'Gary Johnson Backs CO2 ‘Fee’ To Fight Global Warming'

[Suzanimal]

An easy start to reducing pollution would be to drastically downsize the US government and it would save money.


Edited to add: The #1 polluter is the US government.

[fedupinmo]

It's not authorized. It's unconstitutional. Taxes are Limited for Liberty. Now you could try to make a case for Article 1, Section 8 about General Welfare, but congress isn't authorized to tax and spend as it pleases, regardless of what it "thinks" serves the General Welfare. Congress does not possess unlimited, sovereign power to tax the people. And, actually, General Welfare was put into context as a means to restrict arbitrary taxing and spending if you read it right.

If you read it right, the general welfare Clause is merely a declaratory statement qualifying the reasons to collect taxes and extends no new powers.

[Occam's Banana]

Is a carbon tax in and of itself un-libertarian? No.

Yes. There is not and cannot be any such thing as a libertarian (or non-"un-libertarian") tax.

[Suzanimal]

[FyreLyon]

He can put as much lipstick on that pig as he wants but a tax is still a tax. Had Johnson proposed this while running for the GOP nomination four years ago he would have been laughed off the debate stage!

[undergroundrr]

I can accept it as a transitional step. GJ is very vocal about ending the IRS and moving to a fair tax. Again, I hate the fair tax unless it's seen as transitional. GJ is a pragmatist. He's going to look for ways to head toward a balanced budget. Collecting revenues can be seen as part of that picture.

But if a carbon tax got stacked on top of everything else, that's all bad.

On the other hand, industrial pollution is damaging to the property and person of other businesses and individuals. It violates the NAP. Ron Paul has alluded to how, early in the industrial revolution, business and government colluded to relieve factories of responsibility for pollution damage. Libertarians have been poor at coming up with a solution for it and so the carbon tax and other progressive schemes fill the gap.

[Occam's Banana]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Suzanimal again.

Dear Gary Johnson, There Is No "Free Market" Carbon Tax
https://mises.org/blog/dear-gary-joh...t-carbon-tax-1
Tho Bishop (22 August 2016)

There are few things less popular in American politics than raising taxes, which is why there is a longstanding tradition of American politicians finding ways to avoid using the “t” word.

While it’s not surprising to see these sorts of political shenanigans from two parties that have a history of using Orwellian word games to grow government (like the charmingly named Patriot Act), it’s extremely unfortunate to see Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson resorting to the same tactics.

During an interview with the Juneau Empire, Gary Johnson was asked his opinions on climate change:

“I do believe that climate change is occurring. I do believe that it is man-caused,” Johnson said.

To address climate change, Johnson said he believes “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.” That would include a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon. Such a fee would make pollutants bear a market cost.

What’s interesting is that while Gary Johnson tried to distance himself from calling his proposal a tax when talking with a newspaper in the “red state” of Alaska, he was more honest when discussing the idea in an editorial newsroom that looks more favorably on taxes, the Los Angeles Times. Along with crediting the free-market, and not the regulations of the Obama administration, with the decline of the American coal industry, Governor Johnson said he was “open also to the notion of a carbon tax. That it does have an impact, that it ends up being revenue-neutral.”

While it’s nice of Gary Johnson to not want to grow the government coffers with a carbon tax, unfortunately that detail doesn’t make this proposal any less concerning, nor any more “free-market.”

After all, it is impossible for a president or legislature to impose a “free-market” tax (or fee) on anything. Considering the explicit goal here would be an attempt to try to use government tax collectors to alter the behavior of carbon-dioxide emitters, it’s difficult to see this as anything but government intervention. Though this pattern of confusing intervention with the free market might also explain why Gary Johnson frequently credits the free market, and not the Obama administration’s regulatory burdens, for the decline of the American coal industry.

Johnson also tries to follow the common trick used by some “conservative” carbon tax advocates by describing their tax as a “price on carbon.” In his interview with the Juneau Empire, Gary Johnson describes his proposal as a “market cost.” Of course calling an arbitrary government-imposed penalty on carbon emission a “market cost” is as disingenuous as not calling such a plan a “tax.” As Dr. David Henderson pointed out in responding to such rhetorical games:

[C]arbon already has a price, or, more exactly, multiple prices. Natural gas has a price; oil has a price; coal has a price. And their prices are related to the valuable carbon component of those fuels because it’s carbon that makes those fuels valuable. Just as there’s no such thing as a free lunch, carbon is not free.

In his defense, Governor Johnson admits that he isn’t up on the finer details of what he envisions in a carbon tax, telling the LA Times, “I have really just come on board with recognizing that there are a lot of people that are embracing this, that I value their opinion.”

With that being the case, I’d suggest Gary Johnson listen less to “free market” economists like Greg Mankiw, and instead look into the work of people like our own Robert Murphy. Not only has Murphy outlined the dangers implicit with entrusting government to combat climate change, but has illustrated the specific fallacies embedded with the very idea of a revenue neutral-carbon tax:

Proponents of a carbon tax swap deal are right when they claim that the gross harms of a new carbon tax can be partially offset if its receipts are used to reduce other taxes. However, they typically leap from this true claim to the unjustified conclusion that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will be a "win-win" for the economy — by reducing distortions from the tax code as well as providing environmental benefits. On the contrary, it is theoretically possible and empirically likely that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will impose more deadweight loss on the economy, offsetting at least some of the potential environmental benefits.

And in case if Gary Johnson would like to further brush up on what real free market solutions look like, most of the Mises U 2016 lectures are now available on Youtube and SoundCloud.



"Dear Gary Johnson, There Is No 'Free Market' Carbon Tax" by Tho Bishop is licensed under CC BY NC ND 3.0

[timosman]

Does the military need to pay the carbon tax while waging wars around the planet?

[AuH20]

[undergroundrr]

Does the military need to pay the carbon tax while waging wars around the planet?

You will find no lack of ultra-left wing sites pointing out that the MIC is the biggest polluter on the planet. And on that point they seem to be absolutely correct.

[AuH20]

You will find no lack of ultra-left wing sites pointing out that the MIC is the biggest polluter on the planet. And on that point they seem to be absolutely correct.

See Viegues, Puerto Rico.

[Anti Federalist]

Johnson and Weld are liberals, not libertarians.

[Occam's Banana]

[I]ndustrial pollution is damaging to the property and person of other businesses and individuals. It violates the NAP. Ron Paul has alluded to how, early in the industrial revolution, business and government colluded to relieve factories of responsibility for pollution damage. Libertarians have been poor at coming up with a solution for it and so the carbon tax and other progressive schemes fill the gap.

No they don't. In fact, they serve only to further entrench and exacerbate the problem - as does the EPA, for another example. In fact, the EPA (of which Johnson approves) is one of the primary tools government and business colluders use to limit (or even eliminate) the liability of polluters and prevent property owners from being made whole.

All that any of these gimmicks do is allow NAP violators either to "get away with it" altogether or to foist any resulting expenses upon consumers and taxpayers at large. That is exactly what will happen with any so-called "carbon tax" (or "fee" or whatever other euphemism Johnson et al. might care to use). Consumers and smaller producers - much to the detriment of both, and especially the latter - will end up paying, while the feds make bank and the politically-connected bigger producers benefit from the anti-competitive effects (among other things), thereby strengthening even further the unholy alliance between big government and big business. Why any of this is to be considered "practical" or "pragmatic" by libertarians is beyond me ...

[undergroundrr]

No they don't. In fact, they serve only to further entrench and exacerbate the problem - as does the EPA, for another example. In fact, the EPA (of which Johnson approves) is one of the primary tools government and business colluders use to limit (or even eliminate) the liability of polluters and prevent property owners from being made whole.

All that any of these gimmicks do is allow NAP violators either to "get away with it" altogether or to foist any resulting expenses upon consumers and taxpayers at large. That is exactly what will happen with any so-called "carbon tax" (or "fee" or whatever other euphemism Johnson et al. might care to use). Consumers and smaller producers - much to the detriment of both, and especially the latter - will end up paying, while the feds make bank and the politically-connected bigger producers benefit from the anti-competitive effects (among other things), thereby strengthening even further the unholy alliance between big government and big business. Why any of this is to be considered "practical" or "pragmatic" by libertarians is beyond me ...

Your points are valid, and I respect your building your case. But GJ has been a consistent pragmatist, so I don't see why people act so surprised and outraged when he says he's open to tinkering with the system to nudge it toward freedom.

What you have is a guy who does think that environmental issues are in the government's court because as he's said, "You don’t have deep pockets to go up against Chevron."

Let's try to build the bigger picture.

Gary Johnson addresses corporatism: “In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators and personal choices will ultimately bring about the environmental restoration and protection society desires,”

As for the EPA, my understanding is that in NM he actually had a history of using it for what it's supposed to do, prevent pollution. Whether he did it fairly and whether legitimate businesses were unjustly $#@!-canned deserves in-depth study. My knowledge ends at what he's said about it. Whatever problems one has with GJ, I haven't seen him to demonstrably be a lying snake, so I'll presume he's in earnest until proven guilty.

GJ: "Do I want to eliminate the EPA? No, I don’t want to eliminate the EPA. I think there’s a 43% largesse built into most government that a 43% in federal spending will really, will really bleed out the largesse. But the EPA for example, there are polluters. And as Governor of New Mexico, I saw it. And if it wasn’t for the EPA, they’ll still be polluting to this day. But because of the EPA, we’re able to shut them down. And I as governor was able to use that agency to be able to do that. So government has a role to protect us against individuals that would do us harm, and that’s businesses that would do us harm, and government has a role to provide for a strong national defense that we are not threatened militarily and that our way of life ends up changed."

Again: "Government exists to protect us against individuals, groups, and corporations that would do us harm. Rules and regulations should exist to accommodate this. The EPA protects us against those that would pollute, and without them a lot more polluters would be allowed to pollute."

And Johnson the pragmatist again: "There are bad actors who would pollute our water supplies and our air if allowed to do so, and we must have laws and regulations to protect innocent Americans from the harm those bad actors would do. However, common sense must prevail, and the costs of all regulations must be weighed against the benefits. The government should simply stay out of the business of trying to promote or 'manage' energy development. The marketplace will meet our energy needs in the most economical and efficient manner possible – if government will stay out of the way."

And for a little more insight on why he favors the carbon tax: "You know, I'm accepting that global warming is man-caused. That said, I am opposed to cap and trade. I think that free-market approach. Hey, we're all demanding less carbon emission. I think we're going to get it."

Again, we're talking about a left-leaner (which is why he takes more votes from Clinton). The right wing approach has been to just let things take care of themselves. You and I know that in an entrenched corporatist system that ain't happening. So the right-wing way has been to just lie back and relax and enjoy the pollution.

I'm an ancap and I don't want to see any carbon taxes or energy departments or any of it, but I allow myself ideological space for a transitional approach. GJ has been very consistent in his direction with this. He's also pretty fluid without flip-flopping, so don't be shocked if he's considering another "idea worth considering" next week.

[jmdrake]

If a company dumps toxic waste into a river, the company can be sued out of business. But if a company dumps toxic waste into the air, everyone shrugs their shoulders and says "oh well"....

Can I sue Al Gore for dumping toxic waste into your brain?

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes. There is not and cannot be any such thing as a libertarian (or non-"un-libertarian") tax.

If libertarian means anarcho-capitalist, that's true.

But I'd include both anarcho-capitalists and minarchists in the libertarian category.

It's just semantics, but to define it the way you're implying results in absurdities like Ron Paul or Mises not being considered libertarians.

[jmdrake]

I can accept it as a transitional step. GJ is very vocal about ending the IRS and moving to a fair tax. Again, I hate the fair tax unless it's seen as transitional. GJ is a pragmatist. He's going to look for ways to head toward a balanced budget. Collecting revenues can be seen as part of that picture.

But if a carbon tax got stacked on top of everything else, that's all bad.

On the other hand, industrial pollution is damaging to the property and person of other businesses and individuals. It violates the NAP. Ron Paul has alluded to how, early in the industrial revolution, business and government colluded to relieve factories of responsibility for pollution damage. Libertarians have been poor at coming up with a solution for it and so the carbon tax and other progressive schemes fill the gap.

Except CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT POLLUTION! Seriously who but the brain dead liberals on the planet believes that? CO2 is a naturally occurring as oxygen and water. And technically water is much more of a "greenhouse gas" than CO2. So those hydrogen cars that emit water vapor? They will be taxed next as will your tea kettle.

[specsaregood]

Johnson and Weld are liberals, not libertarians.

Who would have thought the LP candidate would propose taxing feeing you simply for breathing. But hey, tax that and the pot smoking and we'll be halfway to covering the deficit. Can't afford the permit to breathe? No problem, off to the soylent green factory for you.

[undergroundrr]

off to the soylent green factory for you.

Thankfully he wasn't in office in NM long enough to implement that program.

[Occam's Banana]

Yes. There is not and cannot be any such thing as a libertarian (or non-"un-libertarian") tax.

If libertarian means anarcho-capitalist, that's true.

It's true even if "libertarian" does not mean (only) "anarcho-capitalist," per the following ...

But I'd include both anarcho-capitalists and minarchists in the libertarian category.

So would I. As I said several days ago in another thread:

Terms like "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are what I call "genus" words (which denote broadly defined categories), while terms like "Constitutionalist" or "anarcho-capitalist" or "Objectivist" are what I call "species" words (which denote particular and more stringently defined kinds within a given genus). In this regard, I like Walter Block's presentation of libertarianism as three concentric circles, the smallest of which is restricted to those who accept and adopt the Non-Aggression Principle (such as Murray Rothbard and Block himself). The next circle contains the innermost, as well as minarchists and strictly-limited-government types (such as Ludwig von Mises, Ron Paul and Ayn Rand). The third and broadest circle encloses the first two and is extended to subsume classical liberals and other generally pro-freedom/pro-market types (such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek). The more a person is willing to tolerate deviations or departures from the NAP, the further out on the radius that person is - until at some imprecisely defined point, he or she is no longer within the ambit of libertarianism at all.

It's just semantics, but to define it the way you're implying results in absurdities like Ron Paul or Mises not being considered libertarians.

But it doesn't imply any such absurdity. You're comparing apples and oranges here. Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises are people. Taxes (of any kind) are not. The kinds of considerations that define people as being "libertarian" (or not) are not the kinds of considerations that define things like "taxes" as being "libertarian" (or not).

To repeat something else I said in the same post from which I quoted myself above:

[W]hile things like carbon taxes, basic incomes, etc. may by some standard be considered "better" than (or at least "not as bad" as) whatever we may happen to have at any given moment, they are nonetheless fundamentally anti-libertarian in nature. An income tax rate of X%, for example, is certainly and clearly preferable to an income tax rate of Y% (where X < Y) - but this does not mean that income taxes are (or in any way can be) "libertarian." Discounting values of "zero," there is not and cannot be any such thing as a (more or less) "libertarian" income tax. There likewise cannot be any such thing as a (more or less) "libertarian" carbon tax or basic income.

One may be a "libertarian" and still advocate for categorically anti-libertarian things (such as a tax of any kind). But to the extent that one does so, one moves out by just that much along the radius of the Blockian circle, until eventually ...

[undergroundrr]

But to the extent that one does so, one moves out by just that much along the radius of the Blockian circle, until eventually ...

As in Walter???

[Occam's Banana]

But to the extent that one does so, one moves out by just that much along the radius of the Blockian circle, until eventually ...

As in Walter???

"As in Walter," what?

If you are referring to his "Libertarians for Trump" nonsense, that is a matter of strategy, not of substance.

As foolish or counterproductive as that (or any other) strategy may be, I was referring to categorically anti-libertarian policies (such as a tax of any kind). This was made clear in the sentence preceding the one you quoted, which you elided: "One may be a 'libertarian' and still advocate for categorically anti-libertarian things (such as a tax of any kind). But [...]"

Strategies are value-neutral and are not susceptible to being denoted as "libertarian" or "not libertarian."

So far as I know, Walter Block does not endorse any kind of tax or other categorically anti-libertarian policy.

(If you are not referring to Block's "Libertarians for Trump" nonsense, then I don't have the vaguest clue what you're getting at.)

[r3volution 3.0]

One may be a "libertarian" and still advocate for categorically anti-libertarian things (such as a tax of any kind)

Ah, I understand your definition now.

However, I'd argue that taxation per se is not unlibertarian. Taxes to support a minarchist state are not unlibertarian - they serve to minimize aggression (the alternative to the minarchist state being not anarcho-capitalism [which is impossible] but another type of state [which would, by definition, be more aggressive than a minarchist state), and anything which serves to minimize aggression is libertarian. Putting aside the debate over anarcho-capitalism, granting me arguendo that it's impossible, would you agree with this reasoning? If the minarchist state is the best possible form of social organization, the one which every libertarian should attempt to establish, nothing essential to its existence (like taxes) can be unlibertarian?

P.S. Mises reasoned similarly:

Thus, peaceful human cooperation, the prerequisite of prosperity and civilization, cannot exist without a social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, i.e., without a government. The evils of violence, robbery, and murder can be prevented only by an institution that itself, whenever needed, resorts to the very methods of acting for the prevention of which it is established. There emerges a distinction between illegal employment of violence and the legitimate recourse to it. In cognizance of this fact some people have called government an evil, although admitting that it is a necessary evil. However, what is required to attain an end sought and considered as beneficial is not an evil in the moral connotation of this term, but a means, the price to be paid for it.

Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, p. 97

[undergroundrr]

"As in Walter," what?

I just wasn't aware of the concept of Walter Block defining some kind of consensus libertarian target ala the Nolan Chart.

If I disagree with the validity of evictionism does it move me away from the center? Totally off topic, I know.

Despite his follies, I don't disrespect him. It just seemed a little out of left field.

[Natural Citizen]

If you read it right, the general welfare Clause is merely a declaratory statement qualifying the reasons to collect taxes and extends no new powers.

Which means...it served as limitation on the power to tax. As I said. Again...what is authorized. Consent. Just powers. Congress lacks the power to decide what is the General Welfare. They lack the power to decide such things arbitrarily.

For clarity read Federalist no 83, 17, 31, 45 and 10 that contain language specific to the taxing clause. The Federalist Papers are the authority in matters of understanding the constitution for its specific intent. Congress does not possess "general legislative authority." It is granted zero power to exceed its constitutional authority or responsibilities at the expense of the American people's income or other money or property. Zero.

The only way they could possible weasel around it would be to say it's a matter of national security. Which, interestingly, they're beginning to say that climate change is a matter of national security. The fact that they're even using that particular language now should suffice as proof that they fully know that it is unconstitutional and that they lack the taxing power. They're trying to weasel around their lack of taxing power by using that language.

[r3volution 3.0]

...dupe

[Occam's Banana]

I just wasn't aware of the concept of Walter Block defining some kind of consensus libertarian target ala the Nolan Chart.

The "Block circles" device doesn't purport to be any kind of dispositive "test" like the Nolan chart. It's not nearly as "neat and tidy" as the Nolan chart pretends to be; nor was it designed as a recruiting or proselytizing tool, as the Nolan chart was.

It's just an informally illustrative device he's used in a few presentations I've seen over the years, as part of Block's answer to people who ask him whether folks like Milton Friedman are "really" libertarians or not.

Just off-hand, I can't find any of the videos in which he uses the device. I did find this brief clip (part of a longer interview) in which he identifies Hayek and Friedman as libertarians, though he doesn't go into the "circles" thing. (However, it should be noted that in other more formal and rigorous contexts, such as this paper, Block denies that Friedman is a "libertarian" and identifies him as a "classical liberal.")

If I disagree with the validity of evictionism does it move me away from the center?

I'm sure Walter would be the first to say that it would not. He has, for example, explicitly acknowledged Rothbard's disagreement with him on "evictionism." The whole abortion issue, in this context, revolves around whether and how the NAP should apply to the unborn vis-à-vis mothers. Even those at the very "center" of Block's circles can disagree over the answers to such questions.

[euphemia]

When I boil this down, there is no way this is not another transfer of wealth. In my opinion, taxes and fees should never be used to engineer economic output or personal behavior. When some kind of social or economic change is the goal, then it is a tax, and it is a transfer of wealth.

[anaconda]

Does the military need to pay the carbon tax while waging wars around the planet?

And don't forget the depleted uranium recycling fee.

[TheTexan]

I sometimes act like I might vote for him, to impress my hipster friends.

I wouldn't actually ever do it of course - he's way too libertarian for my tastes