Warning: This post concerns an inter-blog fight. Skip unless you find this stuff interesting.
Over at Catallaxy Jason Soon has accused me "of generating a climate of fear about" global warming and "claiming that emergency intervention measures were needed to address it immediately". Apparently I'm doing this because I am one of those "advocates of big government" and I'm also just like Graeme Bird. When challenged to support his claim, he came up with something ridiculously vague:
I recall John had some argument with someone on Tim's site who claimed we were all rooned if economic growth wasn't cut drastically and Tim seemed to support the claim.
So I don't have write anything at all to be guilty of "generating a climate of fear". I just have to seem to agree with somebody (who? when? Soon's not saying) and there's fear everywhere.
Rather than do the decent thing and retract, Soon decided to invent some more accusations, claiming that I
go around smearing all global warming skeptics and skeptics against intervention as creationists or worse
and claiming that I
call anyone who has written against AGW of being paid for their opinions and in effect intellectual whores. He has written blogposts purportedly showing that people in various think-tanks who have sincerely believed in certain things for all their lives only do so because they were paid by Exxon.
Despite being challenged, Soon failed to provide any examples. Moreover, when he wrote those comments, the post at the top of the front page of my blog was about global warming. In that post I didn't accuse anyone of being a creationist or of being paid for their opinions, contradicting Soon's claim that I always did this.
Then, in the next post at Catallaxy, Rafe Champion takes on another blog, Larvatus Prodeo, trying to equate it to Tim Blair's hate site, and prompting this from Soon:
I really don't see the point of starting an inter-blog dispute especially since commenters really shouldn't be identified with blog writers themselves anyway.
Of course, that's exactly what Soon did in his attack on me.
Update: We know now what I did that led to my being accused of generating a "climate of fear". Nothing. Nothing at all. Look:
I did ask Tim (and the others) several times if they agreed with the comments of Jeff Harvey. Tim never responded.
Update 2: Soon continues to mislead:
There was no 'abuse' of Tim in my original post - the only thing I directly attributed to his person was 'two well known Ozblogistan commentators and advocates of big government' - this is the only thing that I implied Lambert had in common with Bird, contrary to Ken's dishonest implication that I was saying they were akin in all other respects. The rest of the mention of Lambert is merely my reproducing bits of John Humphrey's original blogpost to set the background for the idea.
This is dishonest in several different ways. First, Soon attributed to me opinions merely posted by a commenter at my blog but then disclaims any responsibility for quotes he posted from John Humphreys that he described as "very perceptive". Second, he charges Ken Parish with dishonesty for merely stating that it was reasonable for me to object to being bracketed with Bird. Third, he didn't just attribute me with being an advocate of big government, but "of generating a climate of fear about" global warming.
Maybe I'm naively contributing to a blogwar but isn't "big government" currently the territory of Republican neo-cons? They're the ones inserting the federal government into everything from local school districts to internet searches. Big government anybody? Traditional conservatism is dead. What we have is collusion between a power-grabbing executive branch and protected economic mega-corporations. Gee, I wonder if there's any historical precedent for that.
Since you didn't say that "anyone who has written against AGW of] being paid for their opinions and in effect intellectual whores", I will. Anyone who has written against AGW recently is being paid for their opinions, and is an intellectual whore. This most especially includes libertarians, such as those at Cato.
Not only that, but people who take places like Cato seriously tend to get the full libertarian wingnut package, which includes a bit on the horrors caused by banning DDT. They aren't "creationists" -- that's a different wingnut belief package -- but they might as well be.
That's silly. What kind of an angel has nuts on its wings?
Rightwing axiom #1:
Rightwingers are smarter.
Rightwing axiom #2:
Rightwingers are more moral and more ethical.
Rightwing syllogism #1:
Given the above two axioms, if rightwingers were ultimately successful, the world would be optimally wonderful.
Rightwing corollary #1:
Given the above two axioms, the only reason rightwingers are not supremely successful must be because they are being deliberately thwarted by Evil Powers.
Rightwing corollary #2:
Leftwingers are evil people dedicated to human misery.
Climate of fear, bad.
Climate of heat, good.
So you write on everything except the subject of the post itself. I see you have this classed under stupidity. So are all your readers and you for secret trials for terrorists, torture and suspension of civil liberties? I assume you are seeing that you seem to ignore all that, lump my post under stupidity and blow up a little stoush we had in the comments section instead.
So what say you, Tim Lambert fans, you're all for suspension of constitutional protections and secret trials for terrorists, yes?
Tim got hurt because I used the term 'LamBird' in my title which was coined by John Humphreys. I linked to John Humphreys piece to provide the context for it and it is the idea behind 'LamBirding' (i.e. raising a state of emergency requiring drastic intervention) which is important. I linked to Humphreys' piece because I thought the way he tried to tie together emergency rationales for drastic intervention was neat. Was the term itself derived partly from Lambert's name? Yes. Did I trust John's judgement for why he used Lambert as an example? Yes
But to trivialise my post as all about Lambert shows the size of the little man's ego. I thought it was a neat concept, I applied it to anti-terrorism laws and yes Tim got upset because I used the word LamBird in my title but it was a matter of etiquette for me to link back to and cite John's post if that was where I got the original idea for this category of calling for drastic intervention and he would have got upset even if I didn't use the term in the title and just did that instead. Tim chose to blow up something that was off-topic in my comments thread and classify my comments against anti-terrorism laws as 'stupidity' so I guess all you people must be for torture and secret trials and martial law based on the same logic that now has me labelled a 'denialist' which I am not.
Jason, it's pretty obvious that Tim used the stupidity tag to refer to your hook which contained a BS attack on him, not to the opposition to hardline anti-terror laws.
John Humphreys attack on Tim was a poor quality ad hom and you didn't do your post any credit by including it.
Jason Soon, you must surely have deliberately come here and posted what you did to proudly claim the stupidity tag. Take it, you've earned it, it's yours. You win.
Personally, I take Rich's and z's conclusions to heart, and there's no way I can take these people *[edit by admin]* seriously.
I implore others to do likewise and refuse to dignify their comments with serious discourse. Humor and sarcasm are the only valid responses.
Best,
D
LamBirding in action - I am now classified as a wingnut even though I have written in favour of a carbon tax to tackle global warming. I am insufficiently religious because I also think there are extremists on the AGW side who will smear everyone as either intellectual whores or creationists who expresses scepticism about either the causes of warming or measures for dealing with it.
And I presume you are all for torturing suspected terrorists then Dano? (I am merely employing the logic that Dano uses here to accuse me of being a wingnut) I take it the answer is yes since you haven't clarified your position,
It really is a religion with you guys - I've offended your Pope and been excommunicated.
I am now classified as a wingnut even though I have written in favour of a carbon tax to tackle global warming. I am insufficiently religious because I also think there are extremists on the AGW side who will smear everyone as either intellectual whores or creationists who expresses scepticism about either the causes of warming or measures for dealing with it.
Yeah, it sucks to have positions that you don't take attributed to you.
No wonder Tim objected to your post.
Cunning stunt Tim, extending your audience to include thinking subscribers to Catallaxy. Next we'll hear you crowing that you have even more readers than Michael Fumento and Tim Blair.
Jason you might as well apologise to Tim for calling him silly names - by all means dump on John Humphreys for starting it - because then you and your libertarians have more important work to do, figuring out how your philosophy might be up to the task of addressing Big Issues. Can Libertarians decide when to form an army and go to war? Is there a Libertarian answer for "The tragedy of the commons"? Do Libertarians prefer to defer to science or to ideology?
Incredible. Jason runs a cesspit of a comments section where vicious abuse and name calling are the order of the day, but he complains because Dano called him a "wingnut".
Dano: please do not call Jason a "wingnut" -- it upsets him. I've edited your comment to remove the offensive term.
Jason: I see I've been promoted from "Inquisitor" to "Pope". For the record, I classified your post as "stupidity" because of your assertion that I am "generating a climate of fear" by merely seeming to agree with some unspecified comment left at my blog.
And who labelled you a "denialist"?
Oh, and it would be nice if provided some support for your accusation that I am an "extremist on the AGW side who will smear everyone as either intellectual whores or creationists who expresses scepticism about either the causes of warming or measures for dealing with it".
I'm jealous. Dano got his wingnut comment edited, but mine wasn't. Was it because I didn't directly call any particular person a wingnut, but instead generalized it to "people who take places like Cato seriously"?
The phenomenon of ideological packages is well-observed, though. Michael Berube expressed it as "I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11, I'm outraged by Chappaquiddick."
Dopey asks:
Can Libertarians decide when to form an army and go to war?
Sure. You think libertarian are peace niks? Wrong crowd dopey.
-----------------------
Is there a Libertarian answer for "The tragedy of the commons"?
You obviously haven't read anything about peoperty rights, have you dopey?
-------------------------
Do Libertarians prefer to defer to science or to ideology?
That's a non sequitur. What's ideology got to do about building a faster chip for instance?
"LamBirding in action - I am now classified as a wingnut even though I have written in favour of a carbon tax to tackle global warming. I am insufficiently religious because I also think there are extremists on the AGW side who will smear everyone as either intellectual whores or creationists who expresses scepticism about either the causes of warming or measures for dealing with it."
No Jason you're classified as a wing-not because you make foolish ad hominem attacks which you can't support with facts.
"Cunning stunt Tim, extending your audience to include thinking subscribers to Catallaxy."
What, both of them?
"Dopey asks: Can Libertarians decide when to form an army and go to war?
Sure. You think libertarian are peace niks? Wrong crowd dopey."
Can you offer us any actually examples of this? Or is just an obvious conclusion from the manifest truth that libertarians are inherently superior to the rest of the human race?
Don't even bother trying to cite the American Founding Fathers unless you're prepared to defend slave-ownership as a legitimate exercise of property rights.
"Is there a Libertarian answer for "The tragedy of the commons"?
You obviously haven't read anything about peoperty rights, have you dopey?"
I have. I've also had the misfortune to read the crap written about property rights by libertarian ideologues.
When asked to answer questions about such issues as the tragedy of the commons, the standard libertarian response is to point to some meandering incomprehensible multi-thousand word pile of verbiage and say "it's in there somewhere".
Tell you what JC take mercy on the heathen and summarise the answer for us in, say, 50 words.
Coasian theory is, of course, not libertarianism and is inconsistent with libertarianism.
Tim, apologies.
-------
I also direct folks to the little dust-up between Ann Coulter and Elizabeth Edwards. Spewing-hatred Coulter got all huffy when Edwards hit back. Bullies don't act well when someone pushes back.
This little bit of knowledge drives a significant fraction of Dano tactics: when you get a reaction like that, you know the purpose is bullying ("trolling") and that the bully has no b*lls. We knew the troll part, we had to act to see the cajone-less part.
Best,
D
Ian
I promise to answer all your questions when you finally show a sense of humor instead of living this mirthlessly sad existence.
And please, you're a lefty so could you even begin to undertand, really understand libertarian ideology.
You ask i give you 50 words on libertarianism. Whatever for? It isn't as though you would be absorbing anything with any degree of openness of mind would you? Why waste my time? To convert you? Please!
How about 50 words from you on just why you think the Goberment can control the theromstat 2-3 degrees?
"I promise to answer all your questions when you finally show a sense of humor instead of living this mirthlessly sad existence."
That's alright JC I think most of us here really that you don't actually known very much about libertarianiam or much of anything else and your pathetic arm-waving is just a rather sad attempt to conceal that fact.
"You ask i give you 50 words on libertarianism"
No I asked if you could explain in 50 words how libertarianism could address the tragedy of the commons.
Since people who don't think it can get labelled by you as "dopey", the answer must be pretty simple.
Ian nice work but in fairness to the very funny JC he's most likely only calling me "dopey" 'cos that's my name 'n all :)
Anyways I assert that JC's assertions are fallacious but maybe he can provide real-world counterexamples to my implied jibes about the daily inadequacy of libertarianism in the real world?
And here's a non-sequitur for you JC: I like Nietzsche as much as Jason does but I wouldn't have voted him into parliament or followed him to war, would you? He couldn't have cut it as a scientist either but as I say, I'm still a bit of a fan.
Ian
"That's alright JC I think most of us here really that you don't actually known very much about libertarianiam or much of anything else and your pathetic arm-waving is just a rather sad attempt to conceal that fact."
Look Ian there's no point in getting into a slagging match with you as you will always win at this site. Insults coming from you are the most amusing thing about you, Mr. Happy.
"I asked if you could explain in 50 words how libertarianism could address the tragedy of the commons."
Quite happy to play your game, Happy, but firstly you answer this. How have yards and yards and miles of red tape helped the commons?
By the way is that your sibbling at Leftwrites like he's Lenin's twin?
"How have yards and yards and miles of red tape helped the commons?"
It's called title.
So JC comes in like a lion and out like a lamb screaming "You're mean. I'm telling teacher" as he races back to the safety of Catallaxy where apparently no-one would be so rude as to ask him to back up his arguments with anything other than abuse and rhetoric.
Never having heard of "leftwrites", I've no idea if one of my siblings posts there. If the name is "Bill Gould" ignore anything the fool has to say.
"When asked to answer questions about such issues as the tragedy of the commons, the standard libertarian response is to point to some meandering incomprehensible multi-thousand word pile of verbiage and say "it's in there somewhere". "
You're obviously reading the wrong websites, Ian. There is no point going to lefty websites to understand libertarian thought. No wonder you always seem confused.
----------------------------
Now for you're little quiz question. Mand, it was so hard!
The tragedy of the commons attempts to explain that resources (eg. grazing land) will be depleted when there is common sharing. No real economist worth his salt would attempt to refute such a well chronicled truism with past history as strong evidence.
A few examples:
Compare and contrast African wildlife parks that place a value on the wildlife to those that don't.
Compare and contrast the depletion rate of American grazing land used in common tenancy and large Scottish landholdings that maintained themselves as grouse hunting grounds for centuries.
Height restrictions and nimby based restrictions in cities leading to inefficient use of land.
----------------------------
That's a little more than 50 words Mr. Happy. Now try to be a gentleman and explain why you think regulating the commons allows for a superior outcome. 50 words is fine with me too. While you are there you may also want to explain why at times you seem to suggest
1 demand curves aren't downward sloping (they do last time I was in class)
2. Prices aren't responsive to market forces ( they are according to my teachers.
3. Motivations and intentions do matter. Results don't. (whereas I believe motivations and intentions don't matter. Results do.
Let's keep it simple for you JC. How about you explain to us the libertarian solution to a scientific consensus that says the atmosphere cannot take any more of our carbon emissions without serious risk to our future quality of life. _If_ you concede that intelligent regulation and/or intelligent taxation policies are necessary to address the scientifically identified risk, then fair enough I'll concede that libertarianism has some reasonable ideas to share with us too.
Dopey.
THe LDP policy as far as I know supports a carbon tax. The party rightfully thinks that a cap and trade system is going to turn into a mess. I agree.
In addition planting and reforrestation would help reduce carbon emissions even further.
------------------------
"How about you explain to us the libertarian solution to a scientific consensus that says the atmosphere cannot take any more of our carbon emissions without serious risk to our future quality of life."
I'm not sure the argument is about this any longer. The argument is about finding ways to reduce emissions without reducing our standard of living. See the points I made above.
I would also have to include nuke in the picture. Nuke power was stopped dead in its tracks in the US by the environmental movement after Three Mile Island. As I result the US is about 20% nuke power now while furry little socialist countries like France and Sweden are up to 80%. The US was heading towards the same prooportion. The road to hell is alwways paved with good intentions, hey?
------------------------------
If you concede that intelligent regulation and/or intelligent taxation policies are necessary to address the scientifically identified risk, then fair enough I'll concede that libertarianism has some reasonable ideas to share with us too.
There is nothing to say regulation and taxation allow for intelligent outcomes. Every policy, every tax and every law ought to have exhaustive analysis done and should only be implemented when it shows for a superior outcome.
Current spending doesn't show this at all. Every dollar taken in by the government ends up costing 40% more when it is rolled out to be spent. The churn rate is far too high for most policies the government supports.
You know, JC, the whole exercise of storming out in high dudgeon swearing you'll never darken Tim's door again is rather spoilt if you storm back in five minutes later.
As for your constant bleating of "lefty". my economic views are based on my tertiary studies in the field and roughly a decade working as a professional economist, can you say the same?
JC, you made fumbling inept attempt at defining the tragedy of the commons.
You still haven't explained how libertarians acting without government intervention could prevent it.
"While you are there you may also want to explain why at times you seem to suggest...'
Seeing as I never said made any such suggestions, I can only assume the problems lies in the word "seem" since you display a remarkable grasp fro reading the hidden "true" diabolic meaning behind the most innocent statements by non-libertarians.
So no answer to my questions, Ian?
Suerly you could give it a try and I promise I won't ever give you a failing grade. I'm always gentle with you. You know that.
_____________
You know, JC, the whole exercise of storming out in high dudgeon swearing you'll never darken Tim's door again is rather spoilt if you storm back in five minutes later.
5 mintues ago? Ian don't be so childish. Clue- Grown ups down't hold grudges like little children.
-----------------
As for your constant bleating of "lefty". my economic views are based on my tertiary studies in the field
To be perfectly honest Ian, I really don't see it. I can't say that I could ever felt you truly grasped and understood the subject. I 'm sure you could recite any number of models, but like Freidman once said..... he met lot's of people who had economic degrees that weren't economists and he had met lots hadn't that were.
------------------------
and roughly a decade working as a professional economist, can you say the same?
Ian you worked as an envirnomental economist for a government department ....as you once mentioned. Excuse me if that doesn't light a rocket under me.
"So no answer to my questions, Ian?"
Frstly you still haven't answered the question which prompted your whole case of explosive verbal diaorrhea.
Second your "questions" are witless, baseless personal attacks on par with "why do libertarians want to legal child prositution and slavery?"
"5 mintues ago? Ian don't be so childish. Clue- Grown ups don't hold grudges like little children."
That's right adults also possess sufficient emotional control not to throw tantrums in the first place.
Ah yes the famous libertarian contempt for anyone who actually knows anything about a topic - they get on fine without knowing anything so why do them fancy in'ellectuals with their collidge degrees think that makes them better than normal folk?
Just as Hitler knew in his stomach that the Jews were the source of all evil, the libertarian knows in his stomach that the government is the source of all evil.
Me:"and roughly a decade working as a professional economist, can you say the same?"
JC: "Ian you worked as an envirnomental economist for a government department ....as you once mentioned. Excuse me if that doesn't light a rocket under me."
That'd be another know from the man who constantly demands answers without providing any of his own.
If the College of Cardinals can do it, why can't Jason?
Ian
I answered the question. Now answer mine!
After all this time still continue to resort to the put down and ad hom when things don't go your way.
Be nice and answer the questions.
"I see I've been promoted from "Inquisitor" to "Pope""
Ah, what the hell, I unilaterally appoint you Grand High Poo-Bah of All Kingdom Come, Lord Chief Executioner of the Unbelievers, and Head Stud, Forever and Ever.
Arise, the One they call Tim.
:-)
"I answered the question. "
No you redefined it from "How would libertarians address the tragedy of the commons" to "what is the tragedy of the commons."
Btu since that;'s obviously the best you can manage:
1 "demand curves aren't downward sloping (they do last time I was in class)"
Never said they weren't (except in certain rare instances. Go back to Wikipedia or whatever other site it was where you cribbed your definition of "tragedy of the commons" from and look up "perverse goods".
"Prices aren't responsive to market forces ( they are according to my teachers."
When you get past the high school/first year "economics for noneconomists courses" you'll start to grapple with issues such as price inelasticity; market power; collusion; imperfect information perverse good and various other concepts your teachers either failed to mention or you failed to comprehend.
Markets are only rational on average and in the long term - unless there was some entirely rational and market-driven reason why US tech shares all soared between ca. 1995 and 2000 and then tanked.
"Motivations and intentions do matter. Results don't. (whereas I believe motivations and intentions don't matter. Results do."
Another bizarre and surreal comment (assuming you're talking about economics here). I can only assume you've confused me with one of your fellow libertarians who was attempting to claim that "demand-side" and "supply-side" tax cuts had different impacts or some other piece of stupidity.
"I answered the question. "
No you redefined it from "How would libertarians address the tragedy of the commons" to "what is the tragedy of the commons."
Btu since that;'s obviously the best you can manage:
Ian, you're not very good at understanding things , are you?
I gave you what I thought was a good explanation about how to treat "tragedy the commons" in a littler more than 50 words. Some of it was implied, which I guess was a little too hard for you.
As I suggested, imrovement to the commons is not just by ownersips but cearly inscribed property rights. You chose to ignore this and headed for what has become your best defense: another blast of ad homs.
----------------------------------------------
1 "demand curves aren't downward sloping (they do last time I was in class)"
Never said they weren't (except in certain rare instances. Go back to Wikipedia or whatever other site it was where you cribbed your definition of "tragedy of the commons" from and look up "perverse goods".
Lol. "Never said they weren't ...(except)..." What are you talking about Ian.... Griffen (?) goods? Pleazzee. Try again and do keep up.
------------------------------------
"Prices aren't responsive to market forces ( they are according to my teachers."
When you get past the high school/first year "economics for noneconomists courses" you'll start to grapple with issues such as price inelasticity; market power; collusion; imperfect information perverse good and various other concepts your teachers either failed to mention or you failed to comprehend.
Lol....So tell us Ian. Tell us how prices aren't responsive..... Oh, yes I forgot.... It has to be market failure.......Lol.
-----------------------------
Markets are only rational on average and in the long term - unless there was some entirely rational and market-driven reason why US tech shares all soared between ca. 1995 and 2000 and then tanked.
The tech crash was a mania, brought about by extra cheap money, something you obviously know nothing about, which is not surprising seeing you cover your ingorance by frequent abuse.
-----------------------------
"Motivations and intentions do matter. Results don't. (whereas I believe motivations and intentions don't matter. Results do."
Another bizarre and surreal comment (assuming you're talking about economics here). I can only assume you've confused me with one of your fellow libertarians who was attempting to claim that "demand-side" and "supply-side" tax cuts had different impacts or some other piece of stupidity.
Dunno what stupidity it is you're talking about Ian. But do tell how you now think motivations and intentions are more important than results? Or perhaps it is beyond you. If it is, no problem. I except that.
You forgot to offer up an explanation as why you think additional regulations would prop up the commons. Go ahead and tell us Ian.
I mark very easily but so far it's a failing grade. But you still have a chance to redeem yourself by explanaing why more regulation would help the commons.
"When you get past the high school/first year "economics for noneconomists courses" you'll start to grapple with issues such as price inelasticity; market power; collusion; imperfect information perverse good and various other concepts your teachers either failed to mention or you failed to comprehend."
For those people reading this who aren't economists:
Ian thinks he has thrown a wrench in the works and ends up with a very bruised wrist. He is trying to suggest that demand curves don't always slope downward. They do... Always.
Price inelasticity is the implies that prices of one set of goods are not as responsive to price shifts as other goods. There is nothing surprising about this at all in economics. Some goods are far more price sensitive than others. For instance people are far more sensitive to the price of pizzas than they are to the price of gas. There are far more substitutes for pizzas than there is to a lit of petrol for instance. It doesn't mean the demand curve wouldn't slope downward though.
Market power has always been the big bad bogey man leftist economists bring up to imply that certain markets need to be regulated because a few participants hold a large slice of that market. It is pure nonsense, as any decent economist will tell you that monopoly power can only be gained through government charter. It is a definition used to support the mantra of more regulation and will always be a road leading to hell.
Collusion: see above two explanations. Collusion is impossible in the real world as no two or more balance sheets, profit margins or management expectations are ever the identical. Ian thinks it can happen despite these hurdles, which makes him totally blind to reality.
Imperfect information is the opposite of perfect competition (almost). Perfect competition only exists in textbooks, as there could never be any such thing. A world of perfect competition would mean there are no buyers or sellers, as the market could not exist as it would be in permanently suspended animation.. Information is imperfect. It has to be. Different information bits stimulate people in different ways.
Eg: We all know for instance that China is a big factor in the demand for Australian commodities. What we don't know is for how long it will last and the scope of this demand. The stock market players are forever trying to figure this out which is why the price for these equities is ever shifting.
A perverse good is nonsense and always has been. It is not even worth discussing.
Please try again Ian.
Well, there's only four ways one can morph out of a killfile with that handle, jc. Or Jc. Or jC. Whatever. I'll just edit my script to make it ignore case.