= 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)
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.
Which bring me back to my previous question:
You can define a reference zero that way. Libertarians generally do not.