Overton Windows  

If you've ever wondered why I'm more than happy to venture out as far left as I can possibly go at times while still maintaining a generally libertarian outlook on most issues, this might provide a clue.

I think you're just very confused :)

The biggest problem I have with libertarians is many feel they have a right to foul the environment, and any government interference to prevent them doing so is an unacceptable infringement on their rights.

I've argued this topic with a few loons on the LDP website.

Ultimately you have to choose which is more important to you -- your personal freedoms or the future of Planet Earth.

I'd argue that any libertarian who feels he has the right to foul the environment is confused.

My simple description of libertarianism is that it is the belief that people have the right to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

(You'll occasionally see this expressed as "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts").

Anyone who argues that they can emit carbon when it is demonstrably causing harm to others isn't a libertarian in my view - they are a conservative (who view the right to swing your fist as a function of your place in the social hierarchy).

I really don't see why this is confusing - except for all the faux-libertarians out there confusing what the word means...

My simple description of libertarianism is that it is the belief that people have the right to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

A perfectly fine philosophy but unfortunately a lot of libertarians forget that last bit, certainly the ones I've come across anyway.

I remember a recent argument with one about the freezing of the fuel excise by the Howard govt. The libertarian thought it was a great idea because the percentage tax rate was reducing as oil prices increased. Naturally I disagreed.

The libertarians who forget the last bit aren't libertarians - they are conservatives who think that because they pay lip service to the idea of a "free market" that they are libertarians.

There is a huge difference.

My line of reasoning about dealing with global warming in a libertarian way goes like this :

1. The way to deal with damage to your "property" (including yourself) is to sue the person doing you the damage.

2. In the case of impacts on the environment, this is simply too complex and messy.

3. However, you don't want the government making up and endless list of rules (with associated loopholes to appease various special interest groups).

4. Thus the best way forward is to tax the offending behaviour (in this case, carbon emissions).

5. This tax should be offset with income tax cuts, so you aren't paying any more net tax.

That avoids the 2 main triggers that will make them spit the dummy and either retreat into conspiracy theory or become all obstinate (don't try and impose rules on them, don't make them pay more tax).

Most left wingers have lost the argument before they even start because they want to do both of these things.

The net result is the current gridlock.

If you've isolated the conservatives, you can then divide and rule - its only the ones directly economically affected who will continue to resist...

4. Thus the best way forward is to tax the offending behaviour (in this case, carbon emissions).

5. This tax should be offset with income tax cuts, so you aren't paying any more net tax.

Generally I agree with this proposal. The one problem I have with it is equity. A hefty carbon tax will have a much greater impact on low income earners so the income tax cuts will need to be focussed at the bottom end of the income scale ... but then that leads to a very progressive income tax system and encourages tax avoidance at the high end of the income scale, especially if corportate and capital gains taxes remain low.

I don't know what the answer is. A negative income tax perhaps? Or even more radical, individual energy quotas that can be traded. That way poorer people can sell some of their energy quota to richer people thus evening out the financial impact of reducing carbon emissions.

Do you have any ideas on how to solve the equity problem?

Work out how much carbon tax the average taxpayer is paying and raise the bottom tax threshold by that amount.

Kick in some more money for public transport to help those who aren't earning money and thus don't get the tax benefit.

Fund the public transport subsidy by getting rid of tax breaks and subsides for carbon emitting industries.

Its not that hard.