In an anarchical society, why should people devise ways to defend against a meteor hit? There are huge positive externalities in this case. If you developed a nuclear bomb that will strike a meteor and divert it from its orbit, everyone on earth will benefit. So there are extremely weak incentives to do this without taxes. It might cost 1 billion to develop such weapon. Why would anyone want to be the sucker who does it for the sake of everyone else? Libertariranism relies on of selfishness (See Ayn Rand: The virtue of selfishness). So if we assume selfishness, how can we assume people will be charitable enough to raise the huge funds needed to divert meteors?
Hmm simple survival, i dunno...?
You should put all of your musings in one thread, instead of one per question.
Anyway, the premise is ridiculous. If we assume selfishness, how can't we assume people will be charitable enough to raise the huge funds needed to not get vaporized by a mountain-sized space bullet?! People devote their entire lives to doing goofy stuff like getting on a boat and hassling Japanese fishermen because they think whales are cute and you don't think you could raise some cash to save the human race?
If the danger is real and eminent the anarchical society will probably do something, but it might be too late. The inability to use force is sometimes a great obstacle. To combat global warming (if it will be proved that it is real and dangerous) I believe you need force, to fund army you need force. All the things that have significant positive or negative externalities I believe are dealt better with application of force. Anarchical governments will be at a disadvantage because of their inability to apply force, that's very limiting.
You are right, the inability to use force is sometimes a great obstacle to forcing other people to act how you please instead of letting them live their lives how they please.
How is this a bad thing?
"So if we assume selfishness, how can we assume people will be charitable enough to raise the huge funds needed to divert meteors?"
First, Austrian Economics(AE) does not assume people are selfish or more Randian: "Rationally Self Interested", AE just assumes that they operate with a purpose "Humans Act". (Also note that AE does not assume efficient markets either.)
AE does build off of Humans Acting to the conclusion that free society is best distinguished by the cooperation between individuals all acting with their own purposes that is centered on two individuals the consumer and the entrepeneur.
If a comet or other large space object is flying towards Earth then you will have consumers of the service to prevent the object from hitting the Earth so entrepreneurs will appear to resolve that issue. Wouldn't there be super rich folks who would want their name associated with saving the Planet, literally, unlike the global warming clowns.
Why would anyone want to be the sucker who does it for the sake of everyone else?
Yes, he's better off dying, isn't he?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
i think eugene makes a good point.
i mean, this essentially why nothing is being done about global climate change--even though it may threaten the survival of the human species (or at the very least the wealth enjoyed by the west), very very little is being done about it. why? externalities combined with very large transaction costs.
but, i keep forgetting "oh you iz so wrong, its all a scientific conspiracy to get grant funding" because lord knows scientists *want* to spend their lives getting grants researching problems they know don't exist.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
How do you deduce this
Eugene:So there are extremely weak incentives to do this without taxes.
From this?
Eugene:There are huge positive externalities in this case.
Seems awfully non-sequiturish
Eugene:Why would anyone want to be the sucker who does it for the sake of everyone else?
Because if Walmart helped fund this their public reputation would skyrocket. There are plenty of reasons why business's would be most interested in funding this. In fact capitalists alone have all the reason in the world to continue human life, not allow it to die.
Also positive externalities? This isn't an argument to justify taxation, in fact it's not an argument at all.
Student:i mean, this essentially why nothing is being done about global climate change--even though it may threaten the survival of the human species (or at the very least the wealth enjoyed by the west), very very little is being done about it.
Are you kidding me? I can't walk outside without some type of business advertising what they do to "Help the Planet". The "Green Movement" has exploded into everything from car manufacturing to retail sales. I don't know where you live but in the northwest business's have certainly catered to environmentalist in all of us.
This screams of the "never enough" mentality which permeates through the environmentalist groups.
When choosing to contribute or free ride, a person must weigh the benefits of free riding against the risk that the good will not be provided at all. In this case, the anti-asteroid weapon is incredibly lumpy - it is either built and the world is saved or it is not; and the costs in the case of it not being built are literally catastrophic. You need a billion dollars to save all of humanity? Americans contribute over $300 billion a year in (private) charity.
And though an anarchist society may not have an institution at the ready to coerce the whole population, it does not mean coercion cannot or will not be used. And I say may not because, for all we know, there may evolve a respected process for creating a minimal state to achieve such (supposedly) difficult short-term goals and then disband.
And "rel[ying] on selfishness" doesn't mean anything. Libertarians do not hope or really want people to selfish. We merely recognize people's partiality. Every political philosophy must take "selfishness" into account.
My issue with this topic is it ignores the inherent problems brought about by a central authority in the creation of a savior device. If you tax the whole world to build this savior device you suffer from economic calculation issues. The risk that the device will be built incorrect is escalated. Will there be positive externalities(OH NOES!)? Perhaps but you might live! The alternative is a state driven fabrication process.
We would be better off letting private firms compete for the ability to accomplish this. The academic community can place their endorsements on firms that prove more competent. End users can donate and fund projects that offer the highest likely hood of success. Business's can slap their name on the device for big time advertisement.
Just because world as we know it might end tomorrow doesn't mean the laws of economics some how magically change. The argument is so un-intelligent that it hurts me to see certain individuals believe it has any merit.
Michael J Green:Externalities are only one half of the equation.
I don't see how this is an issue at all.
Was this episode of deadwood realistic? http://voluntaryxchange.typepad.com/voluntaryxchange/2004/04/collusion_and_a.html
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
flic,
a lot of ad campaigns, but few people are dramatically changing their behavior. you mention car manufacturing and it is true that there are more fuel efficient options. but what is adoption rate? and even once people buy these new cars, how do we know that they are not simply driving more (leaving their total "carbon footprint" unchanged)?
the truth is that looking at posters and vehicle advertisements is very misleading. i prefer to look at the data and according to the eia, ghgs from motor gasoline consumption have continued to rise.
like i said, there is very very little being done about climate change (both at an individual and a political level).
why? because of externalities. economics once again helps us describe real world behavior.