>>On that note, I think Howard is a far better professional politician than Rudd.<<

rstuart,

Did you see "Q&A" on the ABC last night? As a professional political speaker, Rudd is better and smarter than anyone else I've ever seen. He answered every question from an audience of 15-25 year olds very adroitly. And he did get some blunt and curly questions.

But I do get your drift. I take it you mean Howard was able to stick it out, cop the flak and actually implement his policies. Rudd so far has only shown his political adroitness. The other important quality of pushing an agenda through to its implementation and embedding into society has yet to be demonstrated by Rudd. Although, he might be leaving that to his ministers; it's hard to judge the situation as an outsider.

Rstuart
Centralised price-fixing, trading tax receipts and capital consumption are the opposite of free market principles. Let’s call a spade a spade. Both major parties are pursuing anti-market central planning policies based on collectivist notions. If any private company attempted to raise a millionth as much money in this way, the directors would be imprisoned.

> If there is some other solution that forces carbon emissions down but in some sense gives even more freedom to individuals, I'd be interested to hear about it.
That assumes that, even if AGW were conceded, which it’s not, it would require a collectivist solution that “forces carbon emissions down” by way of taxation, bureaucracy and capital consumption; rather than by satisfying the human wants in issue more directly, individually and economically.

>Correct, they didn't tax the entire world. They just taxed the Dutch, including those who lived inland and didn't give a rats about the dykes.

I don’t know that they built the dykes by taxing the Dutch population, did they? But even if they did, why should the upland Dutch who didn’t care about the dykes, have been taxed to pay for them any more than the upland Germans, or the pygmies in the Congo for that matter, who equally got no benefit from them, didn’t care about them, and didn’t want to pay?

This is just more of the collectivist belief system that people are herds of animals owned by government, and that society is a laboratory in which the clever people in government experiment on the lives and livelihoods of their subjects.

There is something that would benefit me that I can’t afford to pay for. Therefore rstuart should be taxed to pay for it. If he doesn’t want to, he should be locked in a cage, and I shall say that it’s all his fault because he’s anti-social. Right?

Peter Hume: "Centralised price-fixing, trading tax receipts and capital consumption are the opposite of free market principles. "

Capital consumption is the depreciation allowance for a countries assets. What that has to do with the ETS, and more to the point depreciation can be called the opposite of free market principles is beyond me. As for trading tax receipts, did you just invent that? Oh, I see you didn't. You picked it up from www.lavoisier.com.au. It seems they invented it, and for the same reasons Abbott invented the term "Big Fat Tax" .

Centralised price-fixing is against free market principles. But since the ETS lets the free market decide the price of carbon credits I am not sure why you mentioned it. Another case of cherry picking impressive sounding phrases from web sites, perhaps?

As for Dutch dykes, would you know there is a story about dykes on http://mises.org/story/2537 What an amazing coincidence, it's a favourite site of yours. If you read the article carefully, you will see the era of private dyke building ended in the 1770's. Needless to say most of Holland's current dykes were built after that date - by the state.

Peter Hume: "This is just more of the collectivist belief system that people are herds of animals owned by government, and that society is a laboratory in which the clever people in government experiment on the lives and livelihoods of their subjects."

The amazing thing I get from that statement is a sense of deja vu. It feels the same as the idealistic pronouncements from the young communists of my youth.

So does this statement from mises:

a few individuals, based on the popular recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, superior judgment, courage, and taste, will rise to the rank of natural, voluntarily acknowledged elites and lend legitimacy to the idea of a natural order ... (Hoppe 2001, p. 106)

So, the world will be run by a natural order of elites. What a lovely idea. I trust you are planning to be part of that elite group?

RobP: "Did you see "Q&A" on the ABC last night?"

No. But thanks for pointing it out, I have watched it now.

I would not say he is the best public speaker I have heard. Most of the recent American presidents are astoundingly good orators. I wasn't too impressed at the start, as he was his usual formal and stiff self. But after 10 minutes or so he seemed to warm to his audience and was better than any other time I have seen him. More convincing than Howard on a normal day.

Which makes what I said all the more pertinent. If he was more of a media tart like Howard and say Beattie, he would be very effective in moving public opinion.

You seem to be under the impression that trying to throw up a smokescreen of irrelevance and personality makes up for your evasion of the issues. It doesn’t.

There is no evidence of catastrophic AGW in the first place, so don't try and get away with that evasion.

A licence is a permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. Your alleged free market is in carbon “credits”. But what is a carbon credit? It is a government permission to emit so much carbon. Well why wouldn’t the particular producer just go right ahead and emit what carbon is involved in producing the goods they are making to satisfy human wants? Because the ETS edict would make it illegal, that’s why. It would make illegal all productive activity that involves the use of carbon, which is everything, except on terms that the producer pay the government the relevant amount, commonly known as a tax, for which the government would give a tax receipt, which would then be traded. It is either sheer ignorance, or mere dishonesty, to call this dysfunctional statist fantasy a “free market”, and you know it.

So anyway, what’s the answer to the question: why should upland Dutch, upland Germans, or the pygmies of the Congo be forced to pay for strand-colonising Dutch to have their dykes built for them?

No snivelling half-witted evasions, no personal argument and misrepresentations, just try some intellectual honesty for a change and answer the question.

Peter Hume: "There is no evidence of catastrophic AGW in the first place, so don't try and get away with that evasion."

I haven't so far. Why bring it up? But since you have, the majority view is it is cheaper to do something about AGW now than later. If there is anybody evading that majority view here, it is you.

A reminder: the point I did bring up here is putting a price on emissions and and letting business figure out what to do about it is obviously more of a "free market" solution than explicitly telling businesses what to do. Surely you agree?

Peter Hume: "It is either sheer ignorance, or mere dishonesty, to call this dysfunctional statist fantasy a “free market”, and you know it."

Is statist a swear word in your world Peter? I wonder.

Regardless of how inconvenient you find it, the trade in carbon credits happens in a free market. That carbon credits are a state invention doesn't alter the fact. Property rights are also a state invention. So I guess by your definition, revenues raised by government land sales are also a tax, but nonetheless private land sales happen in a free market. You see? Your word games about taxes are irrelevant.

Peter Hume: "why should upland Dutch, upland Germans, or the pygmies of the Congo be forced to pay for strand-colonising Dutch to have their dykes built for them?"

Ahh, a philosophical question. I can't answer it. I am not good at philosophical questions. They are more of Pericles line of work. So I'll just observe the Dutch have strong statist traditions, the pygmies don't, and you say the pygmies were forced to pay for the Dutch's dykes. I wonder why they did so? Maybe they were unlucky? If so, their bad luck continues to this very day. The Dutch are even more statist than ever, the pygmies still organise themselves in the anarchistic manner you so treasure and yet the Dutch remain strong and the pygmies are in the process of being wiped from the planet.