= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on How should negative externalities be handled? (Warning: politics) - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (131)
Yes. Property is theft. And while I'm a big fan of private property, I also think it's often really is theft.
Negative externalities are theory dependent, like property. What counts as 0 externality? If the girl you want prefers me, is that a negative externality? I wouldn't think so, because my rules of justice distinguishes between what I consider best and what I'll try to require by force from people.
First activity - determine what you think is 0 before you try to figure out what to do about negatives.
Externalities can be measured on a per-transaction basis. So take the difference to everyone not involved with and without the transaction. That yields a natural zero.
Depends on what scale they're using.
For example, if I have some ideal of perfection that I scale at 0, whenever you diverge from perfection I will consider it a negative externality.
Differences wash that out.
Difference, with what? Where the guy stares blankly at a wall? Where he ceases to exist?
The structural difference between libertarianism and various collectivisms is the gap libertarianism creates between "I want you to do X" and "You are subject to sanction if you don't do X". You define the zero level where the sanctions start.
EDITED TO MAKE THE POINT OF THE EXAMPLE CLEARER
Alice, what's the total economic impact on you from everything, if I do X?
+$475
Alice, what's the total economic impact on you from everything, if I don't do X?
+$476
So, X causes a difference of -$1.
Alice, could you reconsider things from a negative point of view, now? Thanks.
Alice, what's the total economic impact on you from everything, if I do X?
-$7032
Alice, what's the total economic impact on you from everything, if I don't do X?
-$7031
So, doing X causes a difference of -$1.
Works out the same.
What is the dollar value of not living next to a rendering plant? For my friend W, zero, because he has no sense of smell.
What about the value of living above a sports bar? For me, it's mostly negative, since I don't like sports. But for lots of people, it would be a positive.
... so?
As I said, you add them all up from all different people for both (all) cases of what you could do. Then you take the differences between them.
That captures what you're talking about.
Sorry for not making the example clear.
I don't understand how to take a sum across a speculative set of possible futures like this -- in particular, in cases where everyone has every incentive to lie (W doesn't have to tell anyone about his anosmia, and if he cares about the resale value of his house, he won't mention it).
For purposes of policy, you can simplify by finding typical values for people in various reference classes, by analyzing what choices they make to avoid / approach cases of the external transaction.
Just because I defined it as an integral doesn't mean you can't closely approximate it as a small number of multiplication problems.
Thanks for getting more specific, but you left out the particular part I was asking for.
That's not a particularly identifiable state. If you play basketball for an hour, during that hour I know you're not doing a lot of things. If all I know is that you're not playing basketball, you could be doing a zillion other things, all of which have a different economic value to me.
If you play basketball, that has a range of economic value too, but a much much smaller range than not playing basketball.
Choose an arbitrary action as reference, then! You'll be taking the difference in the end anyway.
This is just a non-physics example of gauge symmetry.
Ok, so if we take the action with the greatest value to me as the reference zero, then all other actions count as negative externalities.
That may be how utilitarians do it, but it isn't the way libertarians do it, and that was the context of the original question. Libertarians set a less than greatest value action as the reference zero. Before they talk about what to do about negative externalities, they need to identify that zero, so they can know what they're talking about when they say "negative externality".
An externality is when A's action results in costs for B who wasn't a participant. B isn't acting at all. And it's usually obvious and uncontroversial what counts as "action" or "inaction" on the part of A.
My ideal tax system taxes people based on land ownership (not property ownership - you can only be taxed for the land your house sits on, not the house itself, for complex reasons which basically come down to "the land was there before people, the house wasn't"), and distributes all post-spending taxes evenly across the population (and there's your welfare system). So I more or less agree with you that (certain kinds of) property (are)/is problematic.
I'm less certain what you mean by "determining what I think is 0" - I understand the concept you're conveying, I am clueless as to why you're conveying it, which means I'm missing something you're trying to communicate.