Back to the Drawing Board - All Comments

re: Does Intrinsic Value in Nonconscious Objects Create Problems for Property Rights?

GarGi-Dixit — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:14:49 GMT

<i>In the Randian sense, in which it is an agent-neutral value. That is, in which it is a value independent of any valuer. I don't believe there are any agent-neutral values.</i>

Will you please mention the source from which you suggested that idea as Randian?

As far as I know, "The Objective Ethics" by Ayn Rand suggests some basic arguments ---

Value is agent-relative; things can only be valuable for particular entities. Something is valuable to an entity, only if the entity faces alternatives. No non-living things face any alternatives.<b> Therefore, values exist only for living things.</b> Anything an entity acts to gain or keep is a value for that entity.

Every living thing acts to maintain its life, for its own sake.

There is no other thing that they act to gain or keep for its own sake.

Therefore, its own life, and nothing else, is valuable for its own sake, for any living thing.

I am sure that Rand never talked of any "Agent neutral or Agent independent" Intrinsic value. or Intricism. And if she has talked, I am sure she might have said that there is no intrinsic value for any non-living object which I totally agree with.

re: On the Use of the Term "Self-Interest" in Economics

Donny with an A — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:11:51 GMT

Well the thing is, Geoffrey, if "self-interest" is defined the way economists use it, then the sort of altruistic behavior Rand was objecting to (behavior which sacrifices self interest) could not possibly exist. It would be a meaningless concept. I take it that Ayn Rand was talking about something that people actually are capable of doing when she was talking about "self-immolation" and altruistic behavior. And critically, setting altruistic behavior apart from self-interested behavior requires the lay definition of "self-interested," and is incompatible with the economists' definition. At least, I think so...right?

As for what I've said being "bullshite," I suppose I'm not sure how to respond except to quip, "Oh, I guess I'm wrong then."

re: On the Use of the Term "Self-Interest" in Economics

Geoffrey Allan Plauche — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:10:00 GMT

"But when presented with the claim that jumping on the grenade is a self-interested behavior, the average person tends to become perplexed. It's only after a thorough explanation of the "economic" meaning of the term that it becomes clear how this could be the case. Why does this happen? The reason, I contend, is that economists mean something completely different by the term "self-interested" than lay people do. This, I will argue, is a problem, and should be remedied in order to prevent completely unnecessary confusion and error."

It's not just an economic meaning. You're familiar with Ayn Rand, right? It's true of Aristotle and his felllow Greeks as well. Thy reason why laypeople and most intellectuals get confused is that they've been spoonfed various altruistic, deontological or consequentialist (not eudaimonistic virtue ethical) ethical theories and beliefs all their lives.

re: On the Use of the Term "Self-Interest" in Economics

Elhan\anthony — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:04:33 GMT

bullshite!

re: Rights for Future People in Light of the Non-Identity Problem

Donny with an A — Mon, 26 May 2008 20:47:30 GMT

Thanks for the positive feedback; I'm really glad that I could be of some assistance! Care to share your thoughts?

re: Rights for Future People in Light of the Non-Identity Problem

Jo — Mon, 26 May 2008 11:03:50 GMT

Hi. Just wanted to say thanks for your article. I'm in second year of uni and was struggling with the Non-identity problem in relation to climate change in an essay until i stumbled across your piece.

cheers

re: Preemptive Compensation

Donny with an A — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:10:06 GMT

Hi, Destiny. I'm not personally a board, no. I'm a real boy! But I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. This is my blog, and it's published on a site which also has a message board. Is that what you're looking for?

re: Preemptive Compensation

destiny — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:08:44 GMT

are you there

re: Preemptive Compensation

destiny — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:07:45 GMT

are you a board or what

re: What Does It Mean to Advocate a Market Solution to Climate Change?

Donny with an A — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:36:14 GMT

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I'd point out that generally, libertarian conceptions of justice deal with rights possessed by individuals. So in asking whether climate change represents an injustice, I'm not really focusing on any standard of efficiency, as the public goods approach suggests (though I will deal with the idea of efficiency and overall social wellbeing at the end of my thesis).

Remember, this post was the introduction to my thesis, not the thesis itself. In the next section, I'm going to discuss what it means to have a right, and what kinds of rights are infringed by climate change. Included will be discussions of the property rights of currently existing individuals, the concept of a statistical right to a certain level of risk, the idea of a right to inheritance (I'll argue this is not a right), the notion that we have a right to an opportunity to try to integrate ourselves into the culture of our upbringing (I'm not sure exactly how to handle this), the question of whether future people can have rights in light of the Non-Identity Problem (I'll argue that they can't), and the question of whether generations (as abstract entities) can have a right to inherit an unspoiled Earth (I'll argue that they can't).

So before getting too far ahead of yourselves (and me) by telling me the answers to these questions, perhaps you might find it worthwhile to check out the "Climate Change" label on the parent blog (there's more material there than on this blog):

libertarian-left.blogspot.com

The "Appropriation and Environmentalism" and "The Non-Identity Problem" labels also might be useful.

re: What Does It Mean to Advocate a Market Solution to Climate Change?

Solomon — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:22:39 GMT

Atmosphere is a very abundant commodity, so it is "owned" communally by everyone who happens to live on the planet. That being said, it is naturally subject to the free-rider problem i.e. it is perfectly acceptable (however unfortunate the effects) for anyone with a smoke-spewing factory or SUV to abuse it. Therefore, if the polar ice caps should melt and flood all coastal residences, such a happening should be treated just like any other natural disaster: no one's fault, just the result of the risk people took when they decided to reside there.

So basically, even if all the fearmongering is true it really doesn't matter.

re: What Does It Mean to Advocate a Market Solution to Climate Change?

Grant — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:03:22 GMT

Danny,

The first step towards dealing with any problem is defining and recognizing it. In order to know how to "solve" climate change, we must quantify climate change. Given the complexity and vast scope of the problem, this is very difficult to do.

The only tool I know of which can significantly aid in this is a prediction futures market. Until such markets become legal and more widely used, I don't think we'll be any closer to arriving at a problem, let alone a solution.

I think you understate the dangers of government solutions. Its certainly true that global warming would be the single greatest public goods problem the world has faced, and so government seems to be the obvious solution. Whats rarely mentioned is that effective and just government policies are also public goods. Coordinating politics to produce effective and just policies regarding global warming is likely just as hard as dealing with global warming itself. I don't mean to say that government solutions will always fail to cure global warming, but just that they might have other, worse, effects, and much of their success would likely be based off of pre-existing cultural norms which are arising in response to global warming fears.

Of course, academics like to ponder thought experiments, so it might be useful to say "how would libertarianism deal with problem X, if it existed?". I certainly don't know. As I see it, the problem is basically how to get powerful, industrialized peoples to respect the rights of smaller, necessarily less-industrialized peoples. The incentives to respect those rights just don't seem to exist, regardless of the political philosophy in question.

Since I am skeptical that the above will happen regardless of the political philosophy adopted, let me point out a few ways in which libertarianism might deal with the effects of global warming irrespective of justice: 1) Open immigration for peoples negatively effected by global warming; 2) More private resources available in general, compared to government taxation and planning (so a higher likelihood of private-good solutions arising to combat global warming problems); 3) A significant likelihood that victimized peoples would simply prefer continued industrialization, trade and global warming to an alternative of state-smothered development and more poverty.

re: Asymmetry Between Positive and Negative Externalities

Donny with an A — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:22:12 GMT

I agree, but I'm not entirely sure what your point is...

re: Is There a Right to Culture?

Donny with an A — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:20:26 GMT

Well of course if you accept a very strict methodological individualism, any holistic notion is going to be problematic. But it doesn't seem completely incoherent to talk about the integrity and stability of a culture, and it does seem like that is what Nadia would be alluding to in her complaint. I don't think it's fair to say that Nadia's argument is fallacious, but perhaps one could say that its key elements are, in principle, reducible to statements about the individual members of her culture. If this were the case, it might be more difficult to sustain Nadia's having any rights, since it doesn't seem like she has any rights to other people. But I'm not sure that the reductionist perspective really gives us everything we want here.

re: Asymmetry Between Positive and Negative Externalities

IGOGO — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:42:16 GMT

factors which enhances market efficiency.

mechanism of internalizing both positive and negative eternalities.