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?
Student:yet, we would have no idea because only a very small percentage of the sky is being tracked due to lack of funding.
You mean lack of theft and extortion.
You're arguing a failure of the state, not of the market.
i dont think i ever said externalities only influence consumers or producers. seems to me they can influence governments as well. but it is good to see you are keeping up.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Student:i dont think i ever said externalities only influence consumers or producers. seems to me they can influence governments as well. but it is good to see you are keeping up.
You didn't respond to my question. Why?
Why do you ask?
Other people caring less about something than you feel they should is not an externality.
I could be mauled to death by a lion tomorrow morning and I haven't bothered to protect myself from the possibility. Hell, I'm pretty sure if a bunch of lions got loose in my town than nobody would be adequately prepared. Oh no!
Is there an externality in there somewhere? I don't think so. edit: And if there is, then I think externalities cease being particularly interesting since they would describe basically anything uncertain.
Student:Why do you ask?
Because I am wondering if cowardice is one of your reasons.
me too!!!
haha ill answer if you're going to be all tender about it.
Eugene made an assertion. Did he prove that we are prevented by positive externalities?
Did Eugene prove that an imaginary anarchist society is prevented from defeating an imaginary asteroid from frickin space because of hypothesized positive externalities?
Why yes! Yes he did!!!
Student:me too!!! haha ill answer if you're going to be all tender about it.
Not tender, I just enjoy pointing out your obvious behavior.
i treat people the way they want to be treated. you ask silly questions, you get treated like a silly person.
unless you think one can "prove" how an imaginery society that has never existed will act one way or another. if you really think that then i may have to treat you like another type of person all together...
crazy.
Student:i treat people the way they want to be treated. you ask silly questions, you get treated like a silly person.
I can see how you would regard logical inquiries as silly, since you've yet to demonstrate you can form a logical argument.
As far as who is crazy, I'm not the one promoting an unproven and dangerous climate hysteria as having any validity at all.
Arguably your best contribution to the forum yet.
Student:of course, you're hopping arguments like a frog with a fever blister on its behind. so im not sure where to go from here.
I only responded to what you and Eugene posted. I don't see how that makes me "Hopping arguments". Don't post all the arguments then?
Student:positive externalities would prevent us from dealing with asteroids,
This is the assertion, which has yet even been addressed by anyone.
STudent:just like it prevents us from dealing with climate change.
This is your crazy non-sequitur. The two are not synonymous.
Student:unless you think one can "prove" how an imaginery society that has never existed will act one way or another. if you really think that then i may have to treat you like another type of person all together...
This is a huge strawman. And it's just begging me to place curse words all over the place. I can't think of a more clear way for you to be dishonest. Its not "Imaginary Society". What your arguing against is the market. Get it straight.
Your argument is that the market is incapable of preventing an oncoming meteorite. "Anarcho-Capitalism" or "socialism" or "Communism" or any "Ism" fundamentally has absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand.
How far does one take this before they are considerd trollish?