Greetings,
I'm new to posting here but I've been reading along on and off for quite a while.
I'm writing my thesis and was asked by my promotors to also include a chapter on externalities in an absolutely free market, since they feel that I haven't adequately covered the subject in my proposal papers about how a free unregulated market is supposed to cope with for example factories in one location polluting water supplies around the globe or thinning out fish supplies on which others might depend. The main thing here perhaps is that it is impossible to point out which particular factory polluted which particular fish which lead to poisoning a food chain and possibly another person a few years later who ate a different fish that was higher up the ladder and still had concentrations of the pollution in its system.
Another one of the top of my head; when I build a house somewhere and 5 years later somebody builds a chemical plant right next to it on land which they rightfully bought and what have you, but which might or might not cause increased likelihood of cancer and which severly decreases my property value, how do we go from there (not the same as buying the land with the factory already there, it came after you paid the full price for the property). Or what if an airport opens nearby causing excessive noise, etc. What about sour rain passing over, or nearby farmers shooting up thunderstorms which maybe ends up with you having less rain. Perhaps ludicrous examples but I feel that there is and should be a good way of refuting them, I'm just not sure on how to do this in a sufficiently satisfying manner.
To be clear, I'm not the one that needs convincing, I'm as die-hard laissez-faire as it gets, but I don't know a good way to go about really tackling the problem clearly and properly instead of just saying "the market will fix it and that's all you need to know", because that's not going to cut it and I can't really blame them to expect something more.
I searched the forum but I can't seem to find that much precise information about externalities as such (possibly looked over some of it, please feel free to direct me to other threads as well or copy-paste something here if you don't feel like typing something out, although it would be very appreciated).
So I wonder, what are people's thoughts on externalities here?
Edit: a bit off topic, but I don't want to spam new topics all over the forum: I sometimes run into some problems when I on the one hand say that there should be little to no taxation, but people reply by asking how I am then going to uphold a military against foreign invasion of organized states and how the courts and police will be paid for.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."
http://www.last.fm/group/Anti-Socialism
Christophe:I'm writing my thesis and was asked by my promotors to also include a chapter on externalities in an absolutely free market, since they feel that I haven't adequately covered the subject in my proposal papers about how a free unregulated market is supposed to cope with for example factories in one location polluting water supplies around the globe or thinning out fish supplies on which others might depend. The main thing here perhaps is that it is impossible to point out which particular factory polluted which particular fish which lead to poisoning a food chain and possibly another person a few years later who ate a different fish that was higher up the ladder and still had concentrations of the pollution in its system.
I have such little patience for critics who accuse the market of creating externalities.
The government is nothing but one giant externality.
A crack head over doses, I pay for it.
G.W. Bush starts a war, I pay for it.
Someone lights their house on fire, I pay for it.
Someone loses their job, I pay for it.
Someone steals a car, I pay for it.
General Motors loses money, I pay for it.
Property rights is the mechanism humans have created to deal with externalities, so its no surpise that the government, which always ignores property rights, does nothing but create externalities.
Peace
A lot of people here are correct in noting that externalities are the result of a lack of property rights, but as has been pointed out this isn't a particularly Austrian insight. In fact, a lot of mainstream economists have done work in this area. Even in an entirely free market externalities will persist and whilst it's not necessarily true that they will undermine the provision of certain goods and services entirely, it is likely that alternative means of providing such goods will have have to emerge.
The fact of the matter is that whilst Hoppe writes about the alleged silliness of the notion of "externalities" he also conceives of ways in which they may be internalized by various other mechanisms and institutions.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
laminustacitus:We have no true knowledge of how a stateless society will function, just as we had no true prior knowledge on how the constitutional republic would last, and we can indeed only make problematic hypotheses.
Franklin said, "A republic if you can keep it".
It's a matter of revisionist history that the Founders intended an American hegemon or that they didn't see the possiblity for such.
State power, however limited, is always corrupted. That's not just American history, but the history of civilization.
liberty student: Anarcho-capitalism is only utopian because you're uncomfortable with the reality of human existence. When you stop holding ancap up to be a utopia, that is when it will not only be desirable, but possible.
Anarcho-capitalism is only utopian because you're uncomfortable with the reality of human existence. When you stop holding ancap up to be a utopia, that is when it will not only be desirable, but possible.
I am flattered by your concern but I highly doubt you have many lessons to teach me about the reality of my existence. I'm perfectly at ease with what and who I am as a human being with all the inherent feats and flaws that that entails and without any illusions about either in one way or another: "we are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow worm". I recognize the "evil" sides as much as the "good" ones; the problem with all utopian thought however is that the evil sides are, perhaps purpously by some and ignorantly by others, ignored. Human beings in general are not rational. To deny this is to be irrational yourself.
"When you stop holding communism up to be a utopia, that is when it will not only be desirable, but possible". Sounds eerily familiar, and that's my point.
Christophe:I am flattered by your concern
Don't be. I'm not concerned.
Christophe:Human beings in general are not rational.
Who claimed they were?
You're the one in denial, that minarchism is preferable to ancap because man is irrational. I will ask you again. Because man is irrational, do you feel that we are best served by institutionalizing the most violent and criminal among us as absolute authority?
An ancap world is one with an ideal that isn't a compromise on human liberty. It's not a compromise through minarchy which is anathema to the ideal.
You only claim ancap as a utopia, because you can't reconcile an irrational world with rational intentions. And so, you would rather demand a gun be pointed to your head than to take your chances.
Or perhaps you are the living example of an irrational man unable to accept a rational premise?
How did Bowie put it (paraphrasing Lennon)?
"You think you're so clever and classless and free, but you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see."
liberty student: Christophe:I am flattered by your concern Don't be. I'm not concerned.
Concerned enough to reply in any case. If it's any comfort, I'm concerned enough to do so myself, in a perfectly egotistical way.
Ah, but don't you see, you're holding on to just another kind of slave morality and the only difference with collectivists is the side of the political spectrum you're on. They claim "capitalists" are keeping them down, you claim "collectivists" are keeping you down, and both villify the (un)consciously percieved strength of the other. The very fact that your rationally warranted ideals are not a reality is because of the existence of the irrational masses, who are as a whole stronger than you and me and all others that share our way of thinking combined, or at least strong enough to prevent our ideal from being dominant in the actual sense of the word. Reality does not deal in "should", it deals in "is". Your moral high ground counts for nothing without the force to back it up in a reality where might makes right.
Where is your capitalistic anarchy? You're waiting for somebody to hand it to you just like socialists are waiting for capitalist principles to disappear, both of you trying to convince yourself of the weakness of the other while being frustrated by its strength, both equally unable to put either extreme into practice due to the indestructable force of the other. All justification you should be seeking for your own ideals is that they work for you and you can put them into practice and enforce them in as high a degree as you can manage, all the rest is superfluous.
You'd get a whole lot further if you thought of the play of force in economic terms just like anything else: reality is scarce and many different ideals fight over it, whether you call the resulting clash of forces a compromise or an equilibrium is a matter of semantics. That, again, is the entire point I made in my previous post and it's why holding an ideological ideal and aiming at a practical feasability isn't an incompatible state of mind.
Christophe,
Are you being irrational?
wilderness: Christophe, Are you being irrational?
Possibly ;)
Please, feel free to elaborate.
Christophe: wilderness: Christophe, Are you being irrational? Possibly ;) Please, feel free to elaborate.
Are in a state of arrest?
dictionary to not get confused on what I mean:
arrest:
a stoppage or sudden cessation of motion
----
you say "possibly", but I'm wondering what you think?
Christophe, for the third time, answer my question.
Liberty Student:Because man is irrational, do you feel that we are best served by institutionalizing the most violent and criminal among us as absolute authority?
As to the rest
Christophe:Reality does not deal in "should", it deals in "is".
Again, no one said this was the case. You're shadow boxing strawmen, and no one here is going to buy those tactics.
Christophe:Your moral high ground counts for nothing without the force to back it up in a reality where might makes right.
Ah, the nihilist ancap. We were due for another one.
So which is it? Are you for non-aggression, or might makes right?
Christophe:Where is your capitalistic anarchy? You're waiting for somebody to hand it to you
No need to make empty attacks on me. Just answer the question you have dodged twice already.
Christophe:You'd get a whole lot further if you thought of the play of force in economic terms just like anything else
You will get a lot further here if you are intellectually honest. Right now you're fast tracking towards irrelevance.
wilderness: Are in a state of arrest?
I'm sorry but I don't know how to interpret your question or what you mean by it, I think perhaps because something's "lost in translation"? I joked in my previous post but apparantly it wasn't funny :)
Could you please explain a bit more what you are asking?
Christophe: wilderness: Are in a state of arrest? I'm sorry but I don't know how to interpret your question or what you mean by it, I think perhaps because something's "lost in translation"? I joked in my previous post but apparantly it wasn't funny :) Could you please explain a bit more what you are asking?
Are you being irrational? yes or no... What do you think? Do a bit of introspection and give your honest opinion.
liberty student: Christophe, for the third time, answer my question. Liberty Student:Because man is irrational, do you feel that we are best served by institutionalizing the most violent and criminal among us as absolute authority?
I've already answered it, several times even.
First, the simple fact that you keep referring to "authority" as de facto violent and criminal instead of "authority" as rationally undesirable is slave morality in the same way that socialists refer to capitalists as baby-eating boogeymen.
Second, if you call for change you call for moving an inert mass, and you need to have an economically qualified reason for that in the sense of an improvement to be made, and not just any improvement but a sufficiently large one to warrant the cost of action. A few posts back I told you that "this system is bad as well" doesn't cut it as sufficient reason to change it to something else, and this system is what's there now so without changing that's what it is.
Third, you're the one claiming absolute authority by being able to unilaterally set the standards of right and wrong in a moral and universal sense. I do no such thing, but you mimic quite the number of authoritarian systems in that regard. That alone sets some alarm bells ringing and in fact I as a side note suggest you step back for a moment and take a look at whether you're actually helping your own cause by scaring probably quite a few of less determined people than me away from it with your barely tempered hostility which drips off nearly every comment you make. That's not an attack, it's a thought I have and which originated from realising that the best way to scare people away from communists these days is to draw out some of the most fanatical ones and get them to do their thing in public. I've been able to "convert" quite a lot of people to liberalism that way, I leave you to draw your own conclusions from that, you're quite capable (without any sarcasm in case it comes across as such).
Fourth, it's not a question of what would theoreticly be best, it's about what practically is.
From those points, I refer back to the explanation of the ideological/practical duality in the post on page 4.
All I know in this regard is that every time I check back more people are following this conversation and I've been getting (several) comments and e-mails outside of - yet regarding - this thread from people who I had never heard of before and who seem to think that perhaps you're not the only one with half a brain.
It's easy to only discuss with people who almost always agree, it's a different thing entirely to deal with differing opinions. You say I'm shadow boxing strawmen, I don't agree and in fact could turn that charge around, but I will not because I think in this kind of discussion it's a "weasel word". I'm not your enemy but you seem to think that I am.
At the start of this conversation you thought you could do away with me and dismiss any and all points I made simply by asking me about "how many books" I've read on these matters, only to shoot yourself in the foot with it in the sense that I've read quite a few actually, even though I personally don't think that having read a lot of books has to signify anything at all. Sure, you'll claim that that wasn't the reason for asking but everybody reading this including you yourself knows better, like you this is not the first debate I've ever been in, I've seen those tricks before.
Perhaps I should ask you about how many books you've read by Nietzsche to validate your opinion on anything remotely related to it? But I'm not going to, so don't bother answering it because it doesn't matter to me in any way at all: even if you haven't I explained the essentials of it in previous posts as far as what is needed to understand them and I give you the benefit of the doubt of being intelligent enough to fill in the blanks from there.
Perhaps you see the difference in approach but I'll assume that you'll refuse to. No matter. I take no offense in it, just like when I pointed out the impoliteness at the very start once already in order to make it clear that it doesn't affect any of the points that I make or my intent on explaining and defending them. Just to eradicate all doubt that some behaviour didn't just went by unnoticed as to what was really meant, I am now pointing out a similar thing without any rancour. If any feeling at all is involved, it is perhaps mild amusement on my part.
However, all jest aside, I'd call that kind of pseudo intimidation a cheaper use of tactics and "shadow boxing" than the posts I make and put honest effort in to fully explain. As I said before, perhaps I misinterpreted, perhaps I did not and let's leave it at that as far as I'm concerned.
Ah, the nihilist ancap. We were due for another one. So which is it? Are you for non-aggression, or might makes right?
Both actually. They aren't mutually exclusive, you're just mixing up terms. Perhaps I should ask about how much Nietzsche you've read after all ;) (I kid, I kid :)
No need to make empty attacks on me.
No, I'm in all honesty quite serious and think that the question is relevant and essential: where is your capitalist anarchy?
By the way, you have quite a few unanswered questions left yourself, but I'll get into those tomorrow or the day after depending on whether I can free up some time. Feel free to look for them and start answering them on your own accord though if you feel like taking up the slack yourself. Until then, thanks for the talk and have a good night :)
Christophe:I've already answered it, several times even.
So you dodged again. That's fine. I will wait for you to answer Wilderness' question.
FYI, I didn't read the rest of your post. You can save yourself the energy next time. I asked a simple question, and if you're not going to directly answer it, I am not going to indulge your rhetorical games. If you want to be relevant, debate honestly.
liberty student:Because man is irrational, do you feel that we are best served by institutionalizing the most violent and criminal among us as absolute authority?
Because man is irrational, do you feel that we are best served by institutionalizing the most violent and criminal among us as absolute authority?
I ask this in all seriousness, and not trying to be rude: the most violent and criminal according to whom, and by what measure?
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
liberty student: So you dodged again. That's fine. I will wait for you to answer Wilderness' question. FYI, I didn't read the rest of your post. You can save yourself the energy next time. I asked a simple question, and if you're not going to directly answer it, I am not going to indulge your rhetorical games. If you want to be relevant, debate honestly.
I didn't dodge anything, your question was answered in several previous posts and I summarised those answers in my previous one along with saying that starting from those 4 points the post on page 4 explains the rest of my position about what I consider to be best in detail.
If you don't read my posts I don't see how it's my fault when you moan that you don't see me answering your questions; pretty irrational methinks in a context where the only communication is that of writing a post. It seems you not only set the rules of right and wrong but also are the sole dictator of what is open to discussion and what is not :)
As to some of the unanswered questions I posed that are left:
And crucially:
"How do you think governments form?" -> "Because people like you end up supporting it, or even advocating for it! But this is exactly the reason why a limited government cannot stay limited. Once you establish the coercive monopoly on law and violence, then there is no way to keep it from expanding. No piece of paper is going to protect you from economic laws.": And it's exactly the reason why anarchy does not remain anarchy and stateless grows into a state: no normative right is going to protect you from economic laws, the laws of evolution and society are as economic as the biological ones are.
"In a Stateless society, people can opt out of one defense agency and switch to another. If one agency does become criminal and manages to overcome the market, then you end up where you want to be anyway. ": That's what history has done though, we went from stateless to this unless you're proposing that statelessness was not the intial form and the state was born with microbial life. Also, that's not what I said, it's not what I "want" to happen, it's what I know that will and see that has in spite of my personal preference, not because of them. How are you going to stop anarchy from evolving into democracy, what's going to make it different this time around, good intentions?
if I gather it correctly you claim that in your view of things there is nothing arbitrary about the opinions you hold; you have all the answers as based on an absolute objective and universal truth, and personal preference has nothing to do with it. Natural law might bring you some solace if this is in fact the case, but reading along with the extensive (to put it mildly) thread about it I don't consider it as "proven" beyond doubt just quite yet, but maybe you're holding out on something
The problems mentioned here come from your interpretation of things; in mine they don't exist and the duality of theoretical ideal does not have to clash with practical feasability; the burden of proof lies with you for claiming that reality isn't what it is supposed to be, not with me for claiming that history and reality are what they are due to evolutionary processes and the interaction of forces behind ideals in the sphere of civilizations.
As to the question of whether I'm irrational or not:
It depends on what we're talking about here. I can sometimes be irrational about all in all minor grievances which end up annoying me more than would be rationally warranted. I sometimes can be irrational in the sense of for example getting annoyed at what I consider to be stupid drivers, which is pretty irrational if all there is to it is that you have to brake for a second and lose perhaps 10 extra seconds on the whole trip.
If we're talking about whether I think I'm being irrational within the confounds of this conversations, then no, I don't see how I am.
I say that some of the people here are irrational for saying that the world "is" not what it "should" logically and rationally be, in spite of the evolution and economical balance of forces active in it and for not understanding the limits of human rationality as a whole as to be able to reach "ideal states". If you do, by all means feel free to elaborate.
The fact that I claim the impossibility of implementing anarcho capitalism doesn't mean that I can't hold it as an ideal to strive for, just like that the unachievable ideal of running as fast as a race car doesn't have to clash with trying to run as fast as I can and train myself to do so anyway.