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
nirgrahamUK:I didnt want him to think that he was right
I don't think anyone can disabuse him of his errors. He's like Randroids who wander in here, hang out for a couple weeks and bail. An unemotional argument from logic is simply beyond them.
liberty student:I stopped reading the walls of text on the last page.
In response to your question about "institutionalizing the most violent and criminal among us as absolute authority," I posted the question, "The most violent and criminal according to whom, and by what measure?" but got no reply. Not a wall of text, and I think it's a fairly important question, because it seems like anarcho-capitalists believe that government without exception turns otherwise rational men into rabidly irrational oppressors.
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.
Justin Spahr-Summers:In response to your question about "institutionalizing the most violent and criminal among us as absolute authority," I posted the question, "The most violent and criminal according to whom, and by what measure?" but got no reply.
I didn't see it. Sorry. By me, and by the measure of the amount of wealth they steal, and the millions of lives they take.
Justin Spahr-Summers: I think it's a fairly important question, because it seems like anarcho-capitalists believe
Ancaps are not a homogenous group, nor should my comments be taken as representative of all, or even many ancaps.
Justin Spahr-Summers:that government without exception turns otherwise rational men into rabidly irrational oppressors.
I don't know who proposed this. It's not a question of rationality. It's a question of morality. One can rationalize anything, if as our comrade argues, "might makes right". Ancaps reject ends justify the means arguments. That isn't to say that statists can't achieve their rational ends by hurting, stealing and subjugating others, only that to do so, violates a basic moral principle ancaps accept. That the use of aggressive force is illegitimate.
Christophe's argument, is that aggressive force is legitimate if you can use it. So when he says he is an ideological ancap, he is not being honest.
In the cultural tradition of my people, I will answer your question with further questions.
how many individuals are jailed by 'private' criminals, individuals or gangs?comparehow many innocents in state jails guilty of victim-less crimes like using or selling drugs, not paying taxes etc etc. ?
how does the size of revenue that criminal gangs extort from innocents compare to how much is extorted by nation states?. one figure dwarfs the other.
oh yes. and the deaths of innocents through war, and meddling in healthcare and roads etc.
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
NIR BUT WAT ABOT DOKTER EVIL?
He gets a bad rep, but he's not so bad. He gave us the question mark. and personally, I like question marks.....
if people have to die to give us question marks.
so be it.
nirgrahamUK:if people have to die to give us question marks.
We have to kill people for question marks, because might makes right, and this is an irrational world.
i think we would have to kill people even if we didnt get question marks as a side benefit.
irrational world and all
nirgrahamUK:irrational world and all
Well, everyone except Nietzsche of course.
Not adressing any of the issues does not invalidate them.
Christophe: 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 How do you plan to go about setting up your capitalistic anarchy from this point on, practically. Secede? What's stopping you right now, how come "thy kingdom hath not come"? The arguement for the existence of different legislations in the same area being possible falls flat on its ass by just looking at current reality: what's stopping you from setting up your own system of legislation at this exact moment if supposedly different laws can coexist in the same geographical territory? The simple reason is that this is impossible because the stronger group will supress the weaker one, just like what's happening now. You can yell about your natural rights as much as you want, the stronger group has you by the balls. I use this kind of language to illustrate my point: the reason why constant anarchy being possible is out of the question is because the stronger group dominates and a single de facto uniformal system is thereby installed which keeps the rest down, and the only right that counts in reality is that of the strongest. In short: where is your capitalistic anarchy. 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.
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.
None of these questions have been answered, and you not wanting to answer them means diddly squat, it only shows your ignorance and perhaps your inability to formulate a non-dogmatic reply.
I have a hard time believing that either of you two are really as idiotic as you pretend to be. If you don't feel like reading "the wall of text" then what are you doing in this thread in the first place? I'm not twisting your arm to be here and neither of you have added much if anything to the conversation in the last few pages aside from some petty remarks and embarassing attempts at sarcasm. If you guys circlejerk any faster you're going to hurt somebody.
If you don't have anything serious to say, then don't. Don't waste your time on still reading and replying if you don't feel like it and don't waste mine on still having to deal with the likes of you, I for one do have other stuff to do and I'd rather spend the free time I have available for this on people who have something to say.
I don't mean any offense by this, I just don't get what you hope of achieving in trying to provoke me (unsuccesfully, I might add) with some petty playground shenanigans. I'm above that kind of thing, if you have any dignity you should be as well.
christophe youre a tool, if you want your issues addressed go read a book.
tacoface: christophe youre a tool, if you want your issues addressed go read a book.
I don't see where all of you got this fetish about reading books. I also have reasoning and insights which I did not just copy from a book, how about you? I can explain any of my viewpoints to anybody without having to demand from them that they read any book whatsoever, why can't you. But if we're going to compare our literary penises anyway, chances are mine's bigger than yours, friend. I stopped keeping count when I passed the boundary of 100, who cares? Even so, it's a non-issue, I've never (never) used the arguement of "I've read more books than you" in any conversation, simply because it's a show of weakness rather than strength to have to hide behind that sort of thing. Doing so doesn't impress me, it only makes me suspect your other points are too sketchy to stand on their own accord. If you're reading books just so you can say you have read a lot of them, then to me that says a lot about the kind of person you are and about the chances of you having actually understood the implications of what you read. "Go read a book" is the hallmark fo the pseudo intellectual, spare yourself the embarassment of uttering it and keep them guessing instead of removing all doubt.
For all the talk of not initiating violence, I say most of you are pretty agressive and quick on the draw, at least there's some ironic amusement in it for me, much like when selfprofessed "openminded" socialists go ballistic whenever you disagree with them.
Having said that, if you don't have anything to say, then don't. I don't see the problem, am I spamming any of your threads with verbal diarrhea, "tacoface", if that is your real name? I'm not. It doesn't cost you anything to return the favor and it doesn't cost you anything to be polite. Practice what you preach, at least.
Christophe started with a simple enough question about externalities and you guys have led the discussion to insult war over which is the best possible unrealistic form of government. The simple fact of the matter is that there isn't enough evidence to say that anarcho-capitalism would "work better" than the current system or even an idealized small government system. At least we have evidence that small government works pretty well (Hong Kong, Singapore). I don't want to get into a methodological debate, but evidence is necessary to establish the efficacy of such a massive reform as eliminating the entire government. You don't even have any well organized blueprints for handling the most basic criminal offenses. I am all for free-markets, but it is never enough to just say "the market will work things out," especially if you are trying to convince people who don't even think markets are efficient in general.
consequentialist.wordpress.com
Christophe: tacoface: christophe youre a tool, if you want your issues addressed go read a book. I don't see where all of you got this fetish about reading books. I also have reasoning and insights which I did not just copy from a book, and I can explain any of my viewpoints to anybody without having to demand from them that they read any book whatsoever, why can't you. But if we're going to compare our literary penises anyway, chances are mine's bigger than yours, friend. Even so, it's a non-issue, I've never (never) used the arguement of "I've read more books than you" in any conversation, simply because it's a show of weakness rather than strength to have to hide behind that sort of thing. Doing so doesn't impress me, it only makes me suspect your other points are too sketchy to stand on their own accord. Having said that, if you don't have anything to say, then don't. I don't see the problem, am I spamming any of your threads with verbal diarrhea, "tacoface", if that is your real name? I'm not. It doesn't cost you anything to return the favor.
I don't see where all of you got this fetish about reading books. I also have reasoning and insights which I did not just copy from a book, and I can explain any of my viewpoints to anybody without having to demand from them that they read any book whatsoever, why can't you. But if we're going to compare our literary penises anyway, chances are mine's bigger than yours, friend. Even so, it's a non-issue, I've never (never) used the arguement of "I've read more books than you" in any conversation, simply because it's a show of weakness rather than strength to have to hide behind that sort of thing. Doing so doesn't impress me, it only makes me suspect your other points are too sketchy to stand on their own accord.
Having said that, if you don't have anything to say, then don't. I don't see the problem, am I spamming any of your threads with verbal diarrhea, "tacoface", if that is your real name? I'm not. It doesn't cost you anything to return the favor.
sigh, there is literature out there which addresses your "concerns" (and boy are they unique), it's not my problem if you do not seek them out, i'm merely giving you some advice.
Jake McCloskey:The simple fact of the matter is that there isn't enough evidence to say that anarcho-capitalism would "work better" than the current system or even an idealized small government system.
The simple fact is that evidence is not necessary for an ancap. Ancap is based on a principle, not consequentialism.
Jake McCloskey:At least we have evidence that small government works pretty well (Hong Kong, Singapore).
Works well for who?
Jake McCloskey:evidence is necessary to establish the efficacy of such a massive reform as eliminating the entire government.
So the slave must prove he can thrive without his master before he can be freed? What silliness.
Jake McCloskey:but it is never enough to just say "the market will work things out,"
And the alternative to the market is?