That would be amazing, but no, they can only spend it on whatever is available on the market. I should find it odd how often "market" is conflated with "freedom", but I don't.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
That would be amazing, but no, they can only spend it on whatever is available on the market. I should find it odd how often "market" is conflated with "freedom", but I don't.
Yes yes, semantics.
It's still a matter of degree, being able to spend it on a range of items is certainly higher on the freedom-index* then having it forcibly expropriated from you.
*TM
It's not semantics, it's deliberately ignoring privately run power structures, while framing individual power as all conquering, which is to be frank (if I can be frank without sounding like an arsehole (I've failed at that in the past)) one the key errors of your way of thinking.
If we want to discuss freedom indexes, how about the property rights of the people that own coastal property that will be destroyed by inaction on climate change? How about the desire for affordable insurance for those not so well off? How about the job opportunities lost in being behind the curve on new energy technologies? I could go on. How do we weigh these things up against the ability of women to buy chinese made trinkets?
Because it's a false dichotomy. The carbon tax was going to have zero impact on any of those things.
The carbon tax had a notable impact on carbon emissions, and it's removal had another notable effect in the reverse. So, no.
I don't give two hoots if carbon emissions went up or down in a negligible way, I care about resulting effects on temperatures.
Yes.
Box of Bunnies
Banned
It's actually about ethics in environmental journalism.
Fair enough. If you're pro tax, I apologise for misrepresenting your position, but you did a pretty good job of that yourself too to be fair.
My argument would be that we have to do what is in our jurisdiction to do, but I'm not particularly interested in a debate on that point.
Yeah guys, if we cant solve the problem, we shouldnt do anything at all.
Thats the spirit.
Seriously that is.
lol.
Ok, freedom flag dick waving aside. Having it simultaneously apply worldwide would actually circumvent my major problems with it.
1) It won't unfairly hamper our economy because it applies equally to all economies.
2) Prices would reach equilibrium faster because the whole world would have to adjust as opposed to price lurches in specific markets...with a decent bit of predictability as to when an ETS would actually come into force.
3) It might actually have an impact on global temperatures.
I heard there was a crisis in the Maldives, a shortage of fresh water. So I sent a bottle of water over there. 600 ml.
Problem solved.
Which is kinda funny when you think about it. "I'm pro freedom, but a one world government would fix all our problems."
As one of the richest countries in the world, "unfair" would be waiting for other countries to go first.
Oh a local resource problem. Perfect analogy for a situation where the technology everyone uses is going to break our habitat.
Sigh...because I wasn't just making a dumb snarky remark to a dumb snarky comment. 
You're free to disagree, but the reason I hate the carbon tax is because the cost to our economy was entirely disproportionate to the benefit we would eventually get with respect to global climate change. I don't think it was poignant or prudent to drive up costs and take more money out of our shitty economy for the benefit of 15x10^-6 degrees by 2050 or something equally negligible. Again, your priorities might be different. You might think that any cost is reasonable to meet this problem....I don't.
You're free to disagree, but the reason I hate the carbon tax is because the cost to our economy was entirely disproportionate to the benefit we would eventually get with respect to global climate change. I don't think it was poignant or prudent to drive up costs and take more money out of our shitty economy for the benefit of 15x10^-6 degrees by 2050 or something equally negligible. Again, your priorities might be different. You might think that any cost is reasonable to meet this problem....I don't.
I don't think "any cost" is reasonable, but the carbon tax as implemented was making a difference to emissions while not having much economic impact. Of all the possible actions it was widely considered one of the best implementations in the world. (Except by our own electorate, but I don't think it was the election issue it is claimed to be by some.)
Not related to this exact discussion, but man, if I was king I would swiftly remove the freedom of notable climate change deniers, Alan Jones and such. "You're free to disagree" but you exist in a world where viewpoints and the resulting policies are coloured by the marketing budgets of cashed up industries. No doubt this is the kind of paternalistic statement that would make you vomit, but really, how do you protect the public against fraudulent undercover marketing campaigns by industry only acting to protect itself (and shareholder value)?
Sigh...because I wasn't just making a dumb snarky remark to a dumb snarky comment.
You're free to disagree, but the reason I hate the carbon tax is because the cost to our economy was entirely disproportionate to the benefit we would eventually get with respect to global climate change. I don't think it was poignant or prudent to drive up costs and take more money out of our shitty economy for the benefit of 15x10^-6 degrees by 2050 or something equally negligible. Again, your priorities might be different. You might think that any cost is reasonable to meet this problem....I don't.
Or to slowly begin to ween us of carbon, to spurr research and investment in alternative energy sources.
The cost was insignificant, and merely a realistic imposition of the costs that this sort of dirty technology is costing us.
We are told the market will find a way. It wont, it is looking toward the next quarter or financial year. It isnt interested in 10 years from now, oil is cheap, use it up. Putting a cost on carbon was an attempt to get the market to address it. The same way we put costs on polluting, the market doesn't address these things itself.
Not to mention the morality of that sort of argument. We can do wrong because others do wrong.
I guess we shouldnt worry too much though. Those wind power things are a blight on the landscape. We know what really matters.
The freedom flag dickwaving Arksy (I honestly have no idea which is the real one) would say that the only wrong is to stand in the way of an individuals right to act. Removing hindrances on individual action is always right. The initiation of force is the root of all evil. Voluntary action is the only moral solution.
The great thing about climate change is that it's literally impossible to fix in a libertarian utopia. It completely invalidates the world view of the supremacy of the individual, hence so many deniers are from that side of politics.
I'm nowhere near that hardcore. I do think the initiation of force is fundamentally immoral, but I understand that for practical reasons, it's absolutely necessary for a peaceful society. I'm hardly a "proper" libertarian, and I usually find that their complete stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise on anything, even the mildest things that may be against their principles completely trite and annoying. I also find it completely absurd that they spend so much of their efforts on generally unpopular things like legalising drugs, and not on highly popular policies like reducing taxes.
I honestly think it's ok if governments step in to account for externalities where the market can't or won't account for them. I think we should be cautious when we do this, but I don't have a problem with it in principle. I don't mind an ETS in principle either.
Also, despite spending two years under the tutelage of Ian Plimer, who is Australia's leading climate change denier, who spent a fairly considerable amount of lecture time "debunking climate change", I do agree with the mainstream scientific consensus.
He's fairly transparent: http://www.skepticalscience.com/plimervsplimer.php and http://www.skepticalscience.com/Plimer-vs-Plimer-one-man-contradiction.html
Also, I appreciate the clarification on your belief system.
Air pollution in general is really interesting when you try to ask hardcore libertarians about it. There's no way to stop the atmosphere being a shared resource, so near as I've read there's no good way to manage it via individual rights.
Elaugaufein
Member
Libertarians generally don't adhere strictly to individual rights. The strictest individual right is Might Makes Right. That's fundamentally incompatible with their notion of Property Rights (which is probably the unifying feature of Libertarian philosophy). As a result libertarianism does have at least a concept of collective rights (ie a justice system to settle disputes of property right and enforcers thereof) and many libertarians take things further (e,g. military) so its possible that given an extinction level matter that libertarians would not be opposed to collective action.
Though all of the above is at a philosophical level. At a practical level some (many?) libertarians seem to absolutely hate even voluntary collective action (Unions, in particular, make many libertarians froth at the mouth) and would want nothing to do with it unless the alternative is incompatible with property rights.
Could you explain how that's so? It seems like "might" in a social situation could only arise from collective action. Libertarians want to do what they want without a state getting in the way, hence the non initiation of force principle. Since that mostly came from Ayn Rand, I assume there are academic strains on libertarianism that recognise the problems with that principle but still broadly support a minimalist state.
1. The economy is in worse shape now than with the carbon tax. The overall effect of the carbon tax on the economy was negligible.
2. We've just been hit with a popping fossil fuel bubble. Falling prices on coal is why the debt has exploded under Abbott. Using a carbon tax to drive investment in alternative energies will in fact reduce our exposure to unstable markets. Banks call it a balanced portfolio.
3. Personal responsibility. Listen to John Kerry's speech at Lima. It is far far cheaper for us to fix our contribution now, than to wait. The market has very weak long term and environmental influences. The only way the temperature is going to slow down is if the smart countries lead and develop a sustainable solution. Plus we will make a tonne of money on the flip side from owning the technologies.
Why would a libertarian be pro fossil fuel? It is the embodiment of centralisation. You're a slave to the fossil fuel industry. Not the government. Sustainable energies are a libertarian dream. It allows us individual energy freedom.
It's not about pro or anti fuel types, but anti government assistance for industry. "Let the market decide" = individual rights. "Use the state to nudge the market in any particular direction" = initiation of force, scream bloody murder, dogs and cats living together, etc.
http://m.theage.com.au/federal-poli...eless-and-housing-groups-20141222-12cf67.html
Merry Christmas to you too LNP.
Merry Christmas to you too LNP.
Scott Morrison, ladies and gentlemen.
What's really strange is spending has actually gone up. For 2014-15 MYEFO says the government is set to spend 25.9% of GDP. That's 0.1% less than 2009-10 when Rudd went on a massive stimulus spend. Labor was under 25% for their last three budgets.
I'm getting these numbers from the Drum on the ABC on another computer screen otherwise I'd link it.
I'm getting these numbers from the Drum on the ABC on another computer screen otherwise I'd link it.
Yes, the economy is in worse shape now, we're fucked...but our current economic position is not due to the implementation or lack of the carbon tax. Well, I say that with a fair amount of confidence. The real answer is of course unknowable.
Fiscal conservatives, what a bunch of jokers. This isn't the first time this has happened either. David Cameron has been increasing spending as well. I'll give Labor credit, they weren't as spendthrift as people might think.
Fiscal conservatives, what a bunch of jokers. This isn't the first time this has happened either. David Cameron has been increasing spending as well. I'll give Labor credit, they weren't as spendthrift as people might think.
We're not fucked. There are plenty of options. Abbott's problem is all the options mean back flipping on his years of negativity.
Acting on climate change is now bipartisan, so action in some form is inevitable.
In the real world you have two choices. Which is the more in line with your ideology?
A government imposed carbon tax that penalises directly polluters and has no discernible impact on the economy.
Or a grant of 2.5 billion tax dollars directly to the polluters expanding on the debt and deficit disaster?
In the first option it's polluter pays and carbon pollution drops.
In the second, you pay and if the economists are right, carbon pollution increases.
Elaugaufein
Member
You're right, might makes right in a social context is effectively extortion/intimidation and collective action is definitely the correct response for anyone on the receiving end (which may be part of the hatred for unions). But the ability to make someone else do what you want is how pure individual rights resolve and libertarians don't like that (they don't subscribe to someone removing their property which is probably related to noninitiation of force).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0SsVQrPl4I
Here is the new friendlyjordies video reflecting on the first year of the Abbott government.
It has Roygbiv.
Here is the new friendlyjordies video reflecting on the first year of the Abbott government.
It has Roygbiv.
LNP settin' up more timebombs than the Joker
TBH Foley isn't a bad pick for NSW Labor leader.
oh yeah he's better than most apart from his views on gay marriage
bobnowhere
Member
When I first heard about it I thought maybe he'd ticked the wrong box on the "What faction do I belong to" form.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Happy New Year to you guys!
Now, before anyone hurts themselves, it's pronounced "twenty fifteen", none of this awkward "two thousand and fifteen" nonsense.
Now, before anyone hurts themselves, it's pronounced "twenty fifteen", none of this awkward "two thousand and fifteen" nonsense.
bobnowhere
Member
Scott Morrison threatens to stop citizenship ceremonies by Moreland City Council (Crimes)
Just when you think Morrison couldn't be a bigger arseclown, he is! Demands his propaganda nonsense is read out before anyone can get their citizenship.
Just when you think Morrison couldn't be a bigger arseclown, he is! Demands his propaganda nonsense is read out before anyone can get their citizenship.
I'm looking forward to the roaring twenty twenties.
Probably Jeff Seeney, not sure that's an improvement on newman.
Elaugaufein
Member
I guess it really doesn't make much difference when I think about it. Policy is decided by the party room, and while Jeff Seeney lacks Newman's initial political capital and charisma he also lacks the baggage of this term.
Elaugaufein
Member
My best guest is that he was doing really well poll wise early on and that jumping sits late in a term tends to lose the seat unless its incredibly safe (electorates tend not to like being taken for granted that way unless they are very much party strongholds). Despite the LNP being one party , the voters still go the way they used to, the country seats that were basically National Party fortresses wouldn't much appreciate having a Brisbane Liberal dropped on them and the Liberals don't have a whole lot of super safe seats (its a lot easier to balance out electorates closely in built up areas than the regions) and those seats usually have relatively senior figures in them.
Its also possible that Campbell Newman lacks the party support for them to be willing to sacrifice another member to keep him around giving current polling, the Queensland Coalition has long been dominated by the National Party and for all his conservative tendencies he's still pretty progressive compared to the average National Party member on pretty much all social issues (not that this is saying a huge deal in objective terms).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked