This should be even less controversial than imprisoning murderers
Sadly it isn't. I consider(ed) myself libertarian, and then found that most self-identified ones reject that reasoning entirely. Pity.
I was also unpleasantly suprised to find that there was a group of people griping about programs that would make it easier to identify cars that weren't liability-insured or pollution-tested, and this was called a "libertarian" position.
ETA: And libertarian-leaning academics don't seem to "get" why paying polluters to go away isn't a solution, and don't even understand what problem is supposed to be solved, even when hypothetically placed in such a situation! (See the exchange between me and Hanson in the link.)
ETA2: I edited an EDF graphic to make this cute picture about the pollution issue and Coasean reasoning. ETA3: Full blog post with original graphic
It's not so much that it doesn't solve the problem as things just don't work that way. For starters, current energy distribution methods are local monopolies, so they are strongly regulated on price because the competition mechanism doesn't work as it should. The idea that a customers might "choose" cleaner energy doesn't always work.
Second, some logging companies tried that. They had an outside company, come in, do an inspection, and certify the ecological viability of their practices. There were a fair number of people who actually were willin...
To whom it may concern:
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.
(After the critical success of part II, and the strong box office sales of part III in spite of mixed reviews, will part IV finally see the June Open Thread jump the shark?)