letters

From the June 2010 issue

Climate Crackup

While Ronald Bailey’s “Climate Crackup” and Jonathan Adler’s “The EPA’s Carbon Footprint” (March) were interesting, I was disappointed to find no unique libertarian perspective on global warming. 

I believe the uniquely libertarian position is that those who claim harm have the burden of proof. Activists, government agencies, and the courts have tried to subvert this legal requirement of the criminal and civil justice systems for decades by imposing regulatory schemes that require actors to prove they are not harming others. Most recently, they have pushed the “precautionary principle,” which in the extreme version would ban all human action if taken to an extreme. 

In March 1981, I wrote a feature for reason about a fictional U.S. Supreme Court decision (“Supreme Court Overturns Saccharine Ban”). The article argued against the use of the police power in federal drug regulation. Since it is impossible to prove a drug is safe, the burden of proof should be placed on those who claim harm. Unless this burden is met, others should be free to pursue their actions. As Chick Hearn, the late announcer for the Los Angeles Lakers, famously put this libertarian position: “No harm, no foul.” 

Is global warming real, caused by human activity, and harmful? I don’t know, but the burden is on those who say yes. 

Bruce K. Bell 

Moorpark, CA 

The Myth of the Recovery

I was struck by two related observations in Anthony Randazzo’s article “The Myth of the Recovery” (April).

First this: “The root problem of mortgage delinquencies has yet to be worked out.” 

The “root problem” of mortgage delinquencies is that A loaned $X to B so that B could buy a house. It has become clear that the house is not worth $X, and neither A nor B wants to take the loss. That is a problem for A and for B, but for the rest of us cheap housing should be good news. If a machine were developed tomorrow which could produce houses for free, would that be a national disaster?

Then there is this observation: “But the program [of homebuyer tax credits] has only helped individual buyers and sellers, not the housing market as a whole.” 

The program allows up to $8,000 in tax credits for people who buy houses. Since this program is restricted to first-time homebuyers, and many potential homebuyers have bought one already or cannot take advantage of an $8,000 tax credit, it has not succeeded in jacking house prices back up to their former insane levels. There are still lots of houses for sale at historically low prices. 

And that’s bad news? What would good news look like? One hundred percent increases in the cost of everything?

What is passing strange here is that a precipitous decline in the price of a very widely used product is regarded as a problem. Is anyone concerned about the failure of the “gasoline market” to “recover,” so we can all pay $4 per gallon again? If the price of gasoline were to fall to $1, would anyone (besides Al Gore) regard that as a calamity?

Comments

nfl jerseys|11.4.10 @ 10:56PM|#

nkjh

log in or register to reply

sd|1.25.12 @ 4:25AM|#

sd

log in or register to reply