Dialogue: Discrimination

Leftist: You libertarians are too extreme by far. You don’t even want there to be anti-discrimination laws! Bigotry is fine by you!

Brian: Do you think that all discrimination is wrong?

Leftist: Absolutely.

Brian: So I should just marry the next single person I meet? Employers should just pick their employees at random off the street?

Leftist: What? I didn’t say that.

Brian: But to do otherwise would be to select people with whom to associate, for various purposes, on the basis of their personal characteristics or professional qualifications. This would be discrimination and hence, according to you, wrong.

Leftist: No, no. I meant that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of irrational factors such as gender, race, sexual orientation, age, or physical disability.

Brian: So, even though I’m straight, the fact that someone is a 70 year old gay man shouldn’t deter me in the slightest from marrying them? Wouldn’t want to discriminate on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or age now, would we?

Leftist: Now you’re just coming up with absurd examples to irritate me.

Brian: I merely want a clear definition of when discrimination is wrong and should be illegal, one that doesn’t lead to such absurd examples.

Leftist: Ok, fine. It is wrong to discriminate, when it comes to hiring employees or providing service to customers, on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, age, or physical disability. No more silly marriage examples!

Brian: So when hiring servers, it would be wrong for the ‘Hooters’ restaurant managers to look more favorably on young, attractive women than they do on old, ugly men in wheelchairs? Hooters should be forced to become an ‘equal opportunity workplace’?

Leftist: No, that would also be absurd. Ok, let me try again: It is wrong to discriminate based on personal characteristics that have nothing to do with the purposes of the proposed association in question.

Brian: I can think of no absurd examples for this formulation.

Leftist: Well thank god for that! Then you agree that we should make this kind of discrimination illegal?

Brian: Doesn’t really matter if it’s made illegal or not. No one will ever be guilty of this offense.

Leftist: What? Sure they will! All of the irrational bigots will be guilty of it. If a white restaurant owner absolutely refused to serve black people in his restaurant, he would be guilty of the offense.

Brian: Would he? In this case, what is the purpose of the proposed association in question?

Leftist: For the customer to get food and for the restaurant owner to get money in exchange.

Brian: Only that? I think that for most restaurants, the customers also want to experience a certain atmosphere, while the restaurant owner also takes personal gratification from serving his customers well.

Leftist: Sure, I guess those could also be purposes of the association. What’s your point?

Brian: Well, if the restaurant owner is a bigot, and most of his customers are also bigots, than it’s likely that the bigoted customers value a dining atmosphere where they don’t have to see non-White people, and that the bigoted restaurant owner only takes personal gratification from serving White customers. Hence, in this case, the discrimination based on the personal characteristic of race/skin color has something to do with the purposes of the proposed association in question. Thus, the discrimination, according to your definition, is not wrong and should not be illegal. And if it is thus for such an extreme and clear-cut example, it will not be otherwise for any other case of discrimination.

Leftist: Let me modify my definition somewhat then: It is wrong to discriminate based on personal characteristics that have nothing to do with the rational purposes of the proposed association in question. That should exclude the bigoted purposes that you mentioned.

Brian: Who is to be the judge of whether a given purpose is ‘rational’ or not?

Leftist: Courtroom judges and juries.

Brian: What criteria should they apply?

Leftist: Common sense will do just fine. Denying service to customers based on their race is obviously irrational; while taking gender into account when deciding who to marry is obviously rational.

Brian: Perhaps it is obvious to you, because you’re a cosmopolitan and a monosexual. But if you were bigoted and a bisexual, than the rationality/irrationality of the two forms of discrimination would flip.

Leftist: Only because you’re talking about a subjective conception of rationality. I’m talking about an objective conception of rationality.

Brian: What’s so objectively rational about discriminating based on gender when deciding who to marry?

Leftist: Well, people are naturally biologically attracted to members of a given gender, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, and hence marrying a person from the gender that you are biologically attracted to is objectively rational.

Brian: But bisexuals are biologically attracted to both genders, so for them there is nothing objectively rational about gender discrimination when it comes to choosing marriage partners.

Leftists: Granted, but it is still objectively rational to do so for monosexual people.

Brian: Then it is no longer objectively rational. It is only rational, given the existence of a certain personal characteristic, in this case monosexuality. Analogously, it is only rational to refuse to serve black people at your restaurant, given the existence of a certain personal characteristic, in this case a bigoted attitude towards race/skin color.

Leftist: Alright, fine. Well, if marriage is conceived of as a means of reproducing, than gender discrimination when it comes to marriage is objectively rational.

Brian: So homosexuals that get married are acting irrationally, and should instead marry the opposite sex in order to be ‘objectively rational’? You’re starting to sound like a conservative now!

Leftist: Erm, no, well, I didn’t mean that… Arbitrary racial discrimination is just irrational! Stop being so difficult!

Brian: I’m sorry, but unless we can figure out a clear way to distinguish ‘rational’ from ‘irrational’ discrimination, than I am not comfortable with having any anti-discrimination laws on the books. Without a clear distinction, the laws will just give judges and juries license, in the name of their versions of ‘rationality’, to trample all over people’s freedom of association. This is the present situation in most western democracies, and it has led to some results that I think are absurd and harmful. I would prefer to tolerate the existence of a few unsavoury, bigoted restaurant owners than to give this awesome power to rudderless judges and juries.

Leftist: But without the laws we will return to the bad old days of arbitrary, out-of-control discrimination!

Brian: I doubt it. Firstly, in the ‘bad old days’, there were often laws that were reinforcing discrimination or even making it compulsory, as the infamous ‘Jim Crow laws’ did in the southern US. I obviously would vehemently oppose any such laws. Secondly, I get the distinct sense that in general, ordinary people today are a lot less bigoted than they were in the ‘bad old days’, which can be explained by a number of factors. Thirdly, even if some bigotry survives, the free-market monetarily rewards people who don’t consult their personal bigotries when making decisions in a professional capacity. These people are able to make decisions that are objectively better in a purely business-sense than people who bring their bigotry into their professional life. For all of these reasons, I think that your worries are largely unfounded.

Leftist: Well, you’ve convinced me that not all libertarians are bigots themselves, though I don’t fully agree with your point of view on the subject.

Brian: That is good enough for me to call this conversation a success!

   

Dialogue: Religion, Morality, and Egoism

Priest: Without religion there can be no morality. You atheists are trying to lead humanity along a dark path.

Professor: Nonsense! Atheism is perfectly compatible with morality! Most atheists I know have a strong sense of morality.

Priest: But if you do not believe in God or in the afterlife, than what is backing up your atheist morality? What are the rewards for being moral, or the sanctions for being immoral?

Professor: Atheists don’t need imaginary rewards or sanctions in order to be moral; we act morally because we are good people.

Priest: Good people? Without God to define them, there is no good or evil.

Professor: Nonsense!

Brian: I believe that the priest is correct on this point, professor.

Professor: What? Whose side are you on? I thought you were an atheist!

Brian: I am.

Professor: Well then how can you say that atheism is incompatible with morality?

Brian: How can you not? Without a divine being dealing out rewards and punishments, what possible reason would anyone have for following a universal code of morality, if doing so clashed with their individual self-interest?

Professor: Because the universal code of morality that I espouse is both true and valid.

Brian: How so?

Professor: Well, the fact that you are debating with me in the way that you are means that you have accepted certain rules of morality. You have accepted that truth is preferable to falsehood. You have accepted that certain words mean certain, objective things. You have accepted that the words that come out of my mouth are my words, and hence you have accepted my self-ownership over my own body. You have accepted that persuasion, not brute force, is the way to prevail in a debate. Thus, you have already accepted many, significant rules of morality, rules which, if elaborated upon, could become the foundation for a universal code of morality.

Brian: Actually, I have only temporarily accepted those rules for the purposes of this debate, because doing so is currently in my individual self-interest. When I want to play Monopoly, I agree to abide by the rules of Monopoly, until the game is over or I want to stop playing. After that, I am no longer bound by the rules of Monopoly; just as I am no longer bound by the rules of debating when I want to stop debating. Thus, your supposedly ‘universal’ code of morality would only apply to me when I want to debate. It only applies when I let it, which I do only for the sake of my individual self-interest.      

Professor: Ah, but when you make statements about ethics and morality or the lack thereof, you are speaking in the context of a debate, and thus while you are making your statements, all of the accepted rules of debating apply. Your statements are only possible and comprehensible given the acceptance of relevant moral rules; hence to deny the existence of such moral rules in those statements involves you in an illogical performative contradiction. Thus, your statements must be false.

Brian: That’s not right. I do not deny the existence of the rules of debating or of any other sets of contextual rules that can be adopted by actors when doing so is in their individual self-interest. I deny the existence of a universal code of morality, that applies and is binding in all situations, whether following this code is in the individual self-interest of the actor in question or not. This is the kind of code of morality that moralists speak of and which I deny; not the rules of debating.    

Professor: You are splitting hairs. There is only one class of moral rules, and the rules accepted by debaters are a part of this class. By denying the existence of universal morality, you thereby also deny the existence of the rules of debating, which is false.

Brian: I’m not going to continue along this line of argument with you, professor, because I don’t think we will get anywhere. All I will say is that if you think that these kinds of logic games are going to be able change the behavior of real people, you are in for a rude awakening.

Professor: Logic games?! Logic is humanity’s foremost intellectual tool in its quest to distinguish truth from falsehood! How can you trivialize it like that?!

Brian: Logic is wonderful when it enables us to discover useful truths about the world. So please tell me, professor, of what use to anyone is your supposedly ‘true’ code of morality?

Professor: It is irrelevant, when it comes to determining the truth of a proposition, how useful that proposition would be if accepted. It doesn’t matter how useful the statement: ‘there are no square circles’ is; it’s true regardless.

Brian: I’m not currently challenging the truth of your code of morality though. I’m just asking why anyone should care about it or follow it, even if it is ‘true’?

Professor: Everyone cares about the truth!

Brian: Well personally, I only care about truths that are useful to me when known. Truths that are not useful for me to know I couldn’t care less about. I’m not sure why anyone else would take a different attitude towards it, unless they were fanatically devoted to ‘The Truth’ as a kind of religious idol.

Professor: But that’s such a sordid attitude!

Brian: Appending negative adjectives to it does nothing to persuade me to change that attitude.

Priest: Enough! This argument has revealed to me that Brian is a lost soul, and the professor is an idolater. Come out of the darkness my sons! Return to God and the light!

Brian: I would be happy to believe in God if you could just prove to me that he actually exists.

Priest: One cannot ‘prove’ that God exists because God is incorporeal spirit, undetectable by normal human senses. God can only be approached through faith.

Brian: Then if God does exist, he must not want us to think that he exists. Otherwise, why would he have given humans the senses that cannot detect him and the eminently useful rational faculty that demands proof before accepting something as true?

Priest: That is not correct. God has spoken to several prophets over the years, and the Bible is the Word of God. Through these means, God has provided guidance to humanity; guidance that we must follow if we are to save our immortal souls.

Brian: Seems like a clumsy way for an all-powerful and all-knowing God to proceed. If he really wanted humans to act a certain way, why wouldn’t he just implant deep psychological urges into all humans impelling them to act in that way? Then humanity’s natural egoism and God’s plans would be in harmony. Seems like a more elegant solution than prophets, Bibles, and preachers.

Priest: Let egoism run wild?! Let voracious human appetites operate unchecked?! Nothing but evil and misery would result!

Professor: Finally something that the priest and I agree on!

Brian: It doesn’t really matter what you two think the results of humans following their natural egoistic impulses would be. Unless humans are brainwashed into foolishly subordinating their interests to the commands of intangible divine beings and external codes of morality, egoism is what they will naturally follow. Only the gullible will allow themselves to be brainwashed in this manner; sharp, vigorous people will remain egoists, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Professor: Well, sounds like we should ‘brainwash’ as many people as possible then!

Brian: You have an overly pessimistic view of human nature. Sympathy, reciprocity, the desire to preserve society by following suitable general rules of civilized life; these natural human tendencies, complemented by suitable systems of man-made law, operate to significantly reduce the incidence of egoistic actions causing direct harm to others. I would venture to say that dogmatic systems of religion and morality have caused far more harm to humanity than natural egoism ever has.

Professor: That haphazard approach is nowhere near as good as if humanity decided to follow a scientific, rational code of morality.

Brian: Perhaps, but since there is no reason for individual humans to consistently follow such a code of morality, only the gullible will end up following it consistently, while the sharp and the vigorous will not. I would prefer to help level the playing-field by showing everyone the groundlessness of all systems of morality. Only once this is done will we be able to see the results of general egoism, and compare them with what was achieved under religious or moralistic systems. Though I do not know for sure, my money would be on general egoism producing better results.

Dialogue: Product Safety Regulation

Leftist: You Libertarians are blinded by your dogmatic ideology. Surely no sane person could object to government product safety regulations! Without them, we’d be conned into buying putrid meat and toxic house paint!

Brian: Do you trust the government to keep you safe from dangerous products?

Leftist: Sure, for the most part.

Brian: Why do you trust them to do this?

Leftist: Well, they’ve done a pretty good job of it so far! They do make some mistakes sometimes, but no one’s perfect.

Brian: So you trust them because of their pretty good track-record in the past, is that right? You don’t just trust them because they’re the government?

Leftist: I trust them because of their past track-record.

Brian: Ok. Then would you also trust an organization that wasn’t a government to protect you from unsafe products, if that organization had a good reputation and had built up a good track-record of doing so in the past?

Leftist: I guess… But the question seems irrelevant: what organization other than a government could protect me from unsafe products?

Brian: A private organization that evaluated products for safety and then either approved the product or not. You could then choose to only buy products that had received approval from this organization, or a similar one, and you would be protected by them.

Leftist: But how would such an organization fund its activities? And what would ensure that product manufacturers allowed the organization to conduct its evaluation? What if the manufacturer prevented the organization from accessing its facilities? This would prevent a thorough safety evaluation from being done.

Brian: The product manufacturers would invite such organizations to evaluate their products, and would probably even pay the organization to conduct such an evaluation. That’s how such organizations would get both funding and access.

Leftist: What? Why would manufacturers want to do such a thing?

Brian: Because of discerning consumers such as yourself who want to be protected from unsafe products! Manufacturers would know that if they wanted to be able to effectively sell their products to safety-conscious consumers such as yourself, their product would need to be certified by a trusted, reputable product safety auditing firm. Or, it might be large retailers who demanded such a certification because they only wanted to sell safe products in their stores, in order to maintain their good reputation. For instance, even now with the government food inspectors in place, the Loblaw grocery store chain employs private food inspection firms to audit the facilities and practices of food suppliers.

Leftist: Ok, but if the product manufacturers themselves are paying for the safety evaluation, won’t their be pressure put on the safety inspectors to provide a favorable evaluation, even if one is not warranted, in order to satisfy their paying client?

Brian: Perhaps. But if the safety organization wanted to protect its most valuable business asset, it’s good reputation and track-record, than they would almost certainly resist that pressure in the vast majority of cases. Doing so would be in the best interests of their organization.

Leftist: I don’t know… Seems like a situation that would result in a lot of shenanigans.

Brian: Students pay to take university courses, do they not?

Leftist: Um, yeah… How is this relevant?

Brian: Students are also graded in university courses based on the work they do and the tests they write. Can students pay to both take a university course and to guarantee themselves a high mark in that course without doing the course work or writing the tests?

Leftist: Not unless the ‘university’ or the professor are very shady. Although, it is easier to get higher grades at some universities than it is at others.

Brian: And that’s something that an astute ‘consumer’ of the university credential, the potential employer of the graduate, will take into account when evaluating the meaning of that credential and those grades. The same applies to product safety. Some organizations will have higher standards for approval than others, but that’s something that an astute consumer or retailer will be aware of when making their decision. But an organization whose approval was just completely for sale to any company willing to pay the price would be as reputable as the ‘very shady’ university, and its credential would be worth as much in the eyes of the consumers.

Leftist: Ok, I’m beginning to see your point. But it all still seems like an unnecessary risk to me. Why not just stick with the government system, where the inspectors do not receive their funding from the people they are inspecting at all?

Brian: Have you ever heard of something called a ‘revolving door arrangement’?

Leftist: I’ve heard the term, but I’m not sure exactly what it means.

Brian: It refers to the ‘revolving door’ of employment between large companies and the government agencies that regulate them. Large companies like hiring former officials of the relevant regulatory agency so that they can know the ins and outs of and be on the good side of that agency. The regulatory agencies like hiring people from large companies in the industry because of their knowledge of the industry and connections within the industry. Officials in the agency might look forward to holding a lucrative position in that large company in the future, while other officials who used to work for that company might look favorably on their former workplace. Either way, it is likely that such officials will be biased in favor of the large company in question, and this will affect policy-making. Notable revolving door arrangements exist in the US between Goldman Sachs and the Securities Exchange Commission, and between Monsanto and the Food and Drug Administration, among others.  

Leftist: Ah, yes, I am aware that these kinds of corrupt practices go on. What is required is that the citizens scrutinize these agencies more closely, in order to prevent these things from getting out of hand.  

Brian: Ok. But rather than scrutinize and try to affect government agencies in your capacity as a democratic voter, couldn’t you just as easily, if not more easily, scrutinize and try to affect private safety organizations in your capacity as a consumer or consumer advocate?

Leftist: Well, I suppose you could. But why go through all the trouble to replace the government system that we have with an almost identical private system? I suspect that the only reason you want to do so is in order to maintain the purity of your libertarian ideology.

Brian: Because I have reason to believe that the private system will outperform the government system. Government safety agencies have a tendency to over-regulate, and because they have a coercive monopoly, there is no way to escape this over-regulation.

Leftist: Over-regulate? Who says?

Brian: It’s just a function of the way that the incentives are lined up. If a government over-zealously passes safety regulations that aren’t really worth the cost, the result is that some consumers and some businesses are annoyed. If a government fails to pass safety regulations that are worth the cost though, and someone is injured by a dangerous product as a result, there will be a big scandal. Annoyance is unlikely to translate into too many lost votes come election time, whereas a serious safety scandal could well be a significant factor in an election. As a result, the political masters of the safety agencies will want them to lean on the side of caution, thus producing a tendency to over-regulate. Similarly, annoyance is unlikely to result in safety bureaucrats losing their jobs, whereas a serious scandal probably would, thereby reinforcing the tendency to over-regulate.

Leftist: True, but you forget that politicians are reliant on the support and donations of big companies, whose ‘annoyance’ could therefore lead to serious problems in an election. And, for the bureaucrats themselves, there’s the ‘revolving door arrangement’ we were just talking about, which will mean that the safety bureaucrats won’t want to annoy the big companies in the industry through over-regulation. These will result in a countervailing tendency towards under-regulation.

Brian: Very astute of you! What you say is true. But this tendency to under-regulate that you described only applies to the activities of the companies with significant political clout, whereas the tendency to over-regulate that I described applies generally. The result is that while these tendencies may approximately balance one another out when it comes to regulating the activities of large companies with political clout, the activities of companies without political clout, especially smaller ones, will still tend to be over-regulated. In addition, this state of affairs will result in an artificial advantage accruing to large companies with political clout at the expense of their competition, which will result in an unwelcome distortion of the market. Thus, what you say, while true, hardly makes the case for the desirability of monopolistic government regulation.

Leftist: Ok, but where safety is concerned, over-regulation is much better than under-regulation, so I don’t see anything wrong with this incentive structure.

Brian: And I’m sure other people who are particularly cautious would agree with you, whereas others might not. But here’s the thing: in a free-market system of safety certification, you and the cautious people could have your preference satisfied, while the less cautious people could also have their preferences satisfied! You would only buy products approved by a very zealous and rigorous organization, and would be willing to pay for the privilege. Less cautious people might choose to buy cheaper products that were only approved by a less zealous and rigorous organization. In a monopolistic government system, the only safety versus utility/price trade-offs allowed are those approved by the regulators. In a free-market system, people can decide on their own desired safety versus utility/price trade-offs, and trust the certification organization whose risk tolerance is closest to their own. In addition, competition between the certification organizations will result in improvements in their service offerings, something that is lacking in the monopolistic government system.

Leftist: Fine, but this is all still very theoretical. Do you have a concrete example of government over-regulation?

Brian: I think the case of raw milk is a good example. Many western governments do not allow the commercial sale of raw milk, but require that it be pasteurised first. Pasteurised milk keeps longer and is generally safer to drink than raw milk; but advocates of raw milk say that milk tastes better and is more nutritious when raw. If proper safety precautions are taken and the milk is consumed in a timely fashion, raw milk can be safe as well. There are multiple possible explanations for the governments’ ban on raw milk. It could just be a classic case of over-regulation: where the government doesn’t want to be caught in a safety scandal by allowing the sale of a potentially dangerous drink. Or, it could be related to the political clout of the big dairy companies who hold major market share in the pasteurized milk market, whereas raw milk is generally the province of smaller dairy organizations. Perhaps both explanations are partially true.

Leftist: Or, it could be that banning raw milk is just good food safety policy!

Brian: Perhaps for many people it is, but obviously the raw milk advocates disagree. On a free-market for food safety certification, both groups could have their way without conflict. Perhaps raw milk wouldn’t be approved by any of the very zealous food safety organizations, and safety conscious people would avoid it as a result. But perhaps more accommodating food safety organizations would approve certain brands of raw milk, and then raw milk advocates could buy these brands. There is no sense forcing a one-size-fits-all policy on everyone when a more flexible approach can result in more people having their own ways.

Leftist: Well, I’m still a bit wary of the whole private safety regulation idea, but I think I do have a bit more respect for the libertarian position on the issue now.

Brian: I wouldn’t dare expect anything more. Thank you!  

   

Dialogue: Climate Change

Environmentalist: Our government needs to get serious about climate change! If the world doesn’t reduce its CO2 emissions fast, the earth will be heading for a climate catastrophe!

Brian: Really? What makes you so sure?

Environmentalist: Of course I’m sure; the science on the issue is settled.

Brian: Settled? So climate scientists don’t disagree with one another anymore? Remarkable!

Environmentalist: Oh, they still disagree about some things. But virtually all scientists agree that the earth’s climate is changing, and that higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, due to the greenhouse effect, will result in an increased global average temperature.

Brian: I’m glad that they agree on those things! It would take a pretty loony scientist to maintain that the earth’s climate remains constant, and a pretty ignorant one to deny the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But I don’t see how these points of agreement, by themselves, support your statement that unabated CO2 emissions will cause a climate catastrophe.

Environmentalist: Modern industrial activities result in CO2 emissions, which increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which causes the earth to warm. No real scientist would disagree with this.

Brian: Nor do I. But tell me, how much will the earth warm for every ton of CO2 emitted?

Environmentalist: That’s a complicated question best left for the climate scientists. They’ve built a number of predictive climate models that forecast what will happen to the earth’s climate depending on how much CO2 we continue to emit. They disagree somewhat on the details, but they all agree that unless we cut our CO2 emissions drastically, catastrophic warming will result in the not-so-distant future.

Brian: What are the temperature predictions in these models based on?

Environmentalist: Mostly based on the correlation between increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global average temperature, during the periods of the past where we have accurate measurements for those things.

Brian: Can’t have been for very long then. You would need some pretty good technology to accurately measure those things.

Environmentalist: Don’t worry, it’s been long enough.

Brian: Also, the scientists would have to be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. What if a factor other than increased CO2 caused much of the global average temperature rise that we observed within the last 30 or so years?

Environmentalist: Like what?

Brian: Well, there’s a phenomenon called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) which changes phases about once every 30 years, and whose ‘positive’ phase corresponds pretty well with the 30 years of warming we’ve experienced since the late 1970s. If the PDO cycles led to cyclical changes in global average cloud cover, that could affect the climate. That’s one possibility. Also, whatever caused the Little Ice Age (1350-1850, approx) to abate might still be contributing to current warming. And, we should never forget our bright shiny friend in the sky, the Sun. Even minor changes in solar activity could have potentially profound effects on the Earth’s climate.

Environmentalist: Well… I’m sure the climate scientists took all of that into due consideration.

Brian: Why? Because scientists never make mistakes when forecasting the future behavior of complex systems?

Environmentalist: Listen, the best evidence and models currently indicate that there will be significant warming as a result of continued CO2 emissions. Though it’s theoretically possible that this isn’t true, we have to work with what we have at the moment.

Brian: Or we could spend some more time studying the issue before taking any drastic action… But for the sake of argument, I will provisionally accept these scientists’ temperature predictions. But in that case, what’s so catastrophic about a bit of warming anyway? It’s cold up here in Canada!

Environmentalist: Don’t be simplistic. That ‘bit of warming’ will cause more hurricanes, draughts, and flooding due to a rising sea level.

Brian: Will it? How interesting. So the climate scientists have evidence that in warmer periods of the earth’s history, there were more natural disasters? The Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD, approx) was disaster-central?

Environmentalist: Well, we don’t have good records of the natural disasters that occurred then. But we do know that in our current warming phase there have been lots of natural disasters!

Brian: And lots of diligent meteorologists to record them and alert journalists to report on them.

Environmentalist: Sure, that too.

Brian: Assuming your climate scientists are right about everything, what would we have to do to avoid this climatic disaster?

Environmentalist: Drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2 emissions from industrial and transportation activities and methane emissions from agricultural livestock.

Brian:  Methane too? How do we reduce that?

Environmentalist: We have to all become vegetarians.

Brian: Ugh, sounds terrible. I love meat!

Environmentalist: Relax; being a vegetarian is better for you and more humane to animals anyway.

Brian: Nope, still sounds terrible. Anyway, how do we drastically reduce CO2 emissions? Reverse the Industrial Revolution?

Environmentalist: Some more extreme environmentalists might want that, but more moderate ones such as myself see the solution in a green energy revolution.

Brian: So increased use of nuclear power?

Environmentalist: Nuclear is too dangerous! Plants can melt down and the waste is very dangerous and difficult to dispose of.

Brian: Hydroelectric?

Environmentalist: No way! That requires damming natural waterways, thereby destroying habitats for animals and the homes and agricultural land of humans.

Brian: Geothermal maybe?

Environmentalist: Are you kidding? Digging into the earth like that can release dangerous gases into people’s basements and could contaminate aquifers. Besides, the process still results in emissions of CO2 and methane, though less so than for coal, oil, and natural gas.

Brian: Well, what then?

Environmentalist: Solar and Wind power of course!

Brian: But those are very inefficient and expensive ways of generating power, when compared with most other sources of energy.

Environmentalist: Too bad! They’re both safe and sustainable sources of energy! Besides, I’m sure the technology will eventually improve, thus making them more efficient.

Brian: It might, or it might not, it’s very hard to say.

Environmentalist: Well, even if it doesn’t, the sacrifice is worth it. Better inefficient energy sources than environmental catastrophe.

Brian: You know, energy plays an integral part in almost every aspect of our lives, from production to recreation. Mandating that only inefficient energy sources can be used will seriously affect our standard of living in many ways.

Environmentalist: Yes, in order to avert environmental disaster, we’ll have to cut back on some of our superfluous luxuries.

Brian: No, energy is not just used to produce superfluous luxuries; it is used to produce almost everything nowadays. Scarcer energy supplies will mean higher prices for almost everything, ‘necessities’ as well as ‘luxuries’, and a lower standard of living for everyone, whether you are rich or poor, in the First World or the Third World. 

Environmentalist: Well guess what? A climate catastrophe would also reduce the standard of living of everyone.

Brian: It might. But you know, a warmer climate would extend the growing season in many places, and a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would be better for plant growth.

Environmentalist: Yeah, but a lot of agricultural land would be flooded due to rising sea levels.

Brian: More people generally die of cold-related deaths than they do of heat-related deaths. So a warmer climate would be healthier in that regard!

Environmentalist: Tell that to the people whose cities are flooded…

Brian: Well, it sounds like if what your scientists predict will happen does happen, then some areas of the world will be made less suitable for human habitation, and some more suitable. Is that accurate?

Environmentalist: Yes, I suppose. But a lot of our major population centres were built in low-lying areas, which will be made a lot less suitable for human use as a result of climate change.

Brian: Ok, but would you agree that the greater capacity humans have to adjust to a changed climate, the more the negative effects of any climate change can be mitigated?

Environmentalist: Yes, of course.

Brian: Well, the more resources that we have at our disposal, the easier it will be to adjust to any climate change. Resources could be deployed to build dikes and sea walls to protect our cities against the rising sea level, like they did in the Netherlands. Or, resources could be deployed to quickly build new centres of human settlement in more suitable areas.

Environmentalist: All sounds very expensive to me. Why not just mitigate the threat instead, like I recommend?

Brian: Firstly, the mitigation measures that you propose may well be more damaging to our overall standard of living than just carrying on and making the necessary adjustments if/when a significant climate change does occur. Secondly, even if we did everything possible to ensure that humans didn’t affect the climate significantly, we know for certain that natural forces will eventually result in a significant climate change. So, whether caused by humans or not, we will eventually have to adjust to a significant climate change anyway. As such, we might as well be as well-prepared for it as possible, which means not sabotaging our industrial apparatus by severely restricting CO2 emissions.

Environmentalist: Sounds reckless and irresponsible to me. You are playing with people’s lives you know? You ought to be more careful.   

Brian: My friend, though you won’t recognize it, I could say the exact same thing about the policies that you are proposing. Threatening industrial civilization itself is equally, if not more, dangerous than threatening the Earth’s climate. If there’s one thing that you take away from this conversation, I hope it is that.

  

 

Book Release: Let The Best Idea Win

I'm happy to announce the release of my second book: Let The Best Idea Win.

It is available as an ebook here: 

http://www.amazon.ca/Let-Best-Idea-Win-Utilitarian-Libertarian-ebook/dp/B00P6SQMGW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415137809&sr=8-1&keywords=let+the+best+idea+win

Pro-Business

Businessman: What this country needs is a pro-business government! One that really looks out for the interests of the business community!

Brian: What kinds of things would you want the government to do to help the business community?

Businessman: Lots of things! They should stop over-regulating and over-taxing businesses. And they should adopt policies that will help domestic businesses to thrive and be competitive internationally.

Brian: I definitely agree with you about the taxes and regulations, but could you please be a bit more specific about the kinds of policies you would like to see besides that?

Businessman: More specific? Well, the government should form a partnership with its domestic businesses to promote the growth and development of those businesses.

Brian: What specifically should the government do to promote business growth and development, besides lay off a bit on the taxes and regulations?

Businessman: Well, it should partner with industry to develop marketable innovations.

Brian: It should subsidize certain businesses’ R&D spending?

Businessman: You can call it that if you like… And, it should ensure that our businesses are able to compete on a level-playing field with international companies.

Brian: It should put up tariff barriers to make it more difficult for low-cost international companies to compete on the domestic market?

Businessman: That might be one policy tool used… It should ensure that sufficient liquidity is always available in the financial system to prevent credit crunches.

Brian: It should be ready to run the monetary printing presses at full speed in order to bail out improvident firms when the market experiences a downturn?

Businessman: I’m not sure if that’s how I would describe it… The government should help maintain the good name of our industries by requiring new businesses to demonstrate a minimum level of professionalism and product quality before offering their wares on the market.

Brian: The government should use arbitrary licensing requirements to help the established businesses in an industry form an exclusive cartel to exclude small, innovative businesses from the industry, businesses that could have threatened the market share of the big players?

Businessman: I must object! You have been constantly distorting what I have been saying and putting words in my mouth!

Brian: Apologies if it seems that way, but that was not my intent. I merely wished to clarify the actual policies that the government would adopt in order to adhere to the general, and somewhat vague, guidelines that you suggested. If you would suggest specific policies instead of general guidelines than I would not need to do any interpretation.

Businessman: Well, I’m not a public policy expert, so I can’t do that. I can only offer general directions.

Brian: Ok. Then allow me to ask you a direct, but general, question: would you be satisfied if the government strictly limited itself to protecting the persons and properties of every member of society, including businesses?

Businessman: No, I would not. As I said, government also has a positive role to play in the successful development of our domestic industries.

Brian: Ok. But then you should recognize that whenever the government intervenes in order to favour a business, it generally also results in harm to another group in society, often the consumers, taxpayers, or smaller business competitors. There are two sides of most interventions. Are you comfortable with this?

Businessman: Well, I trust that the folks in government are capable of making these kinds of tough decisions, choosing to intervene only when the balance of advantages is in favour of the national interest as a whole.

Brian: If we have a given intervention that will clearly result in advantages to certain business interests and disadvantages to certain consumer interests, how exactly are we to go about determining whether this is in the ‘national interest’ or not?

Businessman: I’m no expert, but I would imagine that the intervention would be in the national interest if it led to an increase in the economic power of the nation.

Brian: But the consumers, who are also part of the nation, are losing economic power, while the businesses are gaining economic power as a result of the intervention. How do we know what happened to the economic power of the nation?

Businessman: Well, a nation with internationally competitive businesses in many important industries obviously has more clout on the world stage than a nation that doesn’t, and hence it has more economic power.

Brian: It’s true that the government of a country with these things has more power than the government of a country without them, because a threat to cut off trading relations by the former would be much more potent than the same threat by the latter. So an increase in economic power for a nation is analogous to an increase in the international political power of that country’s government? And that’s the goal that policy should be aiming at?

Businessman: Yes, I suppose that’s right.

Brian: I suspect that this kind of policy orientation will be systematically biased in favour of the interests of government officials and of big, established businesses. Ordinary consumers, general taxpayers, and smaller businesses will be routinely disadvantaged by such policies.

Businessman: Well, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Brian: And if I’m an egg, I do not want the omelette to be made at all. Thank you for making your position clear.

Businessman: Have I? What a bizarre discussion…