Externalities

Reply

Christophe replied on Wed, Aug 12 2009 8:57 PM

rated by 0 users

Your politeless is noted, your patronizing tone as well and I don't care very much for it. If it's all so clear to you I'm not stopping you from explaining it, that's why I asked it and why I genuinely engage in the conversation, I don't need the attitude and I don't see where my own actions warranted it.

So just to get this straight, you're saying that theory = practice and force doesn't come into play into enforcing your set of rules?

Saying "you're ignorant" is too easy, I don't mind you not feeling like typing out a full reply but I also don't see why I should accept your position on good faith either. I don't force you to participate into the conversation, if you don't feel like adding something useful, then don't.

Reply

Jon Irenicus replied on Wed, Aug 12 2009 9:04 PM

rated by 0 users

No, I am saying trying to dismiss something as "theory" (as if the word is meant on its own to somehow be denigrating in character) is not going to work with me (especially if you want to somehow claim minarchism is superior to erm... anything), and if you want to understand our position on law the best way is to read up any one of the volumes on it, then come back to iron out any misunderstandings on the topic, rather than groping about in the dark - given that these books provide answers to these questions to begin with (e.g. "poor" victims letting a lawyer take their case to court by offering as reward a share of the restitution they're paid - this already happens to an extent...) You will waste less of both your and my time doing so. There is no "patronising" tone, I am merely suggesting you stick to what is relevant and omit anything else.

Saying "you're ignorant" is too easy, I don't mind you not feeling like typing out a full reply but I also don't see why I should accept your position on good faith either.

Which books have you read on the topic then? Because you are raising questions addressed in the literature on the topic seemingly oblivious to answers provided to them, hence my claim you are ignorant of the materials...

Reply

Christophe replied on Wed, Aug 12 2009 9:43 PM

rated by 0 users

I don't denigrate "theory", if I did we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place as theory is what we're limited to, but I acknowledge that theory and practice can be entirely different things just like intentions and results don't have to coïncide.

In theory "poor" victims can get a lawyer take their case to court by offering a share of the restitution they're paid. In practice, there's no money in defending a woman in the hands of an otherwise broke pimp who drank and gambled it all away. The questions of whether or not the woman "should" be helped or not is one thing, but I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I even come to inquire after them since you seem to do, so there we are.

But make no mistake about it, my willingness to admit hiatus in my views does not equal to a lack of intelligence on my part. I don't deal in dogma and I have no need for a religion. Your previous post was polite, the one before that wasn't and had no place in a conversation in which I'm trying to understand your views in an honest way while nothing forces you to participate if you feel like you're wasting your time, that's all I have to say about the matter. Perhaps I misinterpreted the tone, perhaps I didn't, let's leave it at that and be done with it.

Minarchism is what seems the lesser of evils to me, the problems are there and I fully recognize those inconsistencies and the fact that I at the moment  have no answer to them. I say that at the moment, taken the inconsistencies as they are, my opinion is de facto an arbitrary and subjective value judgement: I have no "absolute" to call on aside from my own preference, and its success is entirely dependant on the force I can summon in support of my ideal.

However, until convinced otherwise I have no reason to change my views as they currently seem to stand as the least problematic to me, Ockham's razor if you will. I am willing to change them if logically proven false, if not we again would not be having this conversation. It is, however, something very different to accept reality as reality, A=A, as opposed to having the absolute ethical normative truth in your possession.

You however seem to start from an entirely different angle: if I gather it correctly you claim that in your view of things there is nothing arbitrary; 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?

In short my point of view is an acknowledgment of its shortcomings and its justification comes from what I percieve to be best given what I myself have up to now logically proven beyond doubt, with my personal preferences backing up that which is still logically lacking. But you claim absolute truth it seems (if not, then please explain what you are claiming then) so I would very much like to be "enlightened".

Having said that, if you don't want to continue the conversation then perhaps somebody else who doesn't feel that explaining these things is a waste of time is willing to do it.

Edit: as to what books I've read about the subject (even though I doubt numbers mean much in things like this), these are the ones which  I think are relevant on the subject of (political) morality:

• Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
  ISBN 978-8172241643
• Arthur Schopenhauer, Essay on the Freedom of the Will
  ISBN 0486440117
• Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
  ISBN 0451191145
• Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
  ISBN 9780141188621
• Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept
  ISBN 0385514727
• Desiderius Erasmus, Lof der Zotheid
  ISBN 9025311296
• Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition
  ISBN 1933435143
• Eric Hoffer, The Passionate State of Mind
  ISBN 1933435097
• Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on The Nature of Mass Movements
  ISBN 0060505915
• Francois Voltaire, Candide
  ISBN 9780143039426
• Francois Voltaire, The Philosophical Dictionary
  ISBN 014044257X
• Friedrich August von Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty
  ISBN 041540424X
• Friedrich August von Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism
  ISBN 0415041872
• Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
  ISBN 0415253896
• Friedrich Nietzsche, Basic Writings of Nietzsche
  ISBN 9780679783398
• Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
  ISBN 014044923x
• Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak: Thoughts on the prejudices of morality
  ISBN 978-0521599634
• Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals
  ISBN 978019283617
• Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche
  ISBN 0140150625
• Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will To Power
  ISBN 0394704371
• Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
  ISBN 0140047484
• Geert Mak, In Europa
  ISBN 9789045003726
• George Orwell, Animal Farm
  ISBN 0451526341
• George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
  ISBN 014118776X
• Isaiah Berlin, Liberty
  ISBN 978-0199249893
• Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
  ISBN 0393317552
• John Milton, Paradise Lost
  ISBN 019280619X
• Michael White, Machiavelli: A Man Misunderstood
  ISBN 0349115990
• Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom
  ISBN 0226264211
• Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
  ISBN 0140449159
• Plato, The Republic
  ISBN 0140449140
• Roger Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy
  ISBN 0415267633
• Robert Wright, Nonzero: History, Evolution & Human Cooperation
  ISBN 0349113343
• Samuel Beckett, Waiting For Godot
  ISBN 0571058086
• Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash Of Civilizations
  ISBN 074323149X
• Sigmund Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle
  ISBN 0393007693
• Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents
  ISBN 0393059952
• Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id
  ISBN 0393001423
• Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion
  ISBN 0393008312
• Sigmund Freud, Totem and Taboo
  ISBN 0393001431
• Steven D. Levitt, Freakonomics: The Hidden Side of Everything
  ISBN 0061234001
• Theodore Dalrymple, The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas
  ISBN 1594032025
• Theodore Dalrymple, The Worldview That Makes the Underclass
  ISBN 1566635055
• Theodore Dalrymple, The Mandarins and the Masses
  ISBN 1566636434

Although I contend that personal reflection and critical conversation, both of which I've done quite a bit of, can add as much as reading a book.

Reply

Jake McCloskey replied on Wed, Aug 12 2009 9:56 PM

rated by 0 users

What is your thesis on?  What is the degree you're trying for? 

Externalities are almost by definition caused by a lack of property rights.  This is not an Austrian claim, this is the mainstream view.  The problem is that is is difficult or impossible to enforce certain types of property rights.  Air is a good example.  Is that a problem of government or of the market?  Such a question is pointless for this discussion I think.  Externalities exist, period.  The question is: should government provide public goods/Pigouvian taxes to alleviate the problem.  If you believe government provision will make things worse overall, then the answer is no.  If you believe some government action is better than nothing, the answer is yes. 

You're never going to get an adequate answer to how a "pure" market system would deal with massive pollution, so don't go that route.  Take a public choice approach to externalities overall and you'll get more convincing results.

Also, saying you're "as die-hard laissez-faire as it gets" is a bad attitude.  This isn't a "who's more hardcore" contest.  It's a bad idea to come at everything from that standpoint.

Reply

laminustacitus replied on Wed, Aug 12 2009 10:27 PM

rated by 0 users

Christophe:

Theodore Dalrymple, The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas
ISBN 1594032025

Theodore Dalrymple, The Worldview That Makes the Underclass
ISBN 1566635055

Theodore Dalrymple, The Mandarins and the Masses
ISBN 1566636434

This is off topic, and in no ways meant to be taken wrongly, but you do sound very much influenced by Dalrymple, esspecially with respect to is empiricists attitude about social philosophy.

Reply

liberty student replied on Wed, Aug 12 2009 10:39 PM

rated by 0 users

Christophe:

Minarchism is what seems the lesser of evils to me

It is still evil.  Where is the evil in anarcho-capitalism?  This myth about the wealthy killing and enslaving their customers?

We're grown ups here.  The notion that the successful see the rest of humanity as fodder or cattle is leftist claptrap.  Who has done the most killing in this world?  Secular ideologues.  Who kills more people, the state or private individuals?  Who tortures?  Who murders?  Who steals?

We're all for voluntary societies where people embrace free exchange under a system of property rights.  How minarchism, which can still steal from you, still take you to war, still mass murder, and still force you to kill or be killed for it is superior, I suppose is a matter of perspective.

The state, legally, is a complete fiction.  No one signs a contract with it, and no one can secede from it.  The state can kill you, without consequence under sovereign immunity, and at the same time, it is supposedly charged with protecting your individual rights.  It can take your property, and yet it is charged with protecting your individual rights.  It can jail you for what you do to yourself, and yet it is charged with protecting your individual rights.

Minarchism is a farce, and that is being too kind.

Reply

Christophe replied on Wed, Aug 12 2009 10:43 PM

rated by 0 users

Jakem:

What is your thesis on?  What is the degree you're trying for?

I already have a bachelor's degree (3 years) in accountancy and fiscal law, did my "thesis" (don't know the exact English word for the equivalent of thesis in a bachelor's degree, I'm not a native English speaker) on the synchronisation of European anti-money laundering legislation. Currently I'm getting a master's degree (2 years extra, of which I have 1 to go) in trade sciences (sometimes called "applied economic sciences", depending on the school), specialising in strategic management.

Based on my thesis proposal last year concerning the flaws in the egalitarian interpretations of the capabilities approach (a proposed alternative to the basic needs and utility approaches) I got the ok to write my final thesis about a negative liberty interpretation of the CA. Basicly the idea is to make a blueprint for libertarianism/minarchism using CA semantics, while the CA has pretty much exclusively been used for what I consider to be the egalitarian purposes its author more or less intended it for. However, I think it doesn't have to be that way and I could "use their own weapons against them" so to speak; which intrigued my promotors apparantly.

Alternatively, it could as well be adapted to suit the normative law structure of a "private court" (I still have a little under a year to turn it in, it isn't set in stone as to how to approach the subject). That's about as concise as I can explain it within the span of a few sentences :) Does it make any sense?

My promotors however told me to cut back on being "too militant" based on some essays I wrote over time. In true economic fashion I don't feel like creating more trouble than it's worth; I'm just after the "master" title and be done with it. To be honest, in practice it doesn't matter too much, I can play devil's advocate if need be to make sure that I pass, but that's not how I work. If at all possible to do so, without costing me a year of my life because they shoot it down, I'd like to write my thesis "honestly" and in good conscience, defending my own views even if they're unpopular. But to do that I need to make sure that they "can't catch me" in my arguementation. That's why I'm here, to see if I can learn more about what to avoid or how I can fill in the gaps and answer the personal questions I still have aside from just using the info I gather for the purposes of the thesis. The whole thesis thing is of a secondary nature, I just mentioned it "for fluff" if you will.

However, if you wish you can read a part of one of the essays composing the thesis proposal over here: link

Also, saying you're "as die-hard laissez-faire as it gets" is a bad attitude.  This isn't a "who's more hardcore" contest.  It's a bad idea to come at everything from that standpoint.

Well, apparantly I'm not as die hard as I first thought I was before this conversation got started. I agree, I don't have a need to be "more hardcore" for the sake of it; I try to back up what I say by understanding it :)

Reply

Jake McCloskey replied on Wed, Aug 12 2009 11:21 PM

rated by 0 users

Ok, I think I understand what you're doing.

Like I said, there is no easy way to answer the question "how would 'the market' deal with externalities."  Most people include the provision of public goods in the list of responsibilities for "minarchist" states anyway.  Law and national defense are public goods.  Externalities are just the other side of the coin.  I'm sure you could find a way to argue that externalities are a violation of negative rights.  I think its plausible that air pollution is a violation of some negative right.  The it would fall under the government's domain.  

Essentially, this a way of sidestepping the issue.  I don't know if it's what you're looking for but I don't think you are going to find anything else, other than a point by point refutation of the rationale for government action against all conceivable externalities.

Reply

DD5 replied on Wed, Aug 12 2009 11:57 PM

rated by 0 users

Christophe:

If purchasing power is the only deciding factor I don't see what would keep a random millionaire from literally turning me into a slave since he can afford bigger guns than I can.

I also don't see how private courts deal with for example women who are forced into prostitution. If you don't have the money to buy yourself into a court, you're outside of the law basicly?

I thought you agreed that there is no economic incentive to instigate a war?  Well then, where is your consistency?

Why would a millionaire try to enslave me when he can get a better deal hiring me?  According to your logic,  he will go spend his earned wealth on guns, risk financial damage and physical injury or death in a potential violent battle just so he can enslave me, then bare the costs of maintaining my slavery and keeping me captive.  Not to mention that he now expects consumers of his products to be indifferent about his ethics? 

Even if you ignore the above and I voluntarily sell myself to slavery, there is really no exploitative profit from slavery.   Why?  read Mises!

It is much more likely that a very rich man can buy unethical privileges in your Utopian small government system.  You are the one who is maintaining the monopoly on law and violence.  You are the one who is keeping a political process that actually benefits by accepting legal bribes.  You are basically keeping the legal channel to steal and rob.  I think you have it exactly in reverse.  In your system the rich man can buy the law, in ours, he remains a criminal.

Reply

Jake McCloskey replied on Thu, Aug 13 2009 12:02 AM

rated by 0 users

DD5:

hy would a millionaire try to enslave me when he can get a better deal hiring me?  According to your logic,  he will go spend his earned wealth on guns, risk financial damage and physical injury or death in a potential violent battle just so he can enslave me, then bare the costs of maintaining my slavery and keeping me captive.  Not to mention that he now expects consumers of his products to be indifferent about his ethics? 

How do you think governments form?

Reply

DD5 replied on Thu, Aug 13 2009 12:03 AM

rated by 0 users

Christophe:

If purchasing power is the only deciding factor I don't see ....

And another thing.  No offense, but anyone who implies that purchasing power can be dangerous in a free market doesn't really get free markets. 

Reply

Bostwick replied on Thu, Aug 13 2009 12:04 AM

rated by 0 users

Christophe:

and the original "anarcho capitalist world" died out just like neanderthales did.

This old fallacy: The State replaced a state of freedom, thus it is better.

First, thats not a valid argument. Second, its not historically accurate.

Reply

Bostwick replied on Thu, Aug 13 2009 12:09 AM

rated by 0 users

Jakem:

The problem is that is is difficult or impossible to enforce certain types of property rights....The question is: should government provide public goods/Pigouvian taxes to alleviate the problem. 

So externalities are where its difficult to enforce property rights... unless you use the magic of government violence.

So in order to avoid a lack of property rights we will arbitarially violate property rights in the way we hope will yield the best outcome. And by we, I mean whoever happens to be head of State at the moment of course.

Reply

Bostwick replied on Thu, Aug 13 2009 12:12 AM

rated by 0 users

Jake McCloskey:

DD5:

hy would a millionaire try to enslave me when he can get a better deal hiring me?  According to your logic,  he will go spend his earned wealth on guns, risk financial damage and physical injury or death in a potential violent battle just so he can enslave me, then bare the costs of maintaining my slavery and keeping me captive.  Not to mention that he now expects consumers of his products to be indifferent about his ethics? 

How do you think governments form?

How did the American government form? American government, like socialism or fascism or monarchy, is an ideal more than anything else.

Governments get power through ideas, naked violence could never do it alone.

Reply

DD5 replied on Thu, Aug 13 2009 12:16 AM

rated by 0 users

Jakem:

DD5:

hy would a millionaire try to enslave me when he can get a better deal hiring me?  According to your logic,  he will go spend his earned wealth on guns, risk financial damage and physical injury or death in a potential violent battle just so he can enslave me, then bare the costs of maintaining my slavery and keeping me captive.  Not to mention that he now expects consumers of his products to be indifferent about his ethics? 

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.  A coercive monopoly will always have its costs increase while it output is decreased.

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.  We have all to gain and nothing to loose.