3 ms·

If only it were that simple. The metrics of "best suits everyone" and "most [economically] efficient" almost certainly do not coincide with today's populations

If only it were that simple. The metrics of "best suits everyone" and "most [economically] efficient" almost certainly do not coincide with today's populations, though I would say that the latter would probably come fairly close to a libertarian society (David D. Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_ is a book-length treatment of the idea). If you take a random grouping, finding an arrangement that suits everyone will be very, very difficult, or impossible. The only way I can see to solve this is to make moving to where you agree easier.

davidw 18y ago
We weren't talking about a random grouping though, but about the people who were happily living in some neighborhood when I moved in and decided to open up my munitions dump (I agree that things are a bit different if I were the only one there with my dump, and they all decided to move in). What groups of people we're talking about matter in policy terms - companies, which are far more towards the 'voluntary' end of the spectrum, should be treated differently than local neighborhoods, which should be treated differently from larger aggregations of people (states, or countries).
- randallsquared 18y ago
  I guess the word I should have used was "arbitrary". It's going to be difficult to get all of my neighbors and myself to agree on all the rules for our society, I'd imagine. I have no reason to expect that they share more than the most basic assumptions about societal rules. In the case where we move in and open up a munitions dump, either we signed an agreement not to engage in risky behavior, or we didn't. If we did, we're liable. If we didn't, then it still may be that the folks we bought the land from had, and then they're liable, since they didn't make buying the land conditional on signing the no-risky-behavior contract. Otherwise, buying that land turns out to have been a bad call for everyone else. Of course, once the dump explodes, we're liable for the damage, but as you note, we may no longer be able to pay for it. Even when I advocate mandatory crime/injury insurance, I don't mean mandatory in the sense that I'm willing to throw people in jail for not buying it, but mandatory in the sense that I'm not willing to interact with people who refuse to buy it, or who are such bad risks that they can't afford it.

davidw 18y ago

We weren't talking about a random grouping though, but about the people who were happily living in some neighborhood when I moved in and decided to open up my munitions dump (I agree that things are a bit different if I were the only one there with my dump, and they all decided to move in). What groups of people we're talking about matter in policy terms - companies, which are far more towards the 'voluntary' end of the spectrum, should be treated differently than local neighborhoods, which should be treated differently from larger aggregations of people (states, or countries).

randallsquared 18y ago
I guess the word I should have used was "arbitrary". It's going to be difficult to get all of my neighbors and myself to agree on all the rules for our society, I'd imagine. I have no reason to expect that they share more than the most basic assumptions about societal rules. In the case where we move in and open up a munitions dump, either we signed an agreement not to engage in risky behavior, or we didn't. If we did, we're liable. If we didn't, then it still may be that the folks we bought the land from had, and then they're liable, since they didn't make buying the land conditional on signing the no-risky-behavior contract. Otherwise, buying that land turns out to have been a bad call for everyone else. Of course, once the dump explodes, we're liable for the damage, but as you note, we may no longer be able to pay for it. Even when I advocate mandatory crime/injury insurance, I don't mean mandatory in the sense that I'm willing to throw people in jail for not buying it, but mandatory in the sense that I'm not willing to interact with people who refuse to buy it, or who are such bad risks that they can't afford it.