3 ms·

The issue is not whether or not libertarianism would be "against" an externality like that, it's that libertarianism (at least in the author's eyes) doesn't pro

The issue is not whether or not libertarianism would be "against" an externality like that, it's that libertarianism (at least in the author's eyes) doesn't provide workable solutions for externalities like pollution and other tragedy of the commons-like situations.

boon 13y ago
The problem is, neither does the state.
goshakkk 13y ago
It doesn't? As it's an act of aggression, the people suffering may well demand the factory compensates them for the damage. But actually, knowing that it will be held liable, the factory will spend more money on researching how to minimize pollution and will generally be placed in places where it does no damage to anyone. It's all about aggression, really. The factory takes someone's rights unlawfully, it compensates for that. (And knowing it has to compensate, it'll avoid damaging in the first place.) On contrary, a utilitarian government may decide that having some factory working is beneficial to the whole society so it's in "public interest" to let it infringe with people's rights to their property. So it says, "okay, it's bad; but it's in the public interest! we are going to allow this factory to work and it doesn't have to compensate you anything!" Libertarianism says that even if having this factory running brings more "good" than "bad", it's still bad, because it aggresses against people's property. Property rights are above any "public good". Period. (Oh, but if a group of armed criminals has control over some area of land, then it's probably okay to place mysterious "public good" above anything else.)
- geekbeast 13y ago
  The ability of an entity or entities to cause damage beyond their ability to compensate people for their aggression is not addressed either. For example the Bhopal gas tragedy or Anaconda Mining Corporation's superfund site ( luckily their purchaser agreed to assume majority of clean up costs, but there are things that cannot be cleaned up ). Other examples include Chernobyl and Fukushima, which were not aggressive acts until accidents rendered hundreds of sq miles unlivable. A potential solution is to force actors to pay a risk premium, but humans are notoriously bad at accurately pricing risk for rare events with outsized negative costs. Administering any solution requires such high levels of coordination and enforcement that ( as the author says ) you end reinventing government.
- rtpg 13y ago
  >the people suffering may well demand the factory compensates them for the damage. >knowing that it will be held liable, the factory will spend more money on researching How will the people demand the compensation? Will it be "through their wallets?" In that case, the factory will just be built in a poor area. Your 'group of armed criminals' is what can enforce these rules. The only way the mechanisms to libertarianism can work is through the systems it rejects.
  - goshakkk 13y ago
    Well, no. A group of armed criminals is clearly not the only way to enforce that. For it's immoral to provide anything, including life/property protection, via use of force (taxation), and artificial monopoly isn't such a good thing, either. Private protection is certainly possible and is definitely more moral than sovereign monopolist protection provided through means of aggression. See http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freed...

boon 13y ago

The problem is, neither does the state.

goshakkk 13y ago

It doesn't? As it's an act of aggression, the people suffering may well demand the factory compensates them for the damage. But actually, knowing that it will be held liable, the factory will spend more money on researching how to minimize pollution and will generally be placed in places where it does no damage to anyone. It's all about aggression, really. The factory takes someone's rights unlawfully, it compensates for that. (And knowing it has to compensate, it'll avoid damaging in the first place.) On contrary, a utilitarian government may decide that having some factory working is beneficial to the whole society so it's in "public interest" to let it infringe with people's rights to their property. So it says, "okay, it's bad; but it's in the public interest! we are going to allow this factory to work and it doesn't have to compensate you anything!" Libertarianism says that even if having this factory running brings more "good" than "bad", it's still bad, because it aggresses against people's property. Property rights are above any "public good". Period. (Oh, but if a group of armed criminals has control over some area of land, then it's probably okay to place mysterious "public good" above anything else.)

geekbeast 13y ago
The ability of an entity or entities to cause damage beyond their ability to compensate people for their aggression is not addressed either. For example the Bhopal gas tragedy or Anaconda Mining Corporation's superfund site ( luckily their purchaser agreed to assume majority of clean up costs, but there are things that cannot be cleaned up ). Other examples include Chernobyl and Fukushima, which were not aggressive acts until accidents rendered hundreds of sq miles unlivable. A potential solution is to force actors to pay a risk premium, but humans are notoriously bad at accurately pricing risk for rare events with outsized negative costs. Administering any solution requires such high levels of coordination and enforcement that ( as the author says ) you end reinventing government.
rtpg 13y ago
>the people suffering may well demand the factory compensates them for the damage. >knowing that it will be held liable, the factory will spend more money on researching How will the people demand the compensation? Will it be "through their wallets?" In that case, the factory will just be built in a poor area. Your 'group of armed criminals' is what can enforce these rules. The only way the mechanisms to libertarianism can work is through the systems it rejects.
- goshakkk 13y ago
  Well, no. A group of armed criminals is clearly not the only way to enforce that. For it's immoral to provide anything, including life/property protection, via use of force (taxation), and artificial monopoly isn't such a good thing, either. Private protection is certainly possible and is definitely more moral than sovereign monopolist protection provided through means of aggression. See http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freed...