Reddit mentions of The Case for a Carbon Tax: Getting Past Our Hang-ups to Effective Climate Policy

I didn't forget, they just haven't worked as well.

Have you read this book? It lays out why economists tend to prefer carbon taxes.

> Can you explain more?

If you believe the primary factor of wealth is hard work, then you are starting from a labor theory of value.

Economists advocate Capitalism for its efficient use of resources, but this seems a distant second to many Libertarians (not you, it seems).

> How am I taking the side of the Marxist?

Marx argued that Property restricts labor and autonomy, and is used to create a monopoly over the resources owned to restrict competition, exploit workers, and consolidate excess wealth. You seem to be agreeing with this view when it comes to IP, but ignoring it when talking about diamond mines.

If I had to bet, this is because IP impacts the "means of production" in your daily life far more than raw materials. If you were a farmer 200 years ago, you might argue that land should be available to farmers, who should be free to produce what they want without paying rent to the Government-selected "owners".

But when we shift to this Socialist position, we are now subject to all of the criticisms. How do you solve the calculation problem and determine what to build? How do you know what to create if you cannot own / sell your creation? How do you make a contract to exchange something you cannot control? Why would companies invest billions to design drugs they cannot own? Are you just going to create a labor-model and pay everyone for their hourly contributions? Are we going to use a centralized database to manage production?

> Farmland isn't naturally socialized, and it certainly isn't the same as natural resources by definition.

Farmland is the standard natural resource used in the classical debates. It was the primary means of production and prior to Capitalism, a Socialized resource local communities shared. Capitalism was usually introduced by a State coming in and granting ownership (usually by force), then converting farmers into wage-laborers while the owner dictated production.

These imaginary concepts of "ownership over land" existed only in the heads of Capitalists, but the State enforced it and it worked.

> Why would a libertarian think that state solutions would be the most efficient?

Classical Liberals like Adam Smith agreed Capitalist nations were the largest to protect property. It was usually the Socialists who disliked Government.

The Anarcho-Capitalists I've read still agree with private-property, but just feel it should be privately enforced.

The size of the State is not the distinguishing factor of Liberals and Socialists - That's where both Anarchists agree with each other. Private ownership over the means of production vs Socialized ownership is the central disagreement.

> Think about the ridiculousness of claiming that you own the idea of making a sandwich

It's ridiculous because I could make a sandwich without your idea. It was something anyone could invent themselves. IP protects things you create with your labor that other people use.

Again, if you create X and I directly need to use it, then I pay you. If I can come up with the concept myself, then I utilize my own labor. If you are copying my software, then a court will have no problem recognizing you did not create the software, but instead took my creation.

Yes, Libertarian Economists popularized the concept of emission credits to utilize markets by privatizing a socialized good. As I explained previously, this allows market mechanisms to to tell businesses where to cut emissions. By owning allowances for emissions, prices allow companies to cut in the most cost-effective places.

Although you can read the history in depth in Professor Shi-Ling Hsu's book, Timothy Taylor has an introductory TTC lecture on contributions of Libertarian Economists, if that is something that interests you. Rothbard's Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto also proposes similar mechanisms of privatizing pollution limits to solve environmental issues.

> This statement is so convoluted and confusing that I'm not sure I can respond.

A lot of Socialists seem to believe Socialism will come about as the economy becomes digital. They see a world in which you can 3d print anything you want or build on existing designs created by others without limit.

Sounds like you wouldn't mind a world in which the "means of production" are completely socialized and free to all workers.