3 ms·

> As for libertarianism - it has some good ideas, but the more extreme forms burst into flames at the first mention of the word "externality". Now correct me i

> As for libertarianism - it has some good ideas, but the more extreme forms burst into flames at the first mention of the word "externality". Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're suggesting that "externalities" are better handled by rulers ruling over their subjects than voluntary co-operation between individuals. That's what we have now, you know. Rulers and subjects. There's a small elite imposing their will on everyone else, and it seems you think they're taking care of externalities better than we could without rulers. Presumably, if you didn't think so, you'd support voluntary co-operation instead of our current societal arrangements. But it's pretty damn difficult to believe you sincerely think so, considering we all know corporations around the world are somehow managing to pollute their hearts out despite our benevolent overlords being there to protect and serve us. The people of Beijing can't be particularly happy with how their externalities are handled, for example. It's like there's this thing called "bribery", and it's a really effective way of getting to do whatever the hell you want with the environment, as long as you keep handing money to the right politicians. Oh, and by the way, this way of circumventing any negative consequences for destroying the environment wouldn't be available without political power, as you may be able to comperehend. But nevermind, I wrote this message not so much to you, but to some innocent bystander who might happen to read this.

aninhumer 11y ago
>Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're suggesting that "externalities" are better handled by rulers No, they're suggesting that externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about them. But as it happens, yes I tend to think co-ordination problems are solved more effectively by a co-ordinator, rather than decentralised actors. You can call them "rulers" if you like, but then you'd be ignoring the concept of democracy. >you'd support voluntary co-operation Except you don't support "voluntary" anything, because you're talking about property rights. You know, a system where people are forced to follow particular rules about resource allocation, regardless of whether they agreed to follow them. As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources. You can argue that a system of pure property rights minimises it, but please don't pretend that it magically avoids it.
- sukulaku 11y ago
  > externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about them Entities like rulers, perhaps? You know "campaign contributions" are an euphemism for bribes, don't you? When the people who you think are preventing externalities get bribed, they actually have an incentive to not care about them. > You can call them "rulers" if you like, but then you'd be ignoring the concept of democracy. What exactly am I ignoring? The idea that you can affect something by dropping a piece of paper into a box? That belief is extremely convenient for the people who are in no way bound by that act, you know? > Except you don't support "voluntary" anything, because you're talking about property rights. Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don't steal from others is that they'd be punished for it? > As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources. That's probably true in the sense that someone somewhere will rob someone regardless, but.. if you actually have a problem with "coercion in the distribution of resources", then you just can't sanely support the idea of an organization that coerces potentially hundreds of millions of people in how their resources are "distributed".
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    >You know "campaign contributions" are an euphemism for bribes, don't you? Sure, US democracy is badly implemented, but that doesn't mean the idea is inherently flawed. If you want to argue that it is, feel free. But until you do, please stop pretending there is no alternative to your false dichotomy. >Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don't steal from others is that they'd be punished for it? No, but most people following the rules of their own volition is not sufficient for the system to work. If you make it truly "voluntary", then anyone who doesn't agree can just take whatever they want. > if you actually have a problem with "coercion in the distribution of resources" I don't, as I said it's inevitable. I just object to libertarians pretending they can avoid it.
    - sukulaku 11y ago
      > Sure, US democracy is badly implemented, but that doesn't mean the idea is inherently flawed. If you believe the act of dropping a piece of paper into a box actually affects what a politician can do, I've got a bridge to sell you. That's what it would take for voting to actually affect something, otherwise you're just engaging in a pointless ritual. Of course it's only pointless on the voter's part. People believing in the idea that subjects have a say in how they're ruled sure as hell benefits the rulers! > I just object to libertarians pretending they can avoid it In fact, I've avoided all non-governmental forms of coercion all my life!

aninhumer 11y ago

>Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're suggesting that "externalities" are better handled by rulers No, they're suggesting that externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about them. But as it happens, yes I tend to think co-ordination problems are solved more effectively by a co-ordinator, rather than decentralised actors. You can call them "rulers" if you like, but then you'd be ignoring the concept of democracy. >you'd support voluntary co-operation Except you don't support "voluntary" anything, because you're talking about property rights. You know, a system where people are forced to follow particular rules about resource allocation, regardless of whether they agreed to follow them. As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources. You can argue that a system of pure property rights minimises it, but please don't pretend that it magically avoids it.

sukulaku 11y ago
> externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about them Entities like rulers, perhaps? You know "campaign contributions" are an euphemism for bribes, don't you? When the people who you think are preventing externalities get bribed, they actually have an incentive to not care about them. > You can call them "rulers" if you like, but then you'd be ignoring the concept of democracy. What exactly am I ignoring? The idea that you can affect something by dropping a piece of paper into a box? That belief is extremely convenient for the people who are in no way bound by that act, you know? > Except you don't support "voluntary" anything, because you're talking about property rights. Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don't steal from others is that they'd be punished for it? > As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources. That's probably true in the sense that someone somewhere will rob someone regardless, but.. if you actually have a problem with "coercion in the distribution of resources", then you just can't sanely support the idea of an organization that coerces potentially hundreds of millions of people in how their resources are "distributed".
- aninhumer 11y ago
  >You know "campaign contributions" are an euphemism for bribes, don't you? Sure, US democracy is badly implemented, but that doesn't mean the idea is inherently flawed. If you want to argue that it is, feel free. But until you do, please stop pretending there is no alternative to your false dichotomy. >Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don't steal from others is that they'd be punished for it? No, but most people following the rules of their own volition is not sufficient for the system to work. If you make it truly "voluntary", then anyone who doesn't agree can just take whatever they want. > if you actually have a problem with "coercion in the distribution of resources" I don't, as I said it's inevitable. I just object to libertarians pretending they can avoid it.
  - sukulaku 11y ago
    > Sure, US democracy is badly implemented, but that doesn't mean the idea is inherently flawed. If you believe the act of dropping a piece of paper into a box actually affects what a politician can do, I've got a bridge to sell you. That's what it would take for voting to actually affect something, otherwise you're just engaging in a pointless ritual. Of course it's only pointless on the voter's part. People believing in the idea that subjects have a say in how they're ruled sure as hell benefits the rulers! > I just object to libertarians pretending they can avoid it In fact, I've avoided all non-governmental forms of coercion all my life!