Big global warming demo upcoming in Nashua

[CNHT]

Because most species of plants and animals won't be able to adapt to the quickening habitat changes as the human animal and thus will be vulnerable to mass extinction. Do I have to explain why that could become a problem for humans?.

How about the fact that this is a NATURAL change and there really isn't much we can do about it except ADAPT as mvpel suggested?

Animals adapt don't they?

I doubt we can interfere with planetary changes much....certainly taxes are not going to do anything.

[error]

Oh, but you're wrong. Taxes will do a lot! They will kill people.

[CNHT]

Oh, but you're wrong. Taxes will do a lot! They will kill people.

I've noticed.

[EthanAllen]

Because most species of plants and animals won't be able to adapt to the quickening habitat changes as the human animal and thus will be vulnerable to mass extinction. Do I have to explain why that could become a problem for humans?.

How about the fact that this is a NATURAL change and there really isn't much we can do about it except ADAPT as mvpel suggested?

Animals adapt don't they?

I doubt we can interfere with planetary changes much....certainly taxes are not going to do anything.

Well that IS the point isn't it? If global warming is the result of man's behavior like the overwhelming consensus of scientists publishing in peer review scientific journals believe, then there is something that can be done about it.

Just curious as to why someone who believes that man's action is the contributing factor in GW would continue to support a practice that forces costs upon third parties in the form of negative externalities in violation of the fundamental principle of libertarianism?

[J’raxis 270145]

So if this is going to replace U.S. payroll taxes, where are they going to get all the money to pay for everything they do now? If you say "from the carbon tax," then the carbon tax is nothing more than a general sales tax (perhaps something like the H.R.25 "FairTax" bill)—because whatever they collect is going to need to be far, far in excess of the revenues required to offset CO2 emissions.

A sales tax is a tax on what is produced via human labor. The use of the sky as a carbon sink which generates negative externalities (as it subjects third parties to the effects of a private transaction) has no labor inputs - the sky is not produced via human labor.

I mean that if they just say, "government needs $n trillion dollars to function, let's slap $n trillion dollars worth of levies on products instead of people's paycheques," then it's simply yet another sales tax to most people—even if you make it proportional to the carbon footprint of each respective product. If it's paying for more than the externality costs, calling it a carbon tax is a joke.

[J’raxis 270145]

Just curious as to why someone who believes that man's action is the contributing factor in GW would continue to support a practice that forces costs upon third parties in the form of negative externalities in violation of the fundamental principle of libertarianism?

Well, the only way to correct those externalities seems to be using government force directed in the opposite direction. And when you try to justify said government force, perhaps by calling it "self-defense" or somesuch, you open a door at the top of a very slippery slope.

[EthanAllen]

So if this is going to replace U.S. payroll taxes, where are they going to get all the money to pay for everything they do now? If you say "from the carbon tax," then the carbon tax is nothing more than a general sales tax (perhaps something like the H.R.25 "FairTax" bill)—because whatever they collect is going to need to be far, far in excess of the revenues required to offset CO2 emissions.

A sales tax is a tax on what is produced via human labor. The use of the sky as a carbon sink which generates negative externalities (as it subjects third parties to the effects of a private transaction) has no labor inputs - the sky is not produced via human labor.

I mean that if they just say, "government needs $n trillion dollars to function, let's slap $n trillion dollars worth of levies on products instead of people's paycheques," then it's simply yet another sales tax to most people—even if you make it proportional to the carbon footprint of each respective product. If it's paying for more than the externality costs, calling it a carbon tax is a joke.

The payroll tax only covers a small portion of the revenue needed for the US government to function.

What you seem to be missing is that we are already paying a carbon tax today in the form of negative externalities - except the wrong people are paying and thus the wrong people are benefiting.

There is a way to internalize exactly what is being externalized in costs today.

[EthanAllen]

Just curious as to why someone who believes that man's action is the contributing factor in GW would continue to support a practice that forces costs upon third parties in the form of negative externalities in violation of the fundamental principle of libertarianism?

Well, the only way to correct those externalities seems to be using government force directed in the opposite direction. And when you try to justify said government force, perhaps by calling it "self-defense" or somesuch, you open a door at the top of a very slippery slope.

Force itself is neither good nor bad. It depends on whether or not it serves a just end. Preventing third parties from being forced to pay for the costs associated with a voluntary transaction between two other entities is a just use of defensive force because governance is narrowly constituted to protect an individual's life, liberty and labor-based property. It will uphold the absolute right of self-ownership of those being excluded from benefiting from using our common asset as a carbon sink for our sustenance.

[J’raxis 270145]

So if this is going to replace U.S. payroll taxes, where are they going to get all the money to pay for everything they do now? If you say "from the carbon tax," then the carbon tax is nothing more than a general sales tax (perhaps something like the H.R.25 "FairTax" bill)—because whatever they collect is going to need to be far, far in excess of the revenues required to offset CO2 emissions.

A sales tax is a tax on what is produced via human labor. The use of the sky as a carbon sink which generates negative externalities (as it subjects third parties to the effects of a private transaction) has no labor inputs - the sky is not produced via human labor.

I mean that if they just say, "government needs $n trillion dollars to function, let's slap $n trillion dollars worth of levies on products instead of people's paycheques," then it's simply yet another sales tax to most people—even if you make it proportional to the carbon footprint of each respective product. If it's paying for more than the externality costs, calling it a carbon tax is a joke.

The payroll tax only covers a small portion of the revenue needed for the US government to function.

Oh, I know. I've seen some moderately convincing arguments that the government could actually be funded without the payroll tax at all (even at its current size), and that the institution of such tax is just part of the whole Federal Reserve mess.

In the nineteenth century, the government funded itself almost entirely through tariffs on foreign imports, for example.

What you seem to be missing is that we are already paying a carbon tax today in the form of negative externalities - except the wrong people are paying and thus the wrong people are benefiting.

There is a way to internalize exactly what is being externalized in costs today.

Well, this is what I said I could support earlier—an externality tax that was exactly equivalent to the externality cost (plus a small amount to cover collection overhead), distributed proportionately onto the worst-offending products.

[error]

Does that mean that Hillary will have to pay a tax every time she opens her mouth?