
Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax - Osiris30
http://www.rgj.com/story/money/business/2016/07/28/elon-musk-makes-libertarian-argument-carbon-tax/87638264/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=
======
startupdiscuss
This is a good argument.

It is also a basic economic argument about a market externality.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality)

I am not sure you even need to characterize it as a libertarian argument.

~~~
dharmon
Agreed. If anything, and if I'm reading it correctly, he's actually trying to
explain why libertarians would be _opposed_ to this:

> "For people that have a sort of libertarian bent they get a little confused
> because they need to appreciate the high level principle of why they are
> opposed to government intervention."

------
jalami
I agree with his points. If I had to prescribe to a political ideology,
libertarianism would probably be the closest to how I reason things out. I've
always thought, though, that it can only really apply to conscious human
adults capable of weighing the pros and cons of their actions and
relationships. When consequences or side-effects of their actions are pushed
onto external parties incapable of disagreement (eg. the environment,
children, animals) it gets murkier as actions become unilaterally beneficial
to the party making each proposal. Here I think there is room for public
consensus to come in and speak for the parties incapable of doing so.

I think most political arguments happen over how you decide who or what fits
into this group of parties incapable of speaking for themselves. Some say
3-year olds should represent themselves in immigration court while others say
even adult consumers aren't capable of adequately representing themselves and
need protections. I don't believe it's inconsistent libertarianism to say that
some groups with no independent legal voice should get public protection.
Libertarians draw that line in different places, however.

------
tmaly
I would expect him to make any argument he can against fossil fuels. He is
heavily invested in solar technology.

~~~
elgabogringo
Agreed. It's an argument for indirect subsidies to his company on top of the
direct subsidies he already receives.

Elon Musk is hardly a libertarian. He's just another crony capitalist.

~~~
jimmytidey
Obviously you can question his motives, however this is not an indirect
subsidy if you consider the emission of carbon dioxide an externality - which
I presume he does. Instead it would represent the levelling of the playing
field.

Oil companies do get direct subsidies through tax breaks, so no mater what you
think is going on here, energy is not pure market. In practise, how often do
you see a pure market anyway?

~~~
merpnderp
To be fair, in the US almost zero companies pay the corporate tax rate of 35%,
the highest in the industrialized world. Thus anyone can point at any industry
and point a finger at it in disgust at its "tax breaks".

~~~
jimmytidey
Fair point.

Still, means a carbon tax is just more of the same, not some evil infringement
of liberties.

------
binarymax
I feel the argument was muddled by the libertarian clauses. It would have been
more concise and poignant to make the same argument while leaving that out. He
is completely right, that carbon not being taxed like other regulated
substances, the fossil fuel businesses have the best subsidy possible, and the
economics are completely misaligned.

------
ZeroGravitas
It's fairly easy to spot ideologically consistent libertarians if you ask them
about climate change, carbon tax etc.

Unfortunately, it turns out that they don't really exist in any great numbers.

~~~
ancap
Can you expound on this ideologically consistent view?

~~~
erikpukinskis
If you are going to destroy the oceans that we all rely on for fishing, you
should pay for them. You break it you buy it. The idea that someone can just
come onto your property and destroy your land, as long as they do it with
toxic gasses, is not very libertarian.

~~~
throwaway2016a
Exactly! I hope this is what the op meant. If you are a True Libertarian you
should be in favor of the Government regulating air polluters because there is
no way to pollute the air (or ocean) without depriving others of their rights.

~~~
ancap
> there is no way to pollute the air (or ocean) without depriving others of
> their rights

I mostly agree with this part,

> If you are a True Libertarian you should be in favor of the Government
> regulating air polluters

but take issue with this part.

As others have pointed out the libertarian position on air pollution, and
similarly on other kinds of pollution, is it is a tortious trespass on
property and is dealt with through the judicial system. Meaning no regulation
or action is needed by government other than the recognition of property
rights. This was the position of common law and was abandoned by American
courts in the early 20th century.

Now, when you refer to the oceans, which due to government action remain un-
ownable, it's more complicated and the libertarian position is that they
should be privatized.

~~~
throwaway2016a
Ok, good point. I should have probably said protected by the government not
regulated.

But with that said, regulation is more efficient than going after every
polluter on a case by case basis. Legislation can at least be used to set the
guidelines so everyone knows what rules they are playing by. Either that or
you're just replacing law with case-law which would have relatively the same
effect. A rose by any other name...

------
mikecb
Coase, Pigou, all these ideas are fairly libertarian, just like other forms of
property rights are, and externalities like pollution can be thought of as a
form of trespass.

~~~
nickff
Pigouvianism is inherently intolerant and totalitarian, not libertarian, as it
relies on imposing one's value judgements on others. Using a tax to force
compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may be 'nicer', but is not
Liberty.

~~~
fweespeech
> Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may
> be 'nicer', but is not Liberty.

So if I reduce the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period
of years, I am simply exercising my liberty?

~~~
nickff
You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it.

There are a great many works on this type of issue, and if you are looking for
a complete answer, I suggest you read them. If you are trying to 'catch me
out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone
else.

~~~
fweespeech
> You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it.

And if you know its a common tort or trespass, it is simpler to tax that
tort/trespass rather than require every individual to sue every other
individual.

> If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is
> it likely to convince anyone els

I don't really care. I just find your doublethink curious and wanted to
confirm it was what I thought it was.

I find Doublethink in general a very interesting subject.

~~~
nickff
What doublethink are you talking about? There is no internal inconsistency in
my position, I just disagree with you.

~~~
fweespeech
I assumed:

A) You believe climate change and science by majority consensus on scientific
facts exist.

B) You believe pollution is grounds for a lawsuit (which is a form of tax in
that you are charged a fee for violating the social contract) which is
enforced by society due to the damage it represents.

C) You believe carbon is pollution but is not grounds for a lawsuit (which is
a form of tax in that you are charged a fee for violating the social contract)
which is enforced by society due to the damage it represents.

~~~
nickff
Voluntary agreements, legal settlements, and damages awards are not equivalent
to taxes. For example, if I were to set your car on fire, and you sued me for
that tort, any payment I made to you would be compensation, not a tax.

In addition, social contract theory is wrong, and I don't believe in it.[1]

Pollution may be grounds for a lawsuit, or it may not, it depends on the
circumstances, just like any other tort or trespass.

[1]
[http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Huemer1.pdf](http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Huemer1.pdf)

~~~
fweespeech
Okay, so you just don't believe climate change exists.

~~~
nickff
You've changed this post at least two times since I first tried to respond to
it; I can't write a coherent response if you keep on deleting your post and
re-writing it.

And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists'; as a matter of
fact, I avoid the issue of consensus/reality entirely, as it has become a
morass of tribal politics, where each side rejects the arguments of the other
out of hand.

~~~
fweespeech
> And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists'

The only way you'd be consistent was if you had imo. YMMV.

Now, all you've established is my original belief was correct.

> You've changed this post at least two times since I first tried to respond
> to it; I can't write a coherent response if you keep on deleting your post
> and re-writing it.

You rewrote your post after I posted the first one.

Pot meet kettle.

~~~
nickff
It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a
tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no
damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad.

~~~
fweespeech
> It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that
> a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there
> is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad.

You advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else which could be
simplified and applied consistently by a tax.

The fact you don't understand that is, effectively, a very inefficient tax is
confusing.

~~~
nickff
I didn't "advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else". I said
that one might be subject to a tort or trespass lawsuit "if [one] reduce[s]
the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years..."

------
JustUhThought
"Libertarian" and "tax" in the same sentence. How does that even work?

~~~
vorotato
I assume by arguing the personal liberty cost of emissions outweighs the
personal liberty gained by tax reduction.

~~~
unprepare
wouldnt the libertarian reaction to emissions be to sue the emitter for the
lowered quality of air?

~~~
mrsteveman1
I'm not at all familiar with the law in this area, but what stands in the way
of doing that right now?

~~~
mediaman
Frictional costs of reclaiming those costs: lawsuits are expensive, and when a
large number of people are impacted a small to moderate amount, it's very
difficult for diffused harm (those breathing polluted air) to reclaim damages
against concentrated gain (polluting industry).

This would be the argument for creating more of a structured market approach
to assigning the costs of these externalities: courts are inefficient and
plagued with problems when there's a power difference between the parties, so
creating a market structure allows those externalities to be compensated in a
more efficient way, while still allowing market pricing to incentivize
industry to resolve the externality in the most efficient way available.

The libertarian's argument against this (I imagine) is that any government
market scheme will screw it up more, though I don't know why so much faith is
placed in the court system as a magically efficient system that resolves
property disputes fairly and cost effectively in cases like diffused
externalities.

------
elgabogringo
If he/we really cared about CO2 production and Global warming externalities,
we'd put a _massive_ tax on service/product from China or India, whose CO2
production continues to grow:

[http://blogs.nelson.wisc.edu/es112-304-4/wp-
content/uploads/...](http://blogs.nelson.wisc.edu/es112-304-4/wp-
content/uploads/sites/85/2014/03/European-Comission-co2-emissions.png)

~~~
dpark
And on services/products from the USA, right? Per capita we're using more
energy and producing more CO2 than China and India and almost everywhere else.
(Australia looks about the same. The UAE appears to be at the top.)

Also, per the chart you've linked, India's CO2 production looks quite low. Not
sure why you're lumping them in with China.

------
throwaway2016a
"[Libertarians] are actually opposed to government intervention because it
causes false pricing. "

No, Libertarians are opposed to government intervention because it forces
individuals to give up liberties. It's right there in the name of the party.
You have a right to keep what you earn and choose where you want to spend it.

Now if you were to argue that polluting the environment deprives others of
their right to breath clean air and that the government should tax carbon in
order to protect the rights of the people who want clean air then THAT is a
Libertarian argument for carbon tax.

------
sandworm101
Given the medieval wealth disparities between the billionaire class and the
average person, I find it difficult to trust their pontifications on financial
and political matters. They are still people, but people operating on a very
different moral compass than my own. Living in wealth and comfort is one
thing, but the morality needed to acquire and retain billions in the face of
all that could be done with it means we operate under very different rules.

------
bjelkeman-again
Three are many others that argue that a price on carbon is the best way. For
example: William Nordhaus of Yale University and Nicholas Stern of the London
School of Economics.

[http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30760-carbon-tax-or-
carbo...](http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30760-carbon-tax-or-carbon-
market)

------
hartator
Random thought: Why are we communicating almost only on the release of CO2 and
not of the burning of O2?

It's easier to communicate that's O2 being reduced is problematic for human
beings as our bodies perform worst even with slight reductions in O2 levels.
O2 levels have a more direct impact on humans. Plus, O2 concentration levels
are actually being reduced faster than CO2 levels are rising. CO2 is not a
toxic gas by itself and climate sciences that show CO2 is bad for the planet
are hard. It would seem easier to convince people burning O2 is harmful. It's
true and easy to demonstrate.

> Evidence from prehistoric times indicates that the oxygen content of
> pristine nature was above the 21% of total volume that it is today. It has
> decreased in recent times due mainly to the burning of coal in the middle of
> the last century. Currently the oxygen content of the Earth’s atmosphere
> dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major
> cities. At these levels it is difficult for people to get sufficient oxygen
> to maintain bodily health: it takes a proper intake of oxygen to keep body
> cells and organs, and the entire immune system, functioning at full
> efficiency. At the levels we have reached today cancers and other
> degenerative diseases are likely to develop. And at 6 to 7% life can no
> longer be sustained.

Ref: [http://www.ebooks.com/113897/macroshift/laszlo-ervin-
clarke-...](http://www.ebooks.com/113897/macroshift/laszlo-ervin-clarke-
arthur-charles-other/)

~~~
dpark
> _Random thought: Why are we communicating almost only on the release of CO2
> and not of the burning of O2?_

Because global warming will probably kill us before oxygen deprivation or the
health impact of reduced oxygen.

Also, this is perhaps nitpicky, but O2 does not burn.

------
pininja
What are the by-products of manufacturing and maintaining batteries and solar
panels? I'd like to learn more about the inputs and outputs, then maybe I can
learn a better comparison between fossil fuels and solar.

What are we transforming in order to create, store, and consume solar energy
and fossil fuel energy?

~~~
bhhaskin
Whats worse is the waste left over after a battery is past it life span.

~~~
sinxoveretothex
Not for Musk's Tesla at least:

[https://www.tesla.com/blog/mythbusters-part-3-recycling-
our-...](https://www.tesla.com/blog/mythbusters-part-3-recycling-our-non-
toxic-battery-packs)

[https://www.tesla.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-
recycl...](https://www.tesla.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycling-
program)

------
billpg
Next week, a communist argument for private ownership of the means of
production.

------
squozzer
Musk leaves out - or maybe he didn't but the reporter did - a couple of
things. 1) Most of the subsidy for fossil fuels is actually a subsidy for
transportation, which relies mostly on fossil fuels. 2) The production and re-
fueling of EVs is primarily a fossil-fuel enabled activity ("EVs just have a
longer tailpipe".)

Someone really interested in reducing fossil fuel consumption might want
instead to subsidize ways of reducing transportation use.

~~~
JustUhThought
The longer tail pipe thing is, whater. Annoying. An E.V. can be charged from
any source. Electrons don't discriminate as to what excites them. With the
purchase of SolarCity by Tesla, the pipe is now super short. From your room to
your garage. Blaiming E.V. power source emisions is like blaming people with
second hand smoke cause cancer for their ailment. It's gonna take awhile to
regulate the smokers out of our shared space.

------
fncndhdhc
More like Elon Musk points out by example why libertarianism is an oxymoron.
As soon as all restrictions are lifted on businesses and a totally "free"
market is created, business interests move to enact new regulations that
entrench their positions.

~~~
throwaway2016a
And those new regulations in favor of business would be vetoed under a
Libertarian government. It works both ways.

Also, Libertarians are __in favor of regulating business if the business is
depriving others of their rights. For example, their right to breath clean
air.

 __Well, many are. I believe enough are that pro-environmental policies would
still get voted up in a Libertarian system.

~~~
antisthenes
> And those new regulations in favor of business would be vetoed under a
> Libertarian government. It works both ways.

Wait, what? Vetoed by whom?

> Also, Libertarians are in favor of regulating business if the business is
> depriving others of their rights.

Who would be doing the regulating exactly? Wouldn't the regulations be seen as
oppression by other businesses? Wouldn't they be challenged in a court of law,
which is a part of the government?

I'm honestly amazed at the required amount of self-delusion required to
believe that some form of libertopia is possible by simply removing some
regulations and cutting down government agencies left and right. It then turns
out that to arbitrate selfish interests of business and handle other edge
cases in conflicts of interest you need certain agencies to act as arbitrators
and in order to have a functioning society you start adding those agencies
back 1 by 1 until you end up at the current form of government with all of its
"overhead"

~~~
throwaway2016a
I think you are confusing Libertarian with Anarchist.

Libertarian does not preclude a president (who has a veto pen) and courts. In
fact, courts are insanely critical to a Libertarian government in order to
rule on cases where rights are violated and an executive branch is critical to
make sure the court decisions are carried out.

Furthermore, contract law is also hugely important to Libertarians and the
Government needs to be able to enforce those contracts when the individual
cannot.

What a Libertarian would do is strike down all laws and government agencies
that infringe on individual liberties. Especially laws that legislate morality
and laws that legislate how individuals can spend their money and use their
property. That means you can marry who you want, smoke what you want, and buy,
sell, and contract with who you want as long as it does not infringe on other
rights.

Other misconceptions:

\- Libertarians as a whole do not want to eliminate tax. They want to replace
income tax with flat tax and/or consumption tax and leave property tax up to
the states. They only want to abolish the IRS because it is an inefficient
organization, uses threat of force to collect taxes, and taxes do not need to
be that complicated.

\- Libertarians are not anti union. People should have a right to assemble.
They are generally against people being forced to join a union against their
will.

\- Libertarians are not anti-government. They just feel the only valid role of
government is to protect individual rights and defend our country from foreign
invaders.

\- Libertarians are not anti-environment. In fact Libertarians often see
polluting the environment as infringing on other people rights and therefor
something the government can intervene in.

A true Libertarian president would ask the following of every law:

\- Does this protect people from having their rights infringed on by either
other people, government, or companies: YES, pass this law

\- If it does not meet the first test, does this infringe on other's right
including their rights to do what they want with their own property/body: VETO

