[AFAIK]

Eran, what mechanisms or institutions would be available to those who were aggrieved by CFCs? Can Australians suffering skin cancer, farmers whose livestocks have cataracts and fishers whose stocks have declined due to UV light damaging coral reefs launch class action lawsuits against manufacturers of CFCs?

[lucky]

Australia should then immediately invade the anarchists. Not only they can stop the harmful CFC emissions, they also get to tax the inhabitants

[Eran]

These other activities and organisations already exist. If they were not effective in our real world, why would they be any more effective in Galt's Gulch?

First, they are effective, and do much good.

Second, their activities are greatly hampered by governments. If you already pay 50% of your income towards an institution whose avowed duty it is to alleviate poverty, your motivation to contribute more is certainly diminished. Similarly, if you are already compelled to pay for Social Security, you will naturally have both less funds and less motivation to save toward retirement, or join a mutual-aid society dedicated to helping members falling onto hard times.

In the context of product safety, it is obvious that government agencies promising to keep our food safe leave much less room for private enterprises engaged in similar activities.

Standards are not regulations. How would UL deal with the CFC gas problem, for example?

Different problem - different solutions. The UL could certainly certify some products as CFC-free. If the public is genuinely interested in stopping the damage of CFCs, the public can simply decline to purchase products not UL-certified as being CFC-free.

But your suggestion that poor people need only wait for the economy to eventually provide them with safe goods and services is unrealistic. How would this work for CFC gases?

Waiting for the market is a much better idea than waiting for government. The market tends to be much quicker and more effective.

WRT to CFC, one mechanism is that popular demand for CFC-free products (following publicity and public campaigns highlighting the damage of CFCs) causes CFC-free products (UL-certified as such) to dominate the markets. Since CFC-alternatives aren't that expensive, they quickly becomes the norm even in the developing world.

This is one of two assumptions that libertarians tend to have that is not supported by reality: that people will always behave perfectly rationally.

People are much more likely to act rationally when their (or their family's) welfare is directly impacted from their personal choices than when the link between their individual choice and their welfare is weak or non-existent (e.g. when they vote).

People don't need to be "perfectly" rational. It is enough that consumers in general express preference. I don't price-shop, but others do, helping keep prices moderate. Similarly, even if only a minority cares about product safety, retailers and producers wishing not to "lose" that minority will provide safe products for everybody.

I am not making a comparison to other systems.

You should, or risk becoming a utopian. If babies die under every system, it makes little sense to blame capitalism for it. In fact, far fewer babies die under capitalism than under any conceivable alternative.

The fact that you drink tap water suggests that you feel that the gov't pretty much guarantees that it is potable.

The fact that I spend a few hundreds dollars on an iPad suggests that I fee that the private market pretty much guarantees that is is reliable. I can't tell just looking at it - but I rely on Apple's brand name. The same happens when I buy bottled water in India. I feel that the private market (since water quality there isn't regulated by government) pretty much guarantees that it is potable.

If you completely disregard empirical evidence, how do you test to see if your claims are actually valid in reality?

Some claims can be supported on an a-priori basis. The counter-productive nature of most government policies fall into that category. However, I need not exclude empirical evidence. I merely need to review it in context. Empirically, the relatively-free market works extremely well.

Part of your problem is that you are comparing one of the best governments humans ever knew (the Canadian one) against a corrupt private sector of 100-150 years ago. Try coming up with examples of corporate malfeasance of the modern world, or contrast 19th century private sector with 19th century government.

First, there is the empirical evidence that the manufacturers of freon and other CFC gases did nothing to regulate the harm caused by their goods or services. They made no effort to determine if there were any collective harms. They did not educate their buyers about it

Sure - the solution will rarely come from manufacturers. It must come from people who care - broadly the public.

Logical arguments include, but are not limited to, the fact that consumers are not as likely to react to collective harms as they do to ones that directly affect them, that pollution is an externality so it is in the company's financial interests to not bring attention to it or in any way accept responsibility for it, and the fact that consumers cannot make informed decisions without some sort of funded research into these things.

Those very same logical arguments work just as well (if not better) against government powers and actions. As voters, our decisions never impact us personally. Voters can (and are) both ignorant and irrational. Politicians must appeal to those ignorant and irrational voters to stay in power. The problem of collective harm is secondary (though still important) in markets. It is primary - the rule rather than the exception - when it comes to government action.

The fact that the democratic process, despite those logical barriers, is still able to act in broadly the public good (though in a wasteful, distorted and often counter-productive way) suggests that people (whether acting as consumers or as voters) aren't completely selfish, as your caricature of libertarianism suggests. They respond to emotions, including powerful emotions painting CFC gases as anti-social and potentially catastrophically harmful.

Eran, what mechanisms or institutions would be available to those who were aggrieved by CFCs? Can Australians suffering skin cancer, farmers whose livestocks have cataracts and fishers whose stocks have declined due to UV light damaging coral reefs launch class action lawsuits against manufacturers of CFCs?

Potentially, depending on how concentrated or fragmented the CFC industry is, how robust the science is, how wide-spread libertarian justice is globally, etc. One can envision a world in which a small number of legal firms purchase tort rights over CFC damage from millions of people, and then sue hundreds of different manufacturers, seeking and winning damages proportionate to the amount of CFC each can be shown to be responsible for releasing.

If I had to guess, though, I don't think direct legal action would be the most effective in this case. Consider the number of people acting over Global Warming scares. The problem with Global Warming is that the solution is very expensive (reducing carbon footprint). With CFCs, the solution is much cheaper, namely avoiding consuming CFC-based products. Since cheap alternatives are available, the force required to divert production to non-CFC alternatives is modest.

That is why the international program to stop using CFCs worked, while similar efforts related to Global Warming failed.

[lucky]

If the public is genuinely interested in stopping the damage of CFCs, the public can simply decline to purchase products not UL-certified as being CFC-free.

Ecological fallacy all over again. I am pretty sure you know full well you're committing a logical error here, it's just you have to, to rationalize your a-priori choice of bad policy (or lack of policy) somehow. You clearly know what the problem is with such arguments. In other cases, you're quick to point out individualism, and yet when it suits you, you turn to such naive group-thinking arguments.

Just to point it out again: people (like myself) are interested in others not polluting, not in themselves not polluting. They don't make that decision as a group unless there is an enforced policy. I don't worry about my own puny pollution contributions, or that of the businesses I hold shares of. I am a selfish bastard and I have bigger things to worry about. And yet I am genuinely interested in having anti-pollution laws. They are there to align the interests of myself and other selfish bastards.

[Pants-of-dog]

First, they are effective, and do much good.

How were they effective at stopping the use of CFC gases and repairing the damage in the ozone layer?

Second, their activities are greatly hampered by governments. If you already pay 50% of your income towards an institution whose avowed duty it is to alleviate poverty, your motivation to contribute more is certainly diminished. Similarly, if you are already compelled to pay for Social Security, you will naturally have both less funds and less motivation to save toward retirement, or join a mutual-aid society dedicated to helping members falling onto hard times.

Why would people voluntarily get together and decide to enact worldwide bans on CFC gases?

In the context of product safety, it is obvious that government agencies promising to keep our food safe leave much less room for private enterprises engaged in similar activities.

There was no private enterprise trying to get CFC gases banned and repairing the hole in the ozone layer. And especially not one that was being forced to slow down because of gov't monopolies or taxes.

Different problem - different solutions. The UL could certainly certify some products as CFC-free. If the public is genuinely interested in stopping the damage of CFCs, the public can simply decline to purchase products not UL-certified as being CFC-free.

In other words, UL would not be dealing the problem of CFC gases. It would, instead, lay the responsibility on the consumer.

Waiting for the market is a much better idea than waiting for government. The market tends to be much quicker and more effective.

WRT to CFC, one mechanism is that popular demand for CFC-free products (following publicity and public campaigns highlighting the damage of CFCs) causes CFC-free products (UL-certified as such) to dominate the markets. Since CFC-alternatives aren't that expensive, they quickly becomes the norm even in the developing world.

Exactly. The ONLY was for such a society to enact an international moratorium on such gases would be if everyone just chose to never them use them.

Can you see how unlikely this is?

This is my main problem with libertarianism (and communism, to be clear): it requires everyone to just magically want it in order for it to work.

People are much more likely to act rationally when their (or their family's) welfare is directly impacted from their personal choices than when the link between their individual choice and their welfare is weak or non-existent (e.g. when they vote).

This is exactly why your an-cap utopia won't address CFC gases. It doesn't affect people locally. Australians would ban CFC gases, but no one else would, because only the Australians are affected by it. However, the rest of the world still pumps out CFC gases, and the ozone hole over the south pole continues to deteriorate.

People don't need to be "perfectly" rational. It is enough that consumers in general express preference. I don't price-shop, but others do, helping keep prices moderate. Similarly, even if only a minority cares about product safety, retailers and producers wishing not to "lose" that minority will provide safe products for everybody.

Then why isn't this working with global warming? There is a minority of people adversely affected by global warming who are trying to stop it. Why isn't the market somehow catering to the whims of this minority instead of to the huge market that will continue to purchase fossil fuels?

The fact that I spend a few hundreds dollars on an iPad suggests that I fee that the private market pretty much guarantees that is is reliable. I can't tell just looking at it - but I rely on Apple's brand name. The same happens when I buy bottled water in India. I feel that the private market (since water quality there isn't regulated by government) pretty much guarantees that it is potable.

You can do all that and simultaneously rely on gov't regulation to keep you safe.

Some claims can be supported on an a-priori basis. The counter-productive nature of most government policies fall into that category. However, I need not exclude empirical evidence. I merely need to review it in context. Empirically, the relatively-free market works extremely well.

Part of your problem is that you are comparing one of the best governments humans ever knew (the Canadian one) against a corrupt private sector of 100-150 years ago. Try coming up with examples of corporate malfeasance of the modern world, or contrast 19th century private sector with 19th century government.

I don't think that I am discussing Canada in this thread (though you are probably correct that I do this in other threads). In this particular case, I am comparing the gov't reaction to CFC gas damages to the free market one.

Sure - the solution will rarely come from manufacturers. It must come from people who care - broadly the public.

Exactly. Thank you.

Those very same logical arguments work just as well (if not better) against government powers and actions. As voters, our decisions never impact us personally. Voters can (and are) both ignorant and irrational. Politicians must appeal to those ignorant and irrational voters to stay in power. The problem of collective harm is secondary (though still important) in markets. It is primary - the rule rather than the exception - when it comes to government action.

The fact that the democratic process, despite those logical barriers, is still able to act in broadly the public good (though in a wasteful, distorted and often counter-productive way) suggests that people (whether acting as consumers or as voters) aren't completely selfish, as your caricature of libertarianism suggests. They respond to emotions, including powerful emotions painting CFC gases as anti-social and potentially catastrophically harmful.

The role of gov't in regulating CFC gases had nothing to do with voting.

If I had to guess, though, I don't think direct legal action would be the most effective in this case. Consider the number of people acting over Global Warming scares. The problem with Global Warming is that the solution is very expensive (reducing carbon footprint). With CFCs, the solution is much cheaper, .... Since cheap alternatives are available, the force required to divert production to non-CFC alternatives is modest.

That is why the international program to stop using CFCs worked, while similar efforts related to Global Warming failed.

I agree with this.

[Eran]

lucky,
The hyper-rational, neo-classical economic view of humans required to substantiate an assertion that individual action cannot substitute (coerced) group action is both evidently false and, in the context of constitutional democracy, self-contradictory.

People are moved to selfless action in pursuit of ideological communal goals all the time. You can see that in foreign revolutions and domestic environmental, libertarian and countless other advocacy groups. In fact, without such propensity for selfless action, elections would never take place.

It is true that it may be easier to persuade a small group of government decision-makers to follow a course of action than to get a significant fraction of the public to do so. But that same observation holds regardless of the merit of the action. In other words, it holds for going to war, just as it would for fighting pollution.

Why would people voluntarily get together and decide to enact worldwide bans on CFC gases?

For exactly the same reason that the world's governments chose to do so.

In other words, UL would not be dealing the problem of CFC gases. It would, instead, lay the responsibility on the consumer.

It would facilitate consumer action by providing consumers with reliable information. Just as government research institutions do not deal with the problem, but only prepare information for decision-makers.

Exactly. The ONLY was for such a society to enact an international moratorium on such gases would be if everyone just chose to never them use them.

To get a full moratorium, it would be enough that most people would choose not to use them, such that no manufacturer would rationally choose to use them, as such choice would limit his customer base.

But a full moratorium is an unnecessarily-ambitious goal. A broad moratorium which reduced CFC emissions by, say, 99%, would have done almost as well.

This is my main problem with libertarianism (and communism, to be clear): it requires everyone to just magically want it in order for it to work.

No, it doesn't. Any more than a democracy requires that everybody become interested in politics, do their research and then vote wisely.

This is exactly why your an-cap utopia won't address CFC gases. It doesn't affect people locally. Australians would ban CFC gases, but no one else would, because only the Australians are affected by it. However, the rest of the world still pumps out CFC gases, and the ozone hole over the south pole continues to deteriorate.

What makes you think that the political leaders of non-impacted countries were more likely to want to act than the citizens of those same countries? Why would voters in those countries support their leaders' action, but wouldn't be interested in acting themselves?

It is true that addressing externalities (consequences of one's action that do not impact one directly) is problematic in any human society. Libertarianism seeks to minimise (if not completely eliminate) such externalities. Democracy, by contrast, makes it the rule rather than the exception.

Then why isn't this working with global warming? There is a minority of people adversely affected by global warming who are trying to stop it. Why isn't the market somehow catering to the whims of this minority instead of to the huge market that will continue to purchase fossil fuels?

IT is working. There are many popular movements, organisations and other efforts to reduce carbon footprint. You see voluntary offsetting schemes. Growing popularity of various "green" initiatives. And why do politicians adopt "green" policies if not to carry favour with the public? Have you seen Apple Inc's "green credentials", touted as part of their product introduction?

With respect to Global Warming, perhaps the public wisely senses that the effort required of it is completely disproportionate to the realistic risk...

You can do all that and simultaneously rely on gov't regulation to keep you safe.

I don't need government regulation to keep me safe, just as I don't need government regulations to make the products I buy reliable. The market will achieve that goal faster, more efficiently and more discriminatingly.

[Pants-of-dog]

For exactly the same reason that the world's governments chose to do so.

No. Gov'ts do it because of mandates and international treaties, Those don't apply to individuals.

It would facilitate consumer action by providing consumers with reliable information. Just as government research institutions do not deal with the problem, but only prepare information for decision-makers.

Sure, but they would not regulate CFC gases.

To get a full moratorium, it would be enough that most people would choose not to use them, such that no manufacturer would rationally choose to use them, as such choice would limit his customer base.

But a full moratorium is an unnecessarily-ambitious goal. A broad moratorium which reduced CFC emissions by, say, 99%, would have done almost as well.

Yes, and this is why it wouldn't work.

No, it doesn't. Any more than a democracy requires that everybody become interested in politics, do their research and then vote wisely.

Yes, it does. You just explained to me that the only way it could get done is if the vast majority of people all of sudden all just wanted to make it work.

What makes you think that the political leaders of non-impacted countries were more likely to want to act than the citizens of those same countries? Why would voters in those countries support their leaders' action, but wouldn't be interested in acting themselves?

It is true that addressing externalities (consequences of one's action that do not impact one directly) is problematic in any human society. Libertarianism seeks to minimise (if not completely eliminate) such externalities. Democracy, by contrast, makes it the rule rather than the exception.

I don't have to know why political leaders did it. Because they did it. They actually did it. The free market did not actually do anything. You can talk about theory until you are blue in the face, bu tit won't change that fact.

IT is working. There are many popular movements, organisations and other efforts to reduce carbon footprint. You see voluntary offsetting schemes. Growing popularity of various "green" initiatives. And why do politicians adopt "green" policies if not to carry favour with the public? Have you seen Apple Inc's "green credentials", touted as part of their product introduction?

Please provide evidence that these voluntary organisations are working with the free market to reduce fossil fuel use. Thank you.

With respect to Global Warming, perhaps the public wisely senses that the effort required of it is completely disproportionate to the realistic risk...

I doubt it.

I don't need government regulation to keep me safe, just as I don't need government regulations to make the products I buy reliable. The market will achieve that goal faster, more efficiently and more discriminatingly.

If gov't hadn't stepped in, no one else would have stopped the damage caused by CFC gases.

[lucky]

Eran basically says that the Montreal Protocol was ineffective, because the consumers and producers would have just stopped using CFCs by themselves anyway.

Why didn't they? The harmful effect of CFCs was known since the 70s, and yet the substances didn't start being phased out until the 90s, exactly on schedule set by the Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987. Coincidence?

Such a ridiculous grasping at straws to blindly apply a simplistic ideology to every circumstance.

The hyper-rational, neo-classical economic view of humans required to substantiate an assertion that individual action cannot substitute (coerced) group action is both evidently false and, in the context of constitutional democracy, self-contradictory.

That's not what I said. All I said is to point out the logical fallacy in your (repeated) "deduction" that if people want to do X as a group, they can just as well do X individually. You've just again admitted that such behavior would be irrational, so you have a very weak basis if any for such a line of "deductive reasoning".

Of course people are not always rational, but that doesn't mean that you can generalize the irrational behavior and rely on its happening in every circumstance.

Another but related example when it doesn't work like that: a lot of people want an increase of certain taxes, and yet they won't just voluntarily pay those taxes on their own. This includes me! Pretty much the same thing applies to environmental regulations, which are essentially equivalent to putting taxes on certain emissions, and often directly implemented that way.

To use "deductive reasoning" based on rational behavior and ignore evidence, is wrong. But to use "deductive reasoning" based on irrational behavior and ignore evidence, is outright dumb.