Economics Questions

Re: Rivers without the EPA

Kelvin Silva — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 04:18:55 GMT

I really wish someone could purchase a town and experiment with all these ideas. It'd be awesome to see what works and what doesn't.

Tell that to people who believe in the state.

Welcome to anarcho capitalism.

Re: Rivers without the EPA

z1235 — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 03:36:09 GMT

Most people already know that voluntary exchanges work much better than initiation of aggression -- for everyone involved except the parasitic aggressors. The status quo only needs to be explained to them as such.

Besides, the status quo -- democracy as plunder of all against all -- is both logically and empirically unsustainable. It's only a matter of time when humans will be forced to consider more logically consistent alternatives.

Re: Rivers without the EPA

thetabularasa — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 03:25:32 GMT

z1235:

Whatever the market converges to as a medium of exchange -- most likely (but not limited to) gold or certificates of deposit thereof. Whatever gets voluntarily exchanged will be exchanged.

I really wish someone could purchase a town and experiment with all these ideas. It'd be awesome to see what works and what doesn't.

Re: Rivers without the EPA

z1235 — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 03:08:42 GMT

Whatever the market converges to as a medium of exchange -- most likely (but not limited to) gold or certificates of deposit thereof. Whatever gets voluntarily exchanged will be exchanged.

Re: Rivers without the EPA

thetabularasa — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:50:06 GMT

z1235:

The only "law" in a free society would be the non-aggression principle: "Do not initiate aggression towards other people and their property". In your specific example of a factory dumping chemicals into a river, the defense/insurance agencies (DIAs) of the potentially affected downstream property owners would be paying them property damage claims, then -- after paying a reputable consultant/investigator to do a proper chemical analysis/investigation -- proceed to contact the DIA of the factory (Factory DIA) to reclaim their damages. If the Factory DIA agrees with the analysis and the damage claims, it would pay out the Owners DIA, then request that its client (the factory) stop damaging other people's property with its actions lest it cancels its defense/insurance contract with it.

Interesting. So what would be the form of payment, exactly? As in the type of currency.

Re: Rivers without the EPA

z1235 — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:03:50 GMT

thetabularasa:
I'm asking for an answer to my questions as follows: regarding lawsuits...in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no jurisdictions, right? Who creates these laws to uphold? What if I disagree with the laws, and how do I know where exactly the laws apply?

The only "law" in a free society would be the non-aggression principle: "Do not initiate aggression towards other people and their property". In your specific example of a factory dumping chemicals into a river, the defense/insurance agencies (DIAs) of the potentially affected downstream property owners would be paying them property damage claims, then -- after paying a reputable consultant/investigator to do a proper chemical analysis/investigation -- proceed to contact the DIA of the factory (Factory DIA) to reclaim their damages. If the Factory DIA agrees with the analysis and the damage claims, it would pay out the Owners DIA, then request that its client (the factory) stop damaging other people's property with its actions lest it cancels its defense/insurance contract with it.

If, on the other hand, the Factory DIA refuses the Owners DIA's analysis and refuses the damage claim caused by its client (the factory), then the Owners DIA would take the case to a reputable private arbitrator specializing in resolving cases of this nature. This arbitrator would likely be chosen from a list of reputable arbitrators that both DIAs have previously agreed to be acceptable for resolving conflicts such as the one in front of them. It would be in the interest of every DIA to have such agreements with other DIAs in place as this would make conflict resolutions easier (hence, cheaper).

If the Factory DIA acts as a total sociopath, refuses to resolve conflicts with other DIAs peacefully, and prefers to resolve them violently then its costs of doing "business" would rise exponentially and it would have to cover them through exponentially high premiums from its clients which, of course, would prefer to not pay them. On top of it, due to this DIAs reputation of being a complete violent sociopath, other DIAs and property owners would be very careful not to cooperate and trade with any neighbors, clients, or business partners who are this DIA's clients. The defense/insurance premiums and reputational costs imposed on the clients of such DIA would become so high that not many would subscribe -- so such DIA would not be staying in business for too long.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Re: Rivers without the EPA

Tex2002ans — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:49:55 GMT

thetabularasa:
This seems to be more complicated than I anticipated. I will look at the links, but probably won't have time until tomorrow. Anyhow, thank you for your responses.

When discussing the privatization of things that have been controlled by the government since time immemorial... it is quite hard to wrap your head around it, because:

#1. It has been perverted by the government for so long, that now there are many many people with conflicting rights involved.

While speaking about roads, Walter Block mentions a "stock" idea. Everyone in the area who drives on Road A gets one stock in the new "Road A Corporation", and from there let the market decide. People can be free to buy/sell the stock, and become road entrepeneurs. Who knows, maybe everyone in the area should get a stock in River A. (Listen to that TED talk, it also throws around interesting ideas which are currently being used).

When more and more people become entangled in the Tragedy of the Commons, it becomes impossible to untangle what the government has done without making some people will get worse off, while others will gain (the companies which pollute would LOVE to continue to pollute for free). But in the long run, everyone will be much better off with implementing Property Rights NOW, than many more centuries of the Tragedy of the Commons.

It is much easier to figure out these concepts on examples such as space/the Moon/Mars, where the dirty hand of government has yet to taint. :)

#2. There is currently no market, and it is not possible to predict what the market outcome would be. You can only give make educated guesses and give broad generalities. In For A New Liberty, Rothbard covers the famous shoe example, or one of Kinsella's favorite examples is going to North Korea and privatizing the grocery stores.

The pro-government person will demand answers from you, which you can easily see are preposterous (because we currently have a market in grocery stores):

"Where will the grocery stores be located?!": Wherever entrepeneurs decide they are needed.

"AHA! The government forces ONE grocery store to be in every town, and they stick it on the Eastern side of town right on Main Street. If I go into any town I can know exactly where the store will be!"

"Which farmers will the grocery stores get their food from?": Whichever farmers the entrepeneurs decide to purchase from, while most likely there will be lots of imports.

"Without the government in control of the food, won't the farmers just poison food?": The grocery store will make sure they do not get rotten/poisonous food... they do not want to lose money or poison customers.

"How much will farmers get paid?": Whatever their crops are worth.

"AHA... currently the government pays every farmer $10 per ton of crop they sell!"

"How many brands of cereal will they sell?": Whatever each entrepeneur decides is best.

"How many flavors of ice cream cake would they sell?": I don't know... maybe they won't sell any at all.

"AHA... The government of North Korea currently forces every store to sell three flavors of ice cream cake!": Ok.

"How will poor people get food?": They will purchase it just like everyone else.

"IT WILL BE TOO EXPENSIVE": No, the food will be higher quality, and much cheaper than it is now.

"EVERYONE WILL STARVE": No, but I do know that there will be a lot more food of much higher quality will be available for cheaper than if the government was running it.

Re: Rivers without the EPA

thetabularasa — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:17:40 GMT

Tex2002ans:

thetabularasa:
Ok thanks. So as for the river, let's say the AnCap society starts tomorrow. Who takes a claim on what portion of the river and how does it officially become his property?

This is a problem with how any unowned/public/"government owned" land comes into the hands of private individuals. No transition system would be perfect (since it already has become tainted by the government's refusal to grant property rights in water/oceans since time immemorial). I would recommend looking at Walter Block's arguments for the transition to private roads and highways:

https://www.mises.org/document/4084/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways

I remember him specifically covering the example of a well travelled path, which everyone in the village uses.

In the book, he also covers many different "homesteading problems". Perhaps reading the ideas on similar questions, might put you on the right track for the river question.

Here is a TED talk covering some ways the government is currently allocating "water rights" in some states:

http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_harmon_how_the_market_can_keep_streams_flowing.html

thetabularasa:
If it is currently public property, thus not privately owned, do people just stake a claim and say, "I want this portion." Can someone claim the entire river without even paying a dime?

No. This reminds me of the example of putting a flag on the Moon, thus being able to claim the entire Moon as your property. This is not a simple question that can be determined from the armchair, but would be highly dependant on cultural and legal norms. I recommend listening/reading to the Kinsella and Block things I linked to.

This seems to be more complicated than I anticipated. I will look at the links, but probably won't have time until tomorrow. Anyhow, thank you for your responses.

Re: Rivers without the EPA

thetabularasa — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:13:10 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

but your response is irrelevant. I'm asking for an answer to my questions as follows: regarding lawsuits...in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no jurisdictions, right? Who creates these laws to uphold? What if I disagree with the laws, and how do I know where exactly the laws apply?

Is it book recommendations you're after?

Just an answer. If you don't have a valid answer, feel free to recommend a book or two, sure.

Re: Rivers without the EPA

Tex2002ans — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:08:04 GMT

thetabularasa:
Ok thanks. So as for the river, let's say the AnCap society starts tomorrow. Who takes a claim on what portion of the river and how does it officially become his property?

This is a problem with how any unowned/public/"government owned" land comes into the hands of private individuals. No transition system would be perfect (since it already has become tainted by the government's refusal to grant property rights in water/oceans since time immemorial). I would recommend looking at Walter Block's arguments for the transition to private roads and highways:

https://www.mises.org/document/4084/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways

I remember him specifically covering the example of a well travelled path, which everyone in the village uses.

In the book, he also covers many different "homesteading problems". Perhaps reading the ideas on similar questions, might put you on the right track for the river question.

Here is a TED talk covering some ways the government is currently allocating "water rights" in some states:

http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_harmon_how_the_market_can_keep_streams_flowing.html

thetabularasa:
If it is currently public property, thus not privately owned, do people just stake a claim and say, "I want this portion." Can someone claim the entire river without even paying a dime?

No. This reminds me of the example of putting a flag on the Moon, thus being able to claim the entire Moon as your property. This is not a simple question that can be determined from the armchair, but would be highly dependant on cultural and legal norms. I recommend listening/reading to the Kinsella and Block things I linked to.

Re: Rivers without the EPA

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:05:40 GMT

but your response is irrelevant. I'm asking for an answer to my questions as follows: regarding lawsuits...in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no jurisdictions, right? Who creates these laws to uphold? What if I disagree with the laws, and how do I know where exactly the laws apply?

Is it book recommendations you're after?

Re: Rivers without the EPA

thetabularasa — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 00:34:03 GMT

Tex2002ans:

I would recommend this video by Walter Block. It is an interview with him in the mid-80s on his book, "Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation":

https://mises.org/media/1891/Free-Market-Environmentalism-1980s

I would also recommend looking up many of Walter Block's writings on the topic. He has written something on everything, and would always be a great spot to start.

thetabularasa:
I suppose my next question is this: regarding lawsuits...in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no jurisdictions, right? Who creates these laws to uphold? What if I disagree with the laws, and how do I know where exactly the laws apply?

Well how much have you read on the topic of Polycentric/Libertarian Law? I would recommend reading For A New Liberty to get some of the basics of how law would be better handled by the market, and I would also recommend the course taught by Kinsella at Mises Academy called "Libertarian Legal Theory" (he released it for free here):

http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/01/01/kinsellas-libertarian-legal-theory-course-audio-and-slides/

Sebastian:
With land/objects we have clearly defined borders of where it starts and ends. With rivers, not so much.

This reminds me of one of my favorite Walter Block sayings: "Land is just slow moving water, and water is just fast moving land".

Ok thanks. So as for the river, let's say the AnCap society starts tomorrow. Who takes a claim on what portion of the river and how does it officially become his property? If it is currently public property, thus not privately owned, do people just stake a claim and say, "I want this portion." Can someone claim the entire river without even paying a dime?

Re: Rivers without the EPA

thetabularasa — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 00:33:11 GMT

Re: Rivers without the EPA

thetabularasa — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 00:28:51 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

How will the Sun go on without the state? Who will change its lightbul every few years?

I understand your stance regarding the state, but your response is irrelevant. I'm asking for an answer to my questions as follows: regarding lawsuits...in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no jurisdictions, right? Who creates these laws to uphold? What if I disagree with the laws, and how do I know where exactly the laws apply?

Re: Rivers without the EPA

thetabularasa — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 00:26:35 GMT

Sebastian:

How would you homestead water?

Lets say you are fishing and get a fish who is different from a "standard fish", you haven't got damaged by anyone. How can you demand retribution?

With land/objects we have clearly defined borders of where it starts and ends. With rivers, not so much.

Want to know more if you have as water rights always seems foggy and hogwash?...

So you believe that rivers cannot be owned, correct? If that's the case, do you believe the EPA is necessary to prevent river pollution, or ought the corporations be allowed to effectively ruin the food supply with harnassed chemical runoff?