous bullshit from Gary Johnson in his history.