3 ms·

"Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect." I'm really curious where and when this 100% free market system existed that was proven u

by boon 13y ago

"Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect." I'm really curious where and when this 100% free market system existed that was proven unworkable. Because from my understanding of history, we've only ever had government. ZERO monopolies have become what they are/were without help from the government.

dragontamer 13y ago
Proven by thought experiment. If you don't like thought experiments, then pay me no mind. Perfectly theoretical free markets, with perfectly educated populations with 100% perfectly rational beings will be unable to solve the externality problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality It is known and proven. Do not give me a "Well, we'll figure it out later" bull... tell me how a free market is supposed to resolve an externality (which by its very definition is unresolvable by free markets). Perfectly rational and greedy actors will always offload their costs onto unwilling parties. It is the job of the government to ensure that costs align up with the actors who create those costs. If that is too theoretical for you, imagine two cities. "City Upstream" and "City Downstream" both are on the same river. City Upstream begins flushing their sewage into the river, and so City Downstream is no longer able to drink the water. Solve this issue using only rational actors in the free market. The "Government" solution, is to have the Federal Government create Water Treatment plants, and then force "City Upstream" to use them. Afterwards, you tax both cities to pay for the treatment plants. Your turn. Come up with a free market solution without the use of a central government or centralized 3rd party. Assume both cities are perfectly rational and perfectly selfish, as is common in these economic problems. Good luck coming up with a solution. But if you're like any other libertarian who I've issued this challenge to, you'll probably run away.
- snitko 13y ago
  Great question. So, in this example, City Downstream is the one interested in clean water and City Upstream couldn't care less. What happens without a government? City Downstream chips in for a bunch of guys to go up there and beat the shit out of the owners of that factory. Let's assume a scenario in which all citizens of City Upstream work for that factory, so they all want to keep their jobs and so they all chip in for a bunch of guys to protect them (or a company hires those guys on their behalf). Now, those guys meet up. Are they going to fight? Highly unlikely, because it is in their personal self interest to resolve this conflict peacefully AND collect the money from the people who hired them. What are they gonna do? They're gonna compare the balance of power. If it's equal then they're gonna settle for the solution that satisfies both equally. If City Downstream, which obviously is concerned with its health more than City Upstream workers are concerned with keeping their job, hires more tough guys, the balance of power would be in its favor and thus you can expect more drastic measures to be agreed upon. Then remember, we talked about an edge case, when all citizens of City Upstream work at a factory. However, that is very unlikely. Thus it may turn out to be that one factory would be up against the whole city. Of course in reality, no one would actually hire tough guys, but rather such conflicts would be resolved through more civilized private protection agencies and courts. The central question is who outbids whom and to what degree. And the answer is that if the majority of people want something enough to pay for it, it will always outbid the minority, however rich this minority is. You don't need no government to solve externality problems. All you need is to stop thinking that some magical entity, simply because you can vote for it, is able to resolve issues that are truly complicated.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    "Private Protection Agencies and Courts" are a government. The two cities have set up a court system and a standing police force to resolve the issue. Just because you're using Libertarian words to describe a government doesn't change the fact that a "Private Protection Agency" is a glorified police institution. FYI, a little global perspective. What happens in "the real world" is that your country loses its rivers and millions die to sewage born illnesses. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/dead-rivers-and-raw-sewage-choking-on-pollution-in-india-a-493033.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/dead-rivers-and-ra... Go fantasize about private protection agencies and courts that don't exist and preach it to the 3rd world. Neither exist in India and millions die to this very problem I've been describing. Perhaps if you stopped believing in pure theoretical fairy tales (wtf? Private Protection Agencies? They don't even exist.) and looked at real world problems, you'd know. The Ganges river has 2 Million people ritually bathing in it every day due to Hindu tradition. It has over 400 Million living by it as a potential source of drinking water... and it carries some 80% of the Indian untreated sewage. Tell me, how long will it take for a "Private Protection Agency" and "Court System" to stand up automatically in those Indian villages? People don't even understand the concept of pollution. The reality is, "City Downstream" may not even know that "City Upstream" is the cause of their problems. India's government isn't powerful enough to create a solution. The current situation, is as "free market" as it gets. Lets see how long before someone comes up with a solution, or for your fairy tail "private courts" to be set up. Yes, NGRBA was set up in 2009 to fix the problem. The "Free Market" had over 20 years to solve this pollution problem. Guess what? Externalities can't be solved by the free market. At very least, not before the 20+ years it takes to convince a government bureaucracy that there is a problem.
- boon 13y ago
  The completely anarcho-capitalist solution is that someone owns the river. If you want to dump into that river, then you have to deal with the owner; if you want to take from the river, then you have to deal with the owner. The owner would have a vested interest in keeping the water clean for people buying the water coming out of the river. I'm not saying there aren't externalities to free markets, I think there are. I just don't think government is any better at dealing with them than markets. Friedman always says it better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHFIbfUi5rw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHFIbfUi5rw
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    You do realize that your "Anarcho-capitalist" solution describes the EPA's history. Precisely the moment when the US Government declared ownership of the Mississippi River, and all federal lands under its protection. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/652 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/652 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_National_River_and_Recreation_Area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_National_River_and_... Your solution is really called "internalizing the externality", and a near hundred-year-old analysis can be found in Coase's Theorem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem Your solution requires "some entity" to create the concept of ownership, and then sell pieces of the shared resource to other people. You ensure that an owner exists for every part of the river, and then you get an economically optimal solution. But WHO declares ownership? WHO enforces this ownership? If you believe in "private protection agencies" and "private courts", it is obvious that ownership of "The River" should be settled in the "private courts". Eventually, you start building an entity functions exactly like the current US Government (except you use Libertarian friendly words to describe it). So please, describe to me a technique that isn't currently being used by the US Government to solve the problem of Externalities. Otherwise, you end up just describing our current Governing philosophy.
    - boon 13y ago
      That's fine. I don't care about convincing you. I care about convincing people who have the same perspective on individual freedom that I do that are reading this thread. I guess if there's no convincing you, then your open-mindedness claim dies with this discussion. Toodle-oo.

by boon 13y ago

dragontamer 13y ago

Proven by thought experiment. If you don't like thought experiments, then pay me no mind. Perfectly theoretical free markets, with perfectly educated populations with 100% perfectly rational beings will be unable to solve the externality problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality It is known and proven. Do not give me a "Well, we'll figure it out later" bull... tell me how a free market is supposed to resolve an externality (which by its very definition is unresolvable by free markets). Perfectly rational and greedy actors will always offload their costs onto unwilling parties. It is the job of the government to ensure that costs align up with the actors who create those costs. If that is too theoretical for you, imagine two cities. "City Upstream" and "City Downstream" both are on the same river. City Upstream begins flushing their sewage into the river, and so City Downstream is no longer able to drink the water. Solve this issue using only rational actors in the free market. The "Government" solution, is to have the Federal Government create Water Treatment plants, and then force "City Upstream" to use them. Afterwards, you tax both cities to pay for the treatment plants. Your turn. Come up with a free market solution without the use of a central government or centralized 3rd party. Assume both cities are perfectly rational and perfectly selfish, as is common in these economic problems. Good luck coming up with a solution. But if you're like any other libertarian who I've issued this challenge to, you'll probably run away.

snitko 13y ago
Great question. So, in this example, City Downstream is the one interested in clean water and City Upstream couldn't care less. What happens without a government? City Downstream chips in for a bunch of guys to go up there and beat the shit out of the owners of that factory. Let's assume a scenario in which all citizens of City Upstream work for that factory, so they all want to keep their jobs and so they all chip in for a bunch of guys to protect them (or a company hires those guys on their behalf). Now, those guys meet up. Are they going to fight? Highly unlikely, because it is in their personal self interest to resolve this conflict peacefully AND collect the money from the people who hired them. What are they gonna do? They're gonna compare the balance of power. If it's equal then they're gonna settle for the solution that satisfies both equally. If City Downstream, which obviously is concerned with its health more than City Upstream workers are concerned with keeping their job, hires more tough guys, the balance of power would be in its favor and thus you can expect more drastic measures to be agreed upon. Then remember, we talked about an edge case, when all citizens of City Upstream work at a factory. However, that is very unlikely. Thus it may turn out to be that one factory would be up against the whole city. Of course in reality, no one would actually hire tough guys, but rather such conflicts would be resolved through more civilized private protection agencies and courts. The central question is who outbids whom and to what degree. And the answer is that if the majority of people want something enough to pay for it, it will always outbid the minority, however rich this minority is. You don't need no government to solve externality problems. All you need is to stop thinking that some magical entity, simply because you can vote for it, is able to resolve issues that are truly complicated.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  "Private Protection Agencies and Courts" are a government. The two cities have set up a court system and a standing police force to resolve the issue. Just because you're using Libertarian words to describe a government doesn't change the fact that a "Private Protection Agency" is a glorified police institution. FYI, a little global perspective. What happens in "the real world" is that your country loses its rivers and millions die to sewage born illnesses. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/dead-rivers-and-raw-sewage-choking-on-pollution-in-india-a-493033.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/dead-rivers-and-ra... Go fantasize about private protection agencies and courts that don't exist and preach it to the 3rd world. Neither exist in India and millions die to this very problem I've been describing. Perhaps if you stopped believing in pure theoretical fairy tales (wtf? Private Protection Agencies? They don't even exist.) and looked at real world problems, you'd know. The Ganges river has 2 Million people ritually bathing in it every day due to Hindu tradition. It has over 400 Million living by it as a potential source of drinking water... and it carries some 80% of the Indian untreated sewage. Tell me, how long will it take for a "Private Protection Agency" and "Court System" to stand up automatically in those Indian villages? People don't even understand the concept of pollution. The reality is, "City Downstream" may not even know that "City Upstream" is the cause of their problems. India's government isn't powerful enough to create a solution. The current situation, is as "free market" as it gets. Lets see how long before someone comes up with a solution, or for your fairy tail "private courts" to be set up. Yes, NGRBA was set up in 2009 to fix the problem. The "Free Market" had over 20 years to solve this pollution problem. Guess what? Externalities can't be solved by the free market. At very least, not before the 20+ years it takes to convince a government bureaucracy that there is a problem.
boon 13y ago
The completely anarcho-capitalist solution is that someone owns the river. If you want to dump into that river, then you have to deal with the owner; if you want to take from the river, then you have to deal with the owner. The owner would have a vested interest in keeping the water clean for people buying the water coming out of the river. I'm not saying there aren't externalities to free markets, I think there are. I just don't think government is any better at dealing with them than markets. Friedman always says it better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHFIbfUi5rw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHFIbfUi5rw
- dragontamer 13y ago
  You do realize that your "Anarcho-capitalist" solution describes the EPA's history. Precisely the moment when the US Government declared ownership of the Mississippi River, and all federal lands under its protection. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/652 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/652 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_National_River_and_Recreation_Area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_National_River_and_... Your solution is really called "internalizing the externality", and a near hundred-year-old analysis can be found in Coase's Theorem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem Your solution requires "some entity" to create the concept of ownership, and then sell pieces of the shared resource to other people. You ensure that an owner exists for every part of the river, and then you get an economically optimal solution. But WHO declares ownership? WHO enforces this ownership? If you believe in "private protection agencies" and "private courts", it is obvious that ownership of "The River" should be settled in the "private courts". Eventually, you start building an entity functions exactly like the current US Government (except you use Libertarian friendly words to describe it). So please, describe to me a technique that isn't currently being used by the US Government to solve the problem of Externalities. Otherwise, you end up just describing our current Governing philosophy.
  - boon 13y ago
    That's fine. I don't care about convincing you. I care about convincing people who have the same perspective on individual freedom that I do that are reading this thread. I guess if there's no convincing you, then your open-mindedness claim dies with this discussion. Toodle-oo.