Economics Questions

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

Sieben — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:12:57 GMT

Saan:
Eh?

Yeah. Assertion of absolute ownership is expensive.

Saan:
Sure it does. Property based only upon ones ability to defend it is might makes right.

Well the free market in general is based on the more money you have the more you can do....

Saan:
A demagogue need only persuade a majority to plunder a minority, we have plenty of historical examples of this.

So is this the argument that anarchy tends towards statism? Many other threads for that topic.

Saan:
Influence and coercive force are two different things. I have influence around me as well. Influence is what you have when people cooperate with you voluntarily. Power is what you have when you force people to cooperate with you.

Prescription of Anarchy: It would be nice if everyone got along and respected property rights. Description of Anarchy: Some people will probably violate your property rights. It is up to you to assert these rights.

Are you like a minarchist or something? It is one thing to say libertarianism entails absolute property rights but the reality is that there is no way to do so. Statism robs people to protect their rights (at best). Anarchy leaves provision of rights to the market which determines the optimal level of assertion of property rights...

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

Saan — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:07:04 GMT

Snowflake:
Saan:
NAP and absolute property rights provide the most effective non-contradictory means for a man to satisfy his wants.
Not if its really expensive to do so. Obviously if you wanted me to stop my particles from crossing your property lines it would be expensive to detect and expensive for me to stop. Perhaps impossible.

Eh?

Snowflake:
Saan:
If the basis of property is solely ones ability to defend it, then we get democracy or rather tyranny of the majority.
Not really... no one thinks that PDAs and MDAs are forms of democracy.

Sure it does. Property based only upon ones ability to defend it is might makes right. Democracy is the same thing. Force in numbers. Tyranny of the majority. A demagogue need only persuade a majority to plunder a minority, we have plenty of historical examples of this.

Snowflake:
It may be that liberty in its truest and purest sense is unrealizable, or impractical to attain. If I'm on mars, my gravitational field is still influencing everything you do even if you don't know it. Obviously its not worth it to try to resolve this matter... Live and let live. This is what block is saying; to ignore the small stuff. He doesn't give a criterion for what "small" stuff is. I'm claiming that the market determines what small is.

Influence and coercive force are two different things. I have influence around me as well. Influence is what you have when people cooperate with you voluntarily. Power is what you have when you force people to cooperate with you.

I'm really not following you here.

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

Sieben — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:04:43 GMT

It costs money to have property. Some property is very expensive to have. If this property cannot pay itself off, no one will claim it.

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

Juan — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:36:56 GMT

Not if its really expensive to do so. Obviously if you wanted me to stop my particles from crossing your property lines it would be expensive to detect and expensive for me to stop. Perhaps impossible.

Huh ? You are not making any sense.

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

wilderness — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:36:43 GMT

and why would anybody give a sh-t about small stuff like your "particles" or your gravitational field on mars. the latter is not deliberate no matter what one thinks about gravity and naturally unavoidable. the former is - who the h-ll knows what those are.

in other words - eh?

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

Sieben — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:41:09 GMT

Saan:
NAP and absolute property rights provide the most effective non-contradictory means for a man to satisfy his wants.

Not if its really expensive to do so. Obviously if you wanted me to stop my particles from crossing your property lines it would be expensive to detect and expensive for me to stop. Perhaps impossible.

Saan:
If the basis of property is solely ones ability to defend it, then we get democracy or rather tyranny of the majority.

Not really... no one thinks that PDAs and MDAs are forms of democracy.

Saan:
I don't see how liberty can be realized with the premise property resides solely on ones ability to defend it.

It may be that liberty in its truest and purest sense is unrealizable, or impractical to attain. If I'm on mars, my gravitational field is still influencing everything you do even if you don't know it. Obviously its not worth it to try to resolve this matter... Live and let live. This is what block is saying; to ignore the small stuff. He doesn't give a criterion for what "small" stuff is. I'm claiming that the market determines what small is.

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

Saan — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:17:51 GMT

I forgot how to edit. I am saying I don't apply fairness dogma to my relationships with other people. Don't strawman me please

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

Saan — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:09:31 GMT

Snowflake:
Those say that the person who fulfills certain criteria owns property X. I'm saying that in anarchy, one's claim to property X does not rely on these metaphysical conditions, but rather whether you can actually defend and enforce your claim.

I agree in part. In the sense that if a robber kills you, you lose.

I think the most effective defense of ones property is voluntary cooperation within ones social contact circle i.e. anarchy. Even with the existence of the state this method mitigates some of the damages the state causes. I speak for myself, but I gain far more from voluntary cooperation with my colleagues and neighbors than if I call the cops on them, because I'm afraid they may be drug dealers, women abusers, child molestors, name your demon. Most people fit the definition of another mans demon.

NAP and absolute property rights provide the most effective non-contradictory means for a man to satisfy his wants. If the basis of property is solely ones ability to defend it, then we get democracy or rather tyranny of the majority. (I don't want to go off topic so maybe another thread on the fallacy of governmental theories.) I don't see how liberty can be realized with the premise property resides solely on ones ability to defend it.

This is what I understand from that premise.

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

Sieben — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:45:49 GMT

Blawc Sez on p61:
"Obviously there should be some de minimis exception. Victims should not be able to sue for a slight invasion of their property, as when a single particle [gets on their lawn]. This is a well established legal principle in both England and the United States.

In the first sentence, block gives up on absolute property rights. The second sentence is just kind of... a recommendation... and the third is an argumentum ad populum.

Saan:
Okay, so why does this preclude absolute property rights then? I don't see the connection.

My view is at odds with homesteading and first use principles typically employed by libertarians. Those say that the person who fulfills certain criteria owns property X. I'm saying that in anarchy, one's claim to property X does not rely on these metaphysical conditions, but rather whether you can actually defend and enforce your claim. This is preferable for many reasons... most of them utilitarian im forced to admit.

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

Saan — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:14:04 GMT

Snowflake:
On the market, claims to property will only be made if it is cheaper to own something that not own something. This will be a function of the thing's utility and ease of defense. Block seems to realize this but appears reluctant to forfeit absolute property rights.

Okay, so why does this preclude absolute property rights then? I don't see the connection.

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:26:35 GMT

If snowflake could quote or point to where he feels Block starts to 'compromise' then I could form an opinion on that...

regardless; there is a wealth of good literature available, and easily searchable on this site. if there is a particular topic you
have a question on feel free to ask

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

Jason — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:20:34 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
lol, i'm confused.

Me too. I was hoping someone would eventually pull back the curtain for me.

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:09:28 GMT

Snowflake makes a good case until he gets to slight violations of property rights. At this point he just kind of throws up his hands and says property rights aren't *that* important. Imo this is a slippery slope.

lol, i'm confused.

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

Sieben — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:51:39 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
There is, however, a true market solution that depends on the price system without violating property rights. The first step is to establish a system of clearly defined and enforceable property rights. Once clearly defined, market forces will take over and determine the optimal level of pollution

I think this issue can be resolved if we abandon a priori theories property rights like homesteading and first-use. On the market, claims to property will only be made if it is cheaper to own something that not own something. This will be a function of the thing's utility and ease of defense. Block seems to realize this but appears reluctant to forfeit absolute property rights.

Re: Phil Donahue almost teaches Milton Friedman a lesson in the economic calculation problem

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:42:32 GMT

Snowflake:
nirgrahamUK:
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/pollution_trading_permits.pdfenjoy!

Block makes a good case until he gets to slight violations of property rights. At this point he just kind of throws up his hands and says property rights aren't *that* important. Imo this is a slippery slope.

I must have missed that bit......

There is, however, a true market solution that depends on the price system without violating property rights. The first step is to establish a system of clearly defined and enforceable property rights. Once clearly defined, market forces will take over and determine the optimal level of pollution