Exxon Mobil profit soars 41%

[Super Dude]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

This.

Seconded.

Edit: And @ WW's argument about the economics of energy, Massachusetts, California, and Colorado have all shown cleaner energy to be just as efficient if not more than oil, and the latter two have done it much cheaper with Massachusetts rapidly approaching that point where non-automotive energy is concerned.

Don't you see the flaw in your argument? Your preferred energy sources require states to fund them; they can't compete in the energy market. If people can't afford to power their cars and homes with alternative fuels, unless they're propped up with public money, you have a major problem.

That's the argument you see. The argument I was making was just that it so happened that in those states, it's picked up. I never said anything about government intervention. In fact the only one of those that required major government intervention was Massachusetts, and even so the only intervention necessary now is to raise the peak load limit on net-metering, which is only necessary because of how rapidly the solar market is growing there. In lamest terms: the clean energy market can take care of itself, and the only government only steps in because it is growing.

Even assuming that isn't the case though, the only reason government intervention really is necessary in favor of clean energy is because of the powerful and unfair monopoly dirty energy companies have created for themselves. It has nothing to do with oil being "better," everything to do with their lobbies being big and well-funded to grease up politicians.

[King Postwhore]

I love your agruments but in the end we, the buyers are paying more than we should for gas and oil.  the cost of living has gone up 200% in 7 years while the oil companies make hand over fist.  And yet out government can't seem to help out their employers....us.  Sure prices will always go up but not at the rate of the last 7 years where most have not had a raise or lost jobs in this time.

The government needs a wake up call.

[Super Dude]

I love your agruments but in the end we, the buyers are paying more than we should for gas and oil.  the cost of living has gone up 200% in 7 years while the oil companies make hand over fist.  And yet out government can't seem to help out their employers....us.  Sure prices will always go up but not at the rate of the last 7 years where most have not had a raise or lost jobs in this time.

The government needs a wake up call.

Exactly why I do what I do.

[William Wallace]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

This.

Seconded.

Edit: And @ WW's argument about the economics of energy, Massachusetts, California, and Colorado have all shown cleaner energy to be just as efficient if not more than oil, and the latter two have done it much cheaper with Massachusetts rapidly approaching that point where non-automotive energy is concerned.

Don't you see the flaw in your argument? Your preferred energy sources require states to fund them; they can't compete in the energy market. If people can't afford to power their cars and homes with alternative fuels, unless they're propped up with public money, you have a major problem.

That's the argument you see. The argument I was making was just that it so happened that in those states, it's picked up. I never said anything about government intervention. In fact the only one of those that required major government intervention was Massachusetts, and even so the only intervention necessary now is to raise the peak load limit on net-metering, which is only necessary because of how rapidly the solar market is growing there. In lamest terms: the clean energy market can take care of itself, and the only government only steps in because it is growing.

Even assuming that isn't the case though, the only reason government intervention really is necessary in favor of clean energy is because of the powerful and unfair monopoly dirty energy companies have created for themselves. It has nothing to do with oil being "better," everything to do with their lobbies being big and well-funded to grease up politicians.

I don't have a special attachment to oil or Exxon Mobil, and I would like cheaper, more efficient energy.  But that doesn't come to fruition without subsidies for whatever technology is in vogue at the moment, and then it's still a rather significant investment for most people.

And the idea that growth is the reason solar needs support is nonsense. Actual growth, which comes because a business serves its customers well, doesn't require any such intervention. 

Nobody has owned up to the reality that what the oil industry gets is the blessing from government not to pay as much of their profits in taxes. Is that clear? They legitimately earn money and because of tax incentives actually retain it. That's fantastic. Now, I'd be in favor of withdrawing any benefit they may get from lenient policies, somebody mentioned resource wars earlier.

Scheavo pointed out that he's not in favor of any kind of lobbying - cool. But the rest of you have yet to address the fact that you want an active government, yet you loathe people you don't like lobbying and benefiting from that same government. It seems like you want to make the rules and assign everybody a role, then shut their mouths for the good of society.

[Orthogonal]

Solar and wind can be added to our existing land structure, and it's much more spread out, less centralized. The fact that people can buy solar panels, and see a return on their investment within their lifetime, shows you that solar panels are obviously enough to power a home, and is economically viable. Furthermore, there are some ingenious methods of storing energy at night, when we don't need them. Natural batteries, pumping water up hill, making a huge flywheel, etc. These improve the viability of man green options becuase you can store them, en masse, for use on demand.

The fact that people can see an ROI "within their lifetime" is precisely why it is not viable. An amortization over a lifetime or even a decade is not something you are going to convince average joe to agree to. Renewable energy sources will always have an uphill battle.

So your argument is basically that becuase something takes a long time to pay off, it's not worth doing? Or that it make's it not viable? Because that's just plain silly.

If something takes a long time to pay off, it may or may not be worth doing. It is up to the individual to decide. Instead of sinking billions of dollars into a technology that could take decades to pay for itself, perhaps the money could have been better spent investing in an alternative technology that will pay off sooner. No one has the answer or knows what is the right course of action to yield the best long-term results. A free-market gives the freedom to allow all possible courses to be pursued simultaneously.

[Scheavo]

If something takes a long time to pay off, it may or may not be worth doing....perhaps the money could have been better spent investing in an alternative technology that will pay off sooner. No one has the answer or knows what is the right course of action to yield the best long-term results.

 

That's just logically fallacious, by pure definition of terms. If it pays off, it's worth doing. You would see the benefits of solar panels on your roof, I would see the benefits of solar panels on my room, my neighbor would see the benefits of solar panels on my roof, a guy across my state would notice benefits from solar panels on my roof. You want a shorter term pay off? Go get a loan for geo-thermal energy, depending upon your house, you'll save money this exact month, and in a few years when that loan is paid off, you'll be saving a ton of money. If you think that somehow, an investment that takes ten years to start paying off is a malinvestment, you're just being completely short sighted. This isn't some mysterious field of technology, it is something easily understandable, it's basically just math. The best long-term results, period, involved being more efficient now, and the sooner you can be more efficient, the better. Period. You know what does not lead to the best long-term results? Continuing to use the outdated, inefficient, dirty and polluting form of energy we have right now.

You're making an argument that since the market hasn't done it yet, it's not effective, or efficient. That is just fucking false on every level, on every logical level, and shows just how reliant you are upon this one idea of the market being the answer to everything.

[eric42434224]

I love your agruments but in the end we, the buyers are paying more than we should for gas and oil.  the cost of living has gone up 200% in 7 years while the oil companies make hand over fist.  And yet out government can't seem to help out their employers....us.  Sure prices will always go up but not at the rate of the last 7 years where most have not had a raise or lost jobs in this time.

The government needs a wake up call.

Where do you see the cost of living has gone up 200% in 7 years?
Do you realize what that means?  Inflation would have to average 17% a year compounded.
So obviously that isnt correct, as the average rate is somwhere in the vicinity of 3% (and we actually had DEflation for a while in 2009 if I remember correctly)

[Orthogonal]

If something takes a long time to pay off, it may or may not be worth doing....perhaps the money could have been better spent investing in an alternative technology that will pay off sooner. No one has the answer or knows what is the right course of action to yield the best long-term results.

 

That's just logically fallacious, by pure definition of terms. If it pays off, it's worth doing. You would see the benefits of solar panels on your roof, I would see the benefits of solar panels on my room, my neighbor would see the benefits of solar panels on my roof, a guy across my state would notice benefits from solar panels on my roof. You want a shorter term pay off? Go get a loan for geo-thermal energy, depending upon your house, you'll save money this exact month, and in a few years when that loan is paid off, you'll be saving a ton of money. If you think that somehow, an investment that takes ten years to start paying off is a malinvestment, you're just being completely short sighted. This isn't some mysterious field of technology, it is something easily understandable, it's basically just math. The best long-term results, period, involved being more efficient now, and the sooner you can be more efficient, the better. Period. You know what does not lead to the best long-term results? Continuing to use the outdated, inefficient, dirty and polluting form of energy we have right now.

You're making an argument that since the market hasn't done it yet, it's not effective, or efficient. That is just fucking false on every level, on every logical level, and shows just how reliant you are upon this one idea of the market being the answer to everything.

You have a bizarre definition of logical fallacy. First, you are making false comparisons of interpersonal utility and value. Second, I never said that buying solar panel's is malinvestment, only that an exceedingly long amortization would cause people to think twice about it, especially when you could make more money investing in something else.

[King Postwhore]

I love your agruments but in the end we, the buyers are paying more than we should for gas and oil.  the cost of living has gone up 200% in 7 years while the oil companies make hand over fist.  And yet out government can't seem to help out their employers....us.  Sure prices will always go up but not at the rate of the last 7 years where most have not had a raise or lost jobs in this time.

The government needs a wake up call.

Where do you see the cost of living has gone up 200% in 7 years?
Do you realize what that means?  Inflation would have to average 17% a year compounded.
So obviously that isnt correct, as the average rate is somwhere in the vicinity of 3% (and we actually had DEflation for a while in 2009 if I remember correctly)

On my oil prices Eric.  In 2004 it cost $1.09 a gallon today it's $3.39 which is more than 200%  Hell even gas has gone up that much and we are talking about exxon so when in Rome....

[Scheavo]

You have a bizarre definition of logical fallacy. First, you are making false comparisons of interpersonal utility and value. Second, I never said that buying solar panel's is malinvestment, only that an exceedingly long amortization would cause people to think twice about it, especially when you could make more money investing in something else.

When something is true by definition, and another person denies, the logic the denier is using is fallacious. Again, this is true by definition.

You can say you don't think this is a good investment, like you do, but you can't at the same time say because people are a hard sell, that green energy us thus invalid, not applicable, etc. The fact that people don't know their ass from heads sometimes doesn't meant that their ass and their head are indistinguishable.

[Orthogonal]

You have a bizarre definition of logical fallacy. First, you are making false comparisons of interpersonal utility and value. Second, I never said that buying solar panel's is malinvestment, only that an exceedingly long amortization would cause people to think twice about it, especially when you could make more money investing in something else.

When something is true by definition, and another person denies, the logic the denier is using is fallacious. Again, this is true by definition.

You can say you don't think this is a good investment, like you do, but you can't at the same time say because people are a hard sell, that green energy us thus invalid, not applicable, etc. The fact that people don't know their ass from heads sometimes doesn't meant that their ass and their head are indistinguishable.

I never said Green technology is "invalid", it clearly works. I merely highlighted its significant economic disadvantages to natural energy Stores.

[Super Dude]

Which it doesn't have because they're cheaper and in a lot of places inside and out of the U.S., outselling dirty energy nowadays.

I find it ironic btw that the U.S. lags behind the world once again. Slavery, civil rights, abortion...all from the modern world's first liberal democracy.

[Scheavo]

You have a bizarre definition of logical fallacy. First, you are making false comparisons of interpersonal utility and value. Second, I never said that buying solar panel's is malinvestment, only that an exceedingly long amortization would cause people to think twice about it, especially when you could make more money investing in something else.

When something is true by definition, and another person denies, the logic the denier is using is fallacious. Again, this is true by definition.

You can say you don't think this is a good investment, like you do, but you can't at the same time say because people are a hard sell, that green energy us thus invalid, not applicable, etc. The fact that people don't know their ass from heads sometimes doesn't meant that their ass and their head are indistinguishable.

I never said Green technology is "invalid", it clearly works. I merely highlighted its significant economic disadvantages to natural energy Stores.

Which dwindle day by day, and are partly a disadvantage precisely becuase they aren't being bought. One of the single biggest reasons solar panels are expensive is becuase not enough of them are produced. If there was a high enough demand, the mass-production of the solar panels would drop the individual price significantly. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a problem the "free-market" is too short-sighted to address. They're disadvantageous to greed.

[Orthogonal]

You have a bizarre definition of logical fallacy. First, you are making false comparisons of interpersonal utility and value. Second, I never said that buying solar panel's is malinvestment, only that an exceedingly long amortization would cause people to think twice about it, especially when you could make more money investing in something else.

When something is true by definition, and another person denies, the logic the denier is using is fallacious. Again, this is true by definition.

You can say you don't think this is a good investment, like you do, but you can't at the same time say because people are a hard sell, that green energy us thus invalid, not applicable, etc. The fact that people don't know their ass from heads sometimes doesn't meant that their ass and their head are indistinguishable.

I never said Green technology is "invalid", it clearly works. I merely highlighted its significant economic disadvantages to natural energy Stores.

Which dwindle day by day, and are partly a disadvantage precisely becuase they aren't being bought. One of the single biggest reasons solar panels are expensive is becuase not enough of them are produced. If there was a high enough demand, the mass-production of the solar panels would drop the individual price significantly. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a problem the "free-market" is too short-sighted to address. They're disadvantageous to greed.

Mass production will bring prices down considerably, but the disadvantages I outlined are the physical characteristics regarding the relative energy densities of each energy store. This is something that cannot be overcome, it's physics, not opinion. Production of Green technologies will have to out produce that of dirty energy sources by several times to become cheaper. However, in the future, at some point, production of natural resources will decline due to their finite quantities and we will see a very swift transfer to renewable sources since they are for all practical purposes, unlimited.

[Super Dude]

The energy grid solves quite a few of those density problems; I'm planning on writing an extensive paper on that very subject.

Also I never understood the logic of the argument for switching to alternatives only once the dirty energy runs out. If we're planning on switching over anyway, and we're at a point that absent subsidies for anyone clean energy is actually very competitive with oil, what's the point in waiting? If I can recharge my electric car for cheaper than I could fill up my gas tank (and that is increasingly becoming the case), what are we waiting for?

[Fiery Winds]

The energy grid solves quite a few of those density problems; I'm planning on writing an extensive paper on that very subject.

Also I never understood the logic of the argument for switching to alternatives only once the dirty energy runs out. If we're planning on switching over anyway, and we're at a point that absent subsidies for anyone clean energy is actually very competitive with oil, what's the point in waiting? If I can recharge my electric car for cheaper than I could fill up my gas tank (and that is increasingly becoming the case), what are we waiting for?

Except that electricity has to be generated somehow, and in the US it's still predominately fossil fuels. 

[Scheavo]

You have a bizarre definition of logical fallacy. First, you are making false comparisons of interpersonal utility and value. Second, I never said that buying solar panel's is malinvestment, only that an exceedingly long amortization would cause people to think twice about it, especially when you could make more money investing in something else.

When something is true by definition, and another person denies, the logic the denier is using is fallacious. Again, this is true by definition.

You can say you don't think this is a good investment, like you do, but you can't at the same time say because people are a hard sell, that green energy us thus invalid, not applicable, etc. The fact that people don't know their ass from heads sometimes doesn't meant that their ass and their head are indistinguishable.

I never said Green technology is "invalid", it clearly works. I merely highlighted its significant economic disadvantages to natural energy Stores.

Which dwindle day by day, and are partly a disadvantage precisely becuase they aren't being bought. One of the single biggest reasons solar panels are expensive is becuase not enough of them are produced. If there was a high enough demand, the mass-production of the solar panels would drop the individual price significantly. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a problem the "free-market" is too short-sighted to address. They're disadvantageous to greed.

Mass production will bring prices down considerably, but the disadvantages I outlined are the physical characteristics regarding the relative energy densities of each energy store. This is something that cannot be overcome, it's physics, not opinion. Production of Green technologies will have to out produce that of dirty energy sources by several times to become cheaper. However, in the future, at some point, production of natural resources will decline due to their finite quantities and we will see a very swift transfer to renewable sources since they are for all practical purposes, unlimited.

But the easy availability of renewable outweighs their disadvantage in density. It also needs less energy density to achieve greater outputs becuase it's more efficient. There's also the question of just what we need. The energy density of getting power from the sun may be lower than fossil fuels, but it's enough to power an individual home.

And I don't want to wait until we destroy our environment even more to start making these changes.

[Super Dude]

You have a bizarre definition of logical fallacy. First, you are making false comparisons of interpersonal utility and value. Second, I never said that buying solar panel's is malinvestment, only that an exceedingly long amortization would cause people to think twice about it, especially when you could make more money investing in something else.

When something is true by definition, and another person denies, the logic the denier is using is fallacious. Again, this is true by definition.

You can say you don't think this is a good investment, like you do, but you can't at the same time say because people are a hard sell, that green energy us thus invalid, not applicable, etc. The fact that people don't know their ass from heads sometimes doesn't meant that their ass and their head are indistinguishable.

I never said Green technology is "invalid", it clearly works. I merely highlighted its significant economic disadvantages to natural energy Stores.

Which dwindle day by day, and are partly a disadvantage precisely becuase they aren't being bought. One of the single biggest reasons solar panels are expensive is becuase not enough of them are produced. If there was a high enough demand, the mass-production of the solar panels would drop the individual price significantly. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a problem the "free-market" is too short-sighted to address. They're disadvantageous to greed.

Mass production will bring prices down considerably, but the disadvantages I outlined are the physical characteristics regarding the relative energy densities of each energy store. This is something that cannot be overcome, it's physics, not opinion. Production of Green technologies will have to out produce that of dirty energy sources by several times to become cheaper. However, in the future, at some point, production of natural resources will decline due to their finite quantities and we will see a very swift transfer to renewable sources since they are for all practical purposes, unlimited.

But the easy availability of renewable outweighs their disadvantage in density. It also needs less energy density to achieve greater outputs becuase it's more efficient. There's also the question of just what we need. The energy density of getting power from the sun may be lower than fossil fuels, but it's enough to power an individual home.

And I don't want to wait until we destroy our environment even more to start making these changes.

This. Even if you don't believe in global warming, surely you can see air pollution well enough, as well as water pollution that comes from factories 'n' shit.

Also:



I know it's just a political cartoon, but think about that for a second. What's so terrible about creating a better world?

The energy grid solves quite a few of those density problems; I'm planning on writing an extensive paper on that very subject.

Also I never understood the logic of the argument for switching to alternatives only once the dirty energy runs out. If we're planning on switching over anyway, and we're at a point that absent subsidies for anyone clean energy is actually very competitive with oil, what's the point in waiting? If I can recharge my electric car for cheaper than I could fill up my gas tank (and that is increasingly becoming the case), what are we waiting for?

Except that electricity has to be generated somehow, and in the US it's still predominately fossil fuels. 

So? The switch to alternatives is a lot easier than you think. Again, look at how the rest of the world has gotten way ahead of us in this. Hell, even China has a notable clean energy sector now.

[eric42434224]

I love your agruments but in the end we, the buyers are paying more than we should for gas and oil.  the cost of living has gone up 200% in 7 years while the oil companies make hand over fist.  And yet out government can't seem to help out their employers....us.  Sure prices will always go up but not at the rate of the last 7 years where most have not had a raise or lost jobs in this time.

The government needs a wake up call.

Where do you see the cost of living has gone up 200% in 7 years?
Do you realize what that means?  Inflation would have to average 17% a year compounded.
So obviously that isnt correct, as the average rate is somwhere in the vicinity of 3% (and we actually had DEflation for a while in 2009 if I remember correctly)

On my oil prices Eric.  In 2004 it cost $1.09 a gallon today it's $3.39 which is more than 200%  Hell even gas has gone up that much and we are talking about exxon so when in Rome....

Then dont say cost of "living", say cost of "oil"....enourmous difference there.  That isnt Rome...that isnt even on the same planet as Rome.

Not only that, but you are missing a big point.  $1.09 for gas in 2004 was way less that what you should have been paying for gas, and that really distorts the facts.  Gas was $2.50 in the 70s and up to $3.50 in the 80s.  Picking the absolute lowest price point in decades (and one that is obviously lower than it should have been) as your starting point is not being intellectually honest.  I could take the data from 1981 to present and show that gas prices have DECREASED over the past 30 years.

[Orthogonal]

And I don't want to wait until we destroy our environment even more to start making these changes.

This. Even if you don't believe in global warming, surely you can see air pollution well enough, as well as water pollution that comes from factories 'n' shit.

Also:



I know it's just a political cartoon, but think about that for a second. What's so terrible about creating a better world?

Haha, funny cartoon, but seriously, it is just a derivative of this argument:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Which is really only reframing the global warming debate and patterning it after Pascal's Wager, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager, which has some logical fallacies.

However, you do lead into a good point that hasn't really been addressed so far. There is one other artificial advantage that the "dirty" energies currently have over green technologies, in that they are able to externalize the cost of their waste/pollution on the rest of society. There are numerous regulations proposed to deal with this effect, but they do little to get to the root cause. The ideal situation in using "dirty" energy is to have the cost of waste/pollution fully internalized by those who use it, and thus it effects their bottom line. This will then incentivize the development of cleaner production processes since reducing waste will correlate to increased profitability. The only real way to achieve this outcome is through tort. This is an area where we have been terrible in enforcing. Only a handful of egregious cases has tort been used for restitution.

If this were to occur, it wouldn't tilt the balance in favor of green technologies, but it would close the gap.

[Scheavo]

Which is really only reframing the global warming debate and patterning it after Pascal's Wager, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager, which has some logical fallacies.

Many of those fallacies are gotten away when using this in global warming. For instance, there is no morality concerned here. In this case, it isn't' a question of whether or not "God" (in this case, green technology) exists and is better. Epistemological, they aren't a good comparison, though on logical grounds, I agree that they mirror each other... but that's just becuase both are wagers. Wagers are not fallacious. 

The ideal situation in using "dirty" energy is to have the cost of waste/pollution fully internalized by those who use it, and thus it effects their bottom line. This will then incentivize the development of cleaner production processes since reducing waste will correlate to increased profitability. The only real way to achieve this outcome is through tort. This is an area where we have been terrible in enforcing. Only a handful of egregious cases has tort been used for restitution.

I just don't 'see how legality is going to come into play here. The courts are going to require proof, and when everything in an environment effects everything else, you're going to have a damned hard time proving anything. Why not just make the changes legally, and enforce those laws? It would amount to the same thing, where companies have to "internalize" the costs.

Also, the point you bring up that "hasn't' been addressed," has been addressed. I brought it up in one reason why this gives government the ability to step in, becuase your liberty stops at my door step.

[King Postwhore]

So the war caused a spike in 81/82 and you ok with that?  after that one year it went right back  Hell!  It was barely over $1   Sorry Eric but a jump like that in these times with the amount of profit oil companies are making should be cause enough for us to complain about what the government is doing.  I am all for companies making money.  That's business, but the amount of profit with what Americans are going through is shameful.  There is no other way to say it.

BTW gas was 36 cents in 1970 and my dad was not ok with what happened with the gas prices either.  Just because it increased doesn't make it ok or the norm.  Like I've said before.  I'm all for increases just not the spikes we've seen in the last 7 years.

[jsem]

Thought this video would be fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8KuPTYG-c

Walter Block is a true hero. He basically argues that only through strict enforcement of property rights can you have a stable environment. Orthogonal would enjoy this, if he hasn't already seen it.

[Orthogonal]

Thanks jsem, I hadn't heard that lecture. Block is a stud. 

[Scheavo]

He basically argues that only through strict enforcement of property rights can you have a stable environment.

But how do you enforce those property rights?

[William Wallace]

Thought this video would be fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8KuPTYG-c

Walter Block is a true hero. He basically argues that only through strict enforcement of property rights can you have a stable environment. Orthogonal would enjoy this, if he hasn't already seen it.

Guaranteed to piss off almost everybody: Walter Block. He's one of my heroes.

[eric42434224]

So the war caused a spike in 81/82 and you ok with that?  after that one year it went right back  Hell!  It was barely over $1   Sorry Eric but a jump like that in these times with the amount of profit oil companies are making should be cause enough for us to complain about what the government is doing.  I am all for companies making money.  That's business, but the amount of profit with what Americans are going through is shameful.  There is no other way to say it.

BTW gas was 36 cents in 1970 and my dad was not ok with what happened with the gas prices either.  Just because it increased doesn't make it ok or the norm.  Like I've said before.  I'm all for increases just not the spikes we've seen in the last 7 years.

It spikes up...and down.   You are OK with increaes, which you should be, but not if it isnt a nice smooth ride?  Im not sure what you are upset about.  If you look at the history of gas prices, they really arent that high when adjusted for inflation.

[TempusVox]

Good for them.

This.

As a share holder, good for me too!

[eric42434224]

Good for them.

This.

As a share holder, good for me too!

As are likely the majority of adult posters here.  If you own mutual funds, you likely have a position in Exxon Mobil.

[jsem]

He basically argues that only through strict enforcement of property rights can you have a stable environment.

But how do you enforce those property rights?

Tort laws. Watch the lecture.

If someone pollutes your property, you take them to court. That's an oversimplified version of what would happen.

[Scheavo]

He basically argues that only through strict enforcement of property rights can you have a stable environment.

But how do you enforce those property rights?

Tort laws. Watch the lecture.

If someone pollutes your property, you take them to court. That's an oversimplified version of what would happen.

And how do I prove that that person polluted my property? Do I sue every single driver who comes by my house? Even if I do sue them, how do I prove that it was their pollution, and not the innumerable other possibilities. Say I find a pollutant on my property that I don't want, how do I then track it to it's source?

A court of law would require proof being given to ascertain the defendants actual guilt. Such proof would be possible in some cases, but is fucking impossible when we start talking about air and water, and both of those will take pollutants with it. The environment basically forbids you from being able to prove an individual did this or that to your property, so you'd have to sue, like, everyone.

[jsem]

Walter Block brings that up. In a free society, where roads are private, you sue the owner of the road. The road owner then has to impose costs on vehicles driving on his roads that pollute so that he doesn't get sued frivolously. You're right that it is inconceivable to sue every car driver that goes past your house.

The topic of air and water, well... If you'd privatize the ocean, you'd decrease the risks of say oil spills dramatically. And also stop overfishing the oceans. If say Exxon Mobil spills oil in your property, you can sue the crap out of them. If a Louisiana fisherman would own his share of the ocean, he could've just sued the crap out of BP. And any one fishing in his property would be trespassing.

Air is a difficult subject though, I don't have a good answer to that. I mean, we all breathe out CO2, which is a poison - but you can't outlaw breathing. I'll have to think about that.

[hefdaddy42]

Walter Block brings that up. In a free society, where roads are private, you sue the owner of the road. The road owner then has to impose costs on vehicles driving on his roads that pollute so that he doesn't get sued frivolously. You're right that it is inconceivable to sue every car driver that goes past your house.

The topic of air and water, well... If you'd privatize the ocean, you'd decrease the risks of say oil spills dramatically. And also stop overfishing the oceans. If say Exxon Mobil spills oil in your property, you can sue the crap out of them. If a Louisiana fisherman would own his share of the ocean, he could've just sued the crap out of BP. And any one fishing in his property would be trespassing.

Air is a difficult subject though, I don't have a good answer to that. I mean, we all breathe out CO2, which is a poison - but you can't outlaw breathing. I'll have to think about that.

So, in a free society, nothing is free?

[Super Dude]

I know this is OT, but what incentive does anyone in such a society, in which we live for ourselves and not for others, have to build a road? Sounds like all cost and no benefit, where one can expect only negative feedback.

[Orthogonal]

I know this is OT, but what incentive does anyone in such a society, in which we live for ourselves and not for others, have to build a road? Sounds like all cost and no benefit, where one can expect only negative feedback.

What incentive does anyone have to do anything? People don't necessarily work at a job because they like making widgets, or pushing paper on desks, it's because someone will pay them to do it. People do a lot of things that they have no personal interest in, just because they can make a living doing it. You pursue your own ends and benefit all along the way by the help of other's that have no interest in what your ends are.

People take for granted everything that is produced around them and don't realize how advanced things are or the complex network required to make it. There was a brilliant short essay written in the 50's by Leonard E Read, where he shows how there is no one in the world, anywhere, that knows how to build something as simple as a pencil. Yet, we produce millions of them in spite of the fact that no one person can do it, and not one person in the long chain of production necessarily had any desire to build a pencil.

I, Pencil
https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

Walter Block brings that up. In a free society, where roads are private, you sue the owner of the road. The road owner then has to impose costs on vehicles driving on his roads that pollute so that he doesn't get sued frivolously. You're right that it is inconceivable to sue every car driver that goes past your house.

The topic of air and water, well... If you'd privatize the ocean, you'd decrease the risks of say oil spills dramatically. And also stop overfishing the oceans. If say Exxon Mobil spills oil in your property, you can sue the crap out of them. If a Louisiana fisherman would own his share of the ocean, he could've just sued the crap out of BP. And any one fishing in his property would be trespassing.

Air is a difficult subject though, I don't have a good answer to that. I mean, we all breathe out CO2, which is a poison - but you can't outlaw breathing. I'll have to think about that.

So, in a free society, nothing is free?

Semantics. It means free association, not free stuff. Although, that doesn't mean you can't get free stuff, companies give out freebie promotions all the time, there are also charities. The difference is that it is always voluntary.