Why do I have to post the definition at all? Can't you Google it? How am I supposed to know beforehand what definitions you do and do not know?
Also I said nothing condescending- you misunderstood me if you thought I did.
Why do I have to post the definition at all? Can't you Google it? How am I supposed to know beforehand what definitions you do and do not know?
Also I said nothing condescending- you misunderstood me if you thought I did.
well it really is because a negitive "externality" is subjective also.
What is so negative about powering industry.
Jargan exists in all fields, my profession too, but to convey ideas to people that don't do what I do I have to either explain jargan, or use terms everyone can understand. And pigovian taxes are taxes to correct behavior deemed unacceptable by the government. People would never vote for it. So it tyranny. Using fuel doesn't create a nusance or a breech of peace.
burning fuel dose not keep people up at night, it dose not put naborhoods at risk of fire, and it doesn't make property values drop, those arguements aren't on subject.
Use tobacco taxes, that is on subject.
It is un american because it goes against the people. Our government is by the people for the people and of the people.Because you decide what "American" is?(also see above)
Our government is not, you do what we say because we know what is best.
If the people voted for more tax on fuel, okay then the tax would be american, because the people spoke. Governments obay us
Its all in the constitution
I understood exactly what it meant but you dont think it means what it means. Taxes to correct behavior, that is morality tax. Behavior is subjective.
I wanted to see your definition, because it doesn't sync up with the one I read.
This is a game people play, and you are not going to play it with me. Double talk and silly wording such as "negative externality" are not going to work on me. Many words in the english language have the same meaning. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
Explain to me how burning fuel creates a negative externality that can be fixed if the fed stole more money.
I wanted to see your definition, because it doesn't sync up with the one I read.
This is a game people play, and you are not going to play it with me. Double talk and silly wording such as "negative externality" are not going to work on me. Many words in the english language have the same meaning. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
Explain to me how burning fuel creates a negative externality that can be fixed if the fed stole more money.
Externalities are not generally subjective although their existence in some cases might be arguable. When it comes to gas usage and the impact on pollution and reserves they certainly are not.
Fantastic rhetoric but it does not mean anything. One can easily make the argument that what I am suggesting is also by the people, for the people, and of the people. (the Harm Principle is a potential basis- if you don't know what that is look up J.S. Mill)
Oh also, we are not a direct democracy- we don't vote on Federal laws like that- we are a Republic, so actually what you are suggesting is unconstitutional (I won't say unamerican since that does not mean anything) if it were done Federally (that we would all have to vote on it)
Fantastic rhetoric but it does not mean anything. One can easily make the argument that what I am suggesting is also by the people, for the people, and of the people. (the Harm Principle is a potential basis- if you don't know what that is look up J.S. Mill)
Oh also, we are not a direct democracy- we don't vote on Federal laws like that- we are a Republic, so actually what you are suggesting is unconstitutional (I won't say unamerican since that does not mean anything) if it were done Federally (that we would all have to vote on it)
The one in the wikipedia explains it fine. It has nothing to do with morality. Negative externalities are real costs.
The ham princaple dosent apply, because consuming fuel doesn't present possible harm to any citizen.
I know the harm princaple very well, i often use it in my career.
If there is no reason to assume that the person putting fuel in their car is creating a potentially hazardous situation beyond what is nomally expected then it is not aplicable.
I detain people on a weekly basis based on the harm princaple.
Your theory would not hold up in court.
I know the harm princaple very well, i often use it in my career.
If there is no reason to assume that the person putting fuel in their car is creating a potentially hazardous situation beyond what is nomally expected then it is not aplicable.
I detain people on a weekly basis based on the harm princaple.
Your theory would not hold up in court.
Pollution is a negative externality, so it does harm others. That is the whole point. This can apply to things like alcohol and cigarettes too.
And this has nothing to do with the legal system- no one is saying to throw people who use gas in jail. It is an economic argument to counter production of the externality.
And this has nothing to do with the legal system- no one is saying to throw people who use gas in jail. It is an economic argument to counter production of the externality.
It has everything to do with the legal system, how do empose a tax that will cost the american people millions and not get challenged in court
What harm dose burning fuel present, what illnesses are directly linked to it, what injurys, howmany people have died from people using fuel. What risk dose it put on colateral.
The harm princaple can not be applied to alcohol or tobacco.
What harm dose burning fuel present, what illnesses are directly linked to it, what injurys, howmany people have died from people using fuel. What risk dose it put on colateral.
The harm princaple can not be applied to alcohol or tobacco.
They are negative externalities. They have a negative impact on society. Just like pollution does. So arguably, yes it can.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[1] An equivalent was earlier stated in France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 as "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."
nowhere in there is their mention of a negative externality.
harm principle applies to individuales, and harm of individuals.
nowhere in there is their mention of a negative externality.
harm principle applies to individuales, and harm of individuals.
And when that cigarette gives you cancer and you take up medical resources? And what of when you don't drink at home and get into a bar fight or drunk drive? You're thinking too short term and too individualistically. Drug taxes (and Pigouvian taxes in general) look at the lifetime negative effects on the whole of society and are meant to cover the financial costs that result.
David answered this for me so I won't go into it too much, but you still use the healthcare system. You also use emergency services. You are also a member of society that other people look at maybe even as a role model (especially if you have children). I can go on and on.
Harm does not have to be about money. If someone murders someone else, that is harm. If someone poisons another, that is harm. In the same sense, if a firm creates pollution that makes people sick, that is harm.
The harm princaple is there to keep people safe from real danger, polution isnt danger. Polution is not a negative externality. You know so much about economics, why are you using an economic term for unseen loss in trade when you clearly mean polution. Just say polution. I can't argue that burning fuel polutes. But I can argue that there is no negative externality to buying fuel.
You do know more than me about economics. But princaples and law are my expertise i have to know it to do my job. I garentee you, that if you are using harm pricaple to apply fuel conservation and that is your only agurment. You have lost the arguement.
If there is no danger of injury, illness or collateral damage to an individual the harm princaple doesn't apply.
Without misuse of the phrase "negative externality" explain how people are being put in harms way by fuel consumption
You do know more than me about economics. But princaples and law are my expertise i have to know it to do my job. I garentee you, that if you are using harm pricaple to apply fuel conservation and that is your only agurment. You have lost the arguement.
If there is no danger of injury, illness or collateral damage to an individual the harm princaple doesn't apply.
Without misuse of the phrase "negative externality" explain how people are being put in harms way by fuel consumption
Pollution is one of the primary examples of a negative externality. It is probably in every econ101 textbook. Have fun with your anti-intellectualism as you live in the dark ages and keep looking down on people because you don't agree with them. Thankfully the people who get things done don't think like you so humanity has and can progress over time. I am done.
Similar threads
