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?
In an anarchical society, why should people devise ways to defend against a meteor hit? - Eugene Eugene made an assertion. Did he prove that we are prevented by positive externalities? - LS referring to Eugene
In an anarchical society, why should people devise ways to defend against a meteor hit?
- Eugene
Eugene made an assertion. Did he prove that we are prevented by positive externalities?
- LS referring to Eugene
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
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...
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...
Let us know when your done being butt hurt and can start discussing these issues honestly.
Student: In an anarchical society, why should people devise ways to defend against a meteor hit? - Eugene OP
In an anarchical society, why should people devise ways to defend against a meteor hit? - Eugene OP
- Eugene OP
But the issue isn't anarchical society. The issue is inadequacy of the market(As argued by you and Eugene). That is fundamentally what your arguing. Do you deny this?
if you do you have no argument and the whole debate is one gigantic strawman.
LS:Eugene made an assertion. Did he prove that we are prevented by positive externalities?
And we are still waiting on an answer. IN fact NO ONE has responded on this particular issue. It's just mostly been assertions.
point? - flic
haha none at all i guess.
you just said this discussion had nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism when I was answering LS's comment about what point Eugene was trying to prove.
that quote seemed relevant to me in answering your criticism. but i guess it is not. i consider myself pwnted.
Student:you just said this discussion had nothing to anarcho-capitalism when I was answering LS's comment about what point Eugene was trying to prove.
If you think Anarcho-Capitalism is relevant then kindly explain to us all, oh brilliant one, what part of Anarcho-Capitalism prevents it from solving the issues of impending doom by metiorite.
And if you answer "The market" then I'll kindly ask you to tuck tail, turn and run in shame.
[EDIT] I am most confident that you of all people will find some weasel way with words to get out of this one.
[EDIT][EDIT] I can't think of a more pathetic argument for anti-market folk to cling to. *what about teh meteorite!*
LS just asked me if Euguene proved that a anarchical society could deal with an asteroid (note of course eugene never claimed he "proved" ANYTHING). now you're actually asking me to "prove" that argument myself? how in the world did we get here?
first, im not sure how you would even begin to "prove" that argument (what does "prove" even mean in this context where everything is hypothetical including the structure of society). second, im not sure i would even want to.
i think i will just have to tuck tail, turn, and run in shame.
[edit] "I can't think of a more pathetic argument for anti-market folk to cling to." hehe obtuse.
Student:now you're actually asking me to prove that argument myself? how in the world did we get here?
No. I said nothing of the sort. I clearly asked you to explain what specific mechanism or part of an Anarcho-Capitalistic society gives you doubts as to it's capable delivery of a disaster prevention mechanism.
i asked you to tell us if this mechanism or part is the market, or a part of the market. Fundamentally, is it not your position that you find the market inadequate? Or more clearly, you find the lack of compulsive governance the issue? The issue is not what type of ISM is prevelant, the issue is certain tenants of those ISM's that allow it to succeed or fail in this case. In this case I can only assume that you find the market inadequate.
I don't know how I could make this any more clear. I can only guess that your just playing coy or purposfully being evasive.
Student:first, im not sure how you would even begin to "prove" that argument (what does "prove" even mean in this context where everything is hypothetical including the structure of society). second, im not sure i would even want t
You can start by answering my question. What part of Anarcho Capitalism do you doubt? Is it the lack of compulsory governance? The absolute prevalence of the market? Your belief that positive externalities are an issue and that the market is inadequate to handle such cases?
Why don't you just come out with it already and tell us what your doubts are? What is the big issue here?
And ultimately if you admit that you take issue with the Market itself then you concede my point that the OP is really a strawman of the main issue. Assuming you interpreted it literally as you have demonstratively tried to.
[EDIT] What do you mean by obtuse?
i have no fundamental position.
Student: i have no fundamental position.
Are you sure?
Student:i think eugene makes a good point. positive externalities would prevent us from dealing with asteroids, just like it prevents us from dealing with climate change.
and eugene does make a good point (so that's my position, eh?). and i explained why i think so (if you don't like the comparison to climate change, tough titty).
but i don't have a position to explain to you beyond what i have already said. you act like im holding something back. i am not. i've said everything i need to say to support that original statement (that I think eugene makes a good point).
and im not going to get into my "doubts" of anarcho-capitalism just because you ask me to.
Student: and eugene does make a good point. and i explained why i think so (if you don't like the comparison to climate change, tough titty).
and eugene does make a good point. and i explained why i think so (if you don't like the comparison to climate change, tough titty).
As stated I don't think it's an adequate comparison. I don't see the two situations synonymous. For one:
On the other hand, a gigantic meteorite the size of the moon heading for earth is pretty damn conclusive that people ought to be worried. On the one hand, if what you say about GW is true then it will be a long slow death. On the other hand a meteorite is like sudden death.
Honestly I don't even know why I am letting you drag me into this. It's not an adequate comparison especially since it doesn't adequately explain the alleged problem of externalities. And this is what it sounds like your hung up on. (The belief that externalities are (A) a problem and (B) such problems cannot be handled on the market)
Eugene: but i don't have a position to explain to you beyond what i have already said. you act like im holding something back. i am not. i've said everything i need to say to support that original statement (that I think eugene makes a good point).
The explanation you gave me, one of externalities, is an alleged fault of Markets not of Anarcho-Capitalism. Markets just happens to be an underlying tenant of Anarcho-Capitalism.
Honestly the reason why I am smashing this into your head is because you were using the "Anarcho-Capitalism never existed" nonesense. I am sick of reading that drivel as it's entirely meaningless and misses the point of the debate. It's effectively a way of derailing the discussion. The issue here, as explained by you, are externalities and the markets alleged inadequacies in dealing with them.
Student:and im not going to get into my "doubts" of anarcho-capitalism just because you ask me to.
After all the effort I just spent into pointing out the fallacy it's truely dissapointing to me that you missed the entire point. In fact you appear as to not even acknowledge it.
The point isn't what you believe or what you don't believe. The point is that the following argument
Student: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!!!
Why yes! Yes he did!!!
Is and will always be a strawman. It adds nothing to the actual debate, it offers nothing worth learning from, and there is no way one can logically and meaningful continue a discussion beyond it(This is the problem with logical fallacies). It is a completely empty and meaningless argument. As a contributor to the forums, these types of post are the equivilent of tossing dirt on a piece of art.
I doubt you come here with the intent of posting drivel so it leaves me confused as to why you thought the above post was a good idea. Clinging to an absolute literal interpretation of the OP does not make it any less of a strawman.
[EDIT] You were unclear when you said "Obtuse". What did you mean by that?
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. why? externalities combined with very large transaction costs.
Or maybe because global warming actually isn't certain doom, as some claim.
Student: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.
why? because of externalities. economics once again helps us describe real world behavior.
You're making this harder than it actually is. The real reason why nothing is being done about global warming is because the costs of significantly reducing the man-made component of global warming are too high to justify the very small benefit.
Eugene:Naturally when everyone knows a meteor is going to hit, most people will donate money. However when the chance is very small that a meteor would hit
This makes absolutely no sense. If the chance of a meteor destroying Earth is very slim, then why should most people be worried about it? If the risk for something happening is very low, then extorting people "just in case" makes absolutely no sense.
Student:anyways, i will concede that people are not adequately convinced that climate change is an important issue.
This is exactly the reason why action is not being taken (along with costs > benefits). Not to mention the fact that, despite what the extremists say, the science is not settled yet.
Student:but i don't think the comparison is silly at all. it is a very real possibility that a meteor could be headed for earth right now. yet, we would have no idea because only a very small percentage of the sky is being tracked due to lack of funding. i'm sure you can guess why i think that is the case (externalities. why should the u.s. pay for it when if france or some other country does it we would get the benefits too)
"It's a very real possibility."
It's a very improbable event. It's a very real possibility that muggers will break into your house and kill you tonight. Will you sleep with a shotgun in your arms and a handgun under your pillow?
The simple fact is that most people are not risk-averse enough to worry about such silly scenarios.
Student:i dont think i ever said externalities only influence consumers or producers. seems to me they can influence governments as well.
Government doesn't face incentives which are remotely similar to the incentives faced by the individual, due to their power to tax. Remember the Bush Doctrine? UNILATERAL action?
Political Atheists Blog
As stated I don't think it's an adequate comparison.
okay. im not sure how your complaints disqualify the comparison, but if you don't like my comparison that's fine with me.
The explanation you gave me, one of externalities, is an alleged fault of Markets not of Anarcho-Capitalism.
as i noted previously to LS, the impacts of externalities are not restricted to markets. like i was getting at before, governments in an international context may also not be very effective at internalizing global externalities. at the same time, that doesn't mean such externalities can never be internalized. in fact sometimes they can even be internalized through voluntary mechanisms. recognizing that externalities exist is not the same thing as being anti-market (that's the real strawman of this discussion imo).
The point is that the following argument Student: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!!!
The point is that the following argument
that statement is pretty clearly sarcastic.
Anyways, I think we are now rotating in circles like where we end most of our conversations (becuase you always become convinced there is some obvious logical fallacy in something i siad that you think you're just one quote away from proving). so i think i will call it a night and we can continue this in some other conversation on some other day. Night!
Student:Anyways, I think we are now rotating in circles like where we end most of our conversation
I wasn't aware that we had many prior conversations?
Student:Anyways, I think we are now rotating in circles like where we end most of our conversations
Indeed we've wasted an entire page on absolute drivel. Consider the quality of the posts you've offered in this thread.(How much time have we both wasted because of it?)
Student:(becuase you always become convinced there is some obvious logical fallacy in something i siad that you think you're just one quote away from proving).
Student:as i noted previously to LS, the impacts of externalities are not restricted to markets. like i was getting at before, governments in an international context may also not be very effective at internalizing global externalities. at the same time, that doesn't mean such externalities can never be internalized. in fact sometimes they can even be internalized through voluntary mechanisms. recognizing that externalities exist is not the same thing as being anti-market (that's the real strawman of this discussion imo).
Student:as i noted previously to LS, the impacts of externalities are not restricted to markets.
Which was a non sequitur. You said there was a failure to account for these things, I pointed out that the failure was not the market, but the state.
Which you then said, sure the state can suffer from externalities as well. But that doesn't refute my point, nor does it support Eugene's assertion.
Student:like i was getting at before, governments in an international context may also not be very effective at internalizing global externalities.
They are simply criminal cartels who extract payment through violence and fear. Of course they can't solve problems, an expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms.
Student:at the same time, that doesn't mean such externalities can never be internalized. in fact sometimes they can even be internalized through voluntary mechanisms.
Argument from ignorance.
Student:recognizing that externalities exist is not the same thing as being anti-market (that's the real strawman of this discussion imo).
Who claimed you were anti-market?