Free Liberal

Coordinating towards higher values

Cap and Trade Will Lead to Capital Flight

by Ron Paul

In my last column, I joked that with public spending out of control and the piling on of the international bailout bill, economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress. It is getting harder to joke about such a thing however, as the non-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that the administration’s health care plan would actually cost over a trillion dollars. This reality check may have given us a temporary reprieve on this particular disastrous policy, however an equally disastrous energy policy reared its ugly head on Capitol Hill last week.

The Cap and Trade Bill HR 2454 was voted on last Friday. Proponents claim this bill will help the environment, but what it really does is put another nail in the economy’s coffin. The idea is to establish a national level of carbon dioxide emissions, and sell pollution permits to industry. HR 2454 also gives federal bureaucrats new power to regulate a wide variety of household appliances, such as light bulbs and refrigerators, and further distorts the market by providing more of your tax money to auto companies.

The administration has pointed to Spain as a shining example of this type of progressive energy policy. Spain has been massively diverting capital from the private sector into politically favored environmental projects for the better part of a decade, and many in Washington apparently like what they see. However, under no circumstances should anyone serious about economic recovery emulate an economy that is now approaching 20 percent unemployment, where every green job created, eliminated 2.2 real jobs and cost around $800,000 each!

The real inconvenient truth is that the cost of government regulations, taxes, fees, red tape and bureaucracy is a considerable expense that has to be considered when companies decide where to do business and how many people they can afford to hire. Increasing governmental burden directly causes capital flight and job losses, as Spain has learned. In this global economy its easy enough for businesses to relocate to countries that are more politically friendly to economic growth. If our government continues to kick the economy while its down, it will be a long time before it gets back up. In fact, jobs are much more likely to go overseas, compounding our problems.

And for what? Contrary to claims repeated over and over, there is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade. In fact over 30,000 scientists signed a petition recently directly disputing the claims on which this policy is based. Legitimate environmental claims should instead be directed towards the public sector. The government, especially the military, is the most serious polluter in the country, and is exempt from most EPA regulations. Meanwhile Washington bureaucrats have classified the very air we exhale as a pollutant and have gone unchallenged in this incredible assertion. The logical consequence is that there will come a time when we will have to buy a government permit just to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from our own lungs!

The events on Capitol Hill last week just demonstrate Washington’s audacity in manufacturing problems just so they can expand government power to solve them.

Dr. Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas.


« Macroeconomics in One Lesson | Main | The Motorhome Diaries »

Comments

It is legitimate to dispute Global Warming for scientific reasons. It is not legitimate, however, to dispute Global Warming for economic or philosophical reasons.

Libertarian leaning people have extreme mental breakdowns when attempting to navigate this very simple concept. If they are honest with themselves, they don't know for a fact that Global Warming is not a potentially catastrophic, man-made phenomena.

But they do know for a fact that rational responses to Global Warming are a huge problem for current Libertarian economic theories.

So they take the intellectually lazy and weakminded way out and deny that there could possibly be a problem.

Denial of a problem based on a philosophical difference with a proposed solution is a sure path to disaster.

The challenge for Libertarians is also an opportunity. The issue with Global Warming highlights a long neglected element of Libertarian thought which has been buried under the avalanche of money from the Kochs and other industrialists who have found the Libertarians a convenient and compliant tool.

A consistent application of Libertarian thought mandates that individuals have a right to their body and property. No one has a right to pollute it without their explicit permission.

A strict interpretation pf this bedrock of Libertarian philosophy is a problem for Industry, AS IT IS PRESENTLY CONDUCTED. It is also at the heart of the Global Warming issue.

The need to reconcile these facts and to navigate through these harsh realities is a challenge that most Libertatians have instead chosen to ignore and acknowledge only when convenient.

Libertarians who truly love freedom should be hard at work trying to devise a solution to this fundamental problem. Ignoring or denying that there is a problem is the first step in never finding a solution.

# posted at by Morgan

Morgan -- troll much? If you want to read libertarian/free market environmental thought going back to the 1800s, try reading a book on libertarianism one day, with special regard to the moral arguments against govt. action as well as the practical analysis of environmental law. Otherwise, I can't make much of a response that manages to contradict itself in its recommendations AND both overgeneralize and engage in straw man attacks at the same time. Quite a phenomenal feat. I especially loved the opening paragraph defining an absolute boundary to a point of philosophical inquiry -- dude! read the Apology of Socrates some day. Heck, just go open any book.. it's embarassing.

# posted at by Z

Z,
I'm going to try not to respond in kind. It's going to be difficult. Instead I will invite you and your considerable intellect and knowledge which obviously knows no equal to actually resapond to the points I made. I look here to my left and I can count, just within sight, 36 books on economics, Libertarianism and environmentalism all of which I have read. That doesn't even include what is on my other shelves.

Can you articulate what it is that you disagree with in my points above?

The only clear point that you made is that you disagree with the premise that a scientific fact must be judged on its scientific merits independent of that fact's implications for economics and philosophy.

There is the starting point, and really the ending point for our disagreement. If you do not accept that reality, specifically physical reality in this case, is an independent observable phenomena than you must believe that reality is whatever one chooses it to be and is free to change it to suit one's convenience.

That's fine. I can't argue with your subjective interpretation of the world because its your own creation. It is whatever you have chosen it to be.

But it doesn't correspond with the objective world except by the luckiest coincidences and therefore is useless as a tool for understanding and interacting with reality.

Those of us interested in solving real problems are going to have to accept the world as an objective reality and apply objective, verifiable, measurable techniques to determine what is real. This is called science.

I invite you to check it out sometime. It is not as easy as Sophistry, in the modern use of the word, but it is more rewarding.

It's odd that you chose to select the Apology of Socrates as an example of a book I should read when you so succintly displayed in your post the complete opposite of it's themes. Was this some subtle philosophical point you were making? Or just a perfect example of sophistry meant to mock your own post?

Surely you know that The Apology of Socrates tells how his friend went to the Oracle and asked if there was anyone wiser than Socrates? When the Oracle said no, than Socrates reconciled the fact that he knew nothing with the fact that the Gods do not lie by proceeding to question everyone and everything.

Now looking back at our previous posts, I ask you, which of us is the one who has invited us to question ourselves and to seek out better solutions, and which of us launched a vicious ad hominum attack?

Perhaps you should read and understand The Apology of Socrates befoire attempting to throw it in other people's faces as an example of your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority.

But perhaps I go too far. In your subjective interpretation of reality The Apology of Socrates no doubt reads much differently than it does for the rest of us.

So once again I invite you to respond to the substance of my post and articulate to the best of your ability why exactly violations of third party property rights either is consistent with Liberty or that it does not in fact exist.

Otherwise I invite others to work on methods which maximize Liberty by minimizing violations of third party property rights while maximizing our ability to produce the goods and services that we desire.

# posted at by Morgan

Oh Morgan, may the truth set us all free.

The day that "We" come together, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, not as Libertarians, but as Americans. That might be the day...

# posted at by No Intervention Policy

Morgan,

It's important to remember that Libertarianism is a political philosophy' not an environmental one. The philosophy, and I'm generalizing, is that government does not have the ability to restrain it's own growth, thereby limiting it's overall effectiveness as it grows. Applying that Libertarian philosophy (over simplified as it may be), Ron Paul gave three points: 1. That a government run cap and trade system will effectively expand the government's authority. 2. That a cap and trade formula will hurt the U.S. economy (citing Spain as the example) and 3. That the environment would be better taken care of if property rights were enforced (he didn't say that here, actually, but that has been his contention in the past).

Having said all of that, you make the assumption that all Libertarians don't agree with the man-made global warming theory. You also assume Libertarians who don't agree with man-made global warming do so on the grounds of political ideology. I ask that you stop assuming that Libertarians merely "take the intellectually lazy and weakminded way out and deny that there could possibly be a problem." Libertarians don't deny there are problems, we simply offer solutions in a way that the Constitution allows and it just so happens they believe it to be the most effective way, as well.

You can disagree with a free-market policy and believe that the government is better at protecting your rights than you are. I would ask, however, that you don't sell Libertarians short on moral or intellectual ground.

Thank you.

# posted at by Garrett S.

The "inconvenient truth" is that the global temperature has declined for at least the last 7 years and the Antartic Ice Shelf is thickening.

Before we launch into such a massive undertaking we deserve to know the real facts and not just succumb to "group think".

# posted at by Herb Riedel

Garrett s,
I strongly agree with all three of those points, well at least the first and last, and the second point in the short term.

Where I have a major problem with the subgroup of Libertarians who deny Global Warming based on ideological grounds, is that they totally ignore point 3 or simply assume that the present system adequately secures property rights without taking the time to consider if in fact they do.

Imagine a Free market System without property rights. That is exactly what this subgroup is advocating. It is impossible, and implementing it anyhow would cause more damage to Liberty and the economy than more socialist alternatives.

Property Rights are the foundation of the Free Market system. They must be secured first. An individual's property must be secure from the depradations of third parties. Failing that, we have predatory capitalism which is a totally different animal in which neither Liberty nor Prosperity can thrive.

I am hardly the first Libertarian to take property rights and the environment seriously. There is a long tradition in libertarian history of applying property rights to environmental issues. This shouldn't be such a surprise to some of our posters here who apparently have never heard of the idea and assume that property rights refers to the non-existent 'right' to take actions irrespective of its effect on other individual's property.

It makes no sense to bitch about Cap and Trade and then refuse to recognize the impact pollution has on the environment, which is to say other people's property. The positive way forward is to work on reforming our property laws to minimize negative externalities. That is the only path that maximizes Liberty.

We need to stop denying that there is a problem and start working on a solution. Global Warming is only a product of the problem, not the problem itself. Even if Global Warming turns out to be wrong, the problem of negative externalities remains and will continue to create problems, hurt our economy, and limit our Liberty.

# posted at by Morgan

I am not a climatologist. I have to assess Global Warming based on my limited understanding of climatology. This site, at NASA, adequately explains, in my opinion, how temperatures can be lower while the trends still unmistakebly go upward.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

As I said above, Global Warming can turn out to be wrong and it still not change the fact that property laws need to be reformed to protect our property from negative externalities.

# posted at by Anonymous