[Rothbardian]

Of course every example you can give of 'the problem of the commons' will involve a government. That's because the true problem IS the commons, which the state creates. There are anarchist communities all over the world that do not suffer from these problems, as well as private industries. The Canadian fishing industry was entirely laissez faire for hundreds of years and never suffered from these issues. When the industry was nationalized these natural resources were destroyed in less than a decade. It's the same story with everything else you mention. Roads, militaries, some people even bring up light houses. As if sailors just drove themselves ashore before the glorious government stepped in to save them. It's a ridiculous argument, I am surprised anyone takes it seriously anymore.

If you want to see a local example of a non government entity solving the problem of non excludable resources I suggest paying a visit to your local mall or a nearby PUD.

[muserskiy]

Of course every example you can give of 'the problem of the commons' will involve a government. That's because the true problem IS the commons, which the state creates. There are anarchist communities all over the world that do not suffer from these problems, as well as private industries. The Canadian fishing industry was entirely laissez faire for hundreds of years and never suffered from these issues. When the industry was nationalized these natural resources were destroyed in less than a decade. It's the same story with everything else you mention. Roads, militaries, some people even bring up light houses. As if sailors just drove themselves ashore before the glorious government stepped in to save them. It's a ridiculous argument, I am surprised anyone takes it seriously anymore.

If you want to see a local example of a non government entity solving the problem of non excludable resources I suggest paying a visit to your local mall or a nearby PUD.

How does an anarco-ultra libertarian deal with externalities? Do we blindly trust that the agents will find efficient ways to regulate them? Such an uncertain institutional environment would be an economical disaster, but maybe you can convince me

[Eran]

What is your moral justification for your position? Do you believe that the initial distribution of property rights is just, no matter how it got to be the way it is today?

My moral justification boils down, ultimately, to the Non Aggression Principle. I believe it is wrong (under normal, non-emergency conditions) for one person (or even a group of people) to initiate force against the peaceful endeavours of others. Period.

I believe the initial distribution of property rights is less and less relevant to today's world.

Most of the property available to society (weighed by value) has been created in the past couple of generations. Absent government intervention, newly-created property tends to go to those who created it. Very few of today's richest people, for example, have inherited most of their wealth. Most have made it. Most of the exceptions to this rule are due to government intervention.

I would be happy to hear any history to the contrary of success of decentralized-defence.

My favourite family of examples are revolutions. Take the recent ones in the Arab world as an example. A de-centralised, non-government crowd managed to defeat an entrenched dictatorship in country after country (Syria is an exception because of the intense, if narrow, popular support for Assad).

Human nature is such that people tend to resist foreign invaders much more strongly than domestic rulers.

Further, today's revolutionaries are largely unarmed, having lived for decades under government regimes that suppress private ownership of weapons.

In a free society, many more people would be armed. Further, and depending on the scale of the foreign threat, private corporations would find it profitable to offer defence services on a local, regional or even national basis. Insurance companies, for example, may contract with private armies to provide point defence of strategic (financial and industrial) installations.

How does an anarco-ultra libertarian deal with externalities? Do we blindly trust that the agents will find efficient ways to regulate them? Such an uncertain institutional environment would be an economical disaster, but maybe you can convince me.

The most common type of negative externality is pollution. Pollution of private property (and most developed land areas would be private property) is a crime under libertarian legal order. Even pollution of non-owned resources may be criminal if they obstruct the free use of those resources by others.

Most people believe libertarian legal order will evolve along the lines of Common Law. Without legislation, standards emerge as arbitrators (judges) tend to respect precedence.

Over time, standards for what level of air pollution is allowed, for example, or what compensation is appropriate for given levels of pollution, will evolve.

The blind trust that scares me is your trust of government regulators, despite their repeated failures in every single arena.

The process of using tort to avoid externalities, unlike government regulations, isn't subject to arbitrary whim. Rather, objective arbitrators consulting experts would determine as accurately as feasible the economic damage (and, consequently, compensation) due to pollution, allowing polluters to rationalise their safety measures.

[ralfy]

My moral justification boils down, ultimately, to the Non Aggression Principle. I believe it is wrong (under normal, non-emergency conditions) for one person (or even a group of people) to initiate force against the peaceful endeavours of others. Period.

I believe the initial distribution of property rights is less and less relevant to today's world.

Most of the property available to society (weighed by value) has been created in the past couple of generations. Absent government intervention, newly-created property tends to go to those who created it. Very few of today's richest people, for example, have inherited most of their wealth. Most have made it. Most of the exceptions to this rule are due to government intervention.

Ironically, private property was made possible through aggression, followed by legitimizing ownership through government.

My favourite family of examples are revolutions. Take the recent ones in the Arab world as an example. A de-centralised, non-government crowd managed to defeat an entrenched dictatorship in country after country (Syria is an exception because of the intense, if narrow, popular support for Assad).

Human nature is such that people tend to resist foreign invaders much more strongly than domestic rulers.

Further, today's revolutionaries are largely unarmed, having lived for decades under government regimes that suppress private ownership of weapons.

In a free society, many more people would be armed. Further, and depending on the scale of the foreign threat, private corporations would find it profitable to offer defence services on a local, regional or even national basis. Insurance companies, for example, may contract with private armies to provide point defence of strategic (financial and industrial) installations.

The Arab Spring took place because of high oil prices coupled with the effects of global warming and a global financial crisis, all results of global free market capitalism.

The most common type of negative externality is pollution. Pollution of private property (and most developed land areas would be private property) is a crime under libertarian legal order. Even pollution of non-owned resources may be criminal if they obstruct the free use of those resources by others.

Most people believe libertarian legal order will evolve along the lines of Common Law. Without legislation, standards emerge as arbitrators (judges) tend to respect precedence.

Over time, standards for what level of air pollution is allowed, for example, or what compensation is appropriate for given levels of pollution, will evolve.

The blind trust that scares me is your trust of government regulators, despite their repeated failures in every single arena.

The process of using tort to avoid externalities, unlike government regulations, isn't subject to arbitrary whim. Rather, objective arbitrators consulting experts would determine as accurately as feasible the economic damage (and, consequently, compensation) due to pollution, allowing polluters to rationalise their safety measures.

Actually, there is no "libertarian legal order." Rather, market forces will ensure the avoidance of solution. Put simply, consumers will follow rational thought and patronize companies that don't pollute. Of course, reality is far removed from that fantasy.

[Rothbardian]

How does an anarco-ultra libertarian deal with externalities? Do we blindly trust that the agents will find efficient ways to regulate them? Such an uncertain institutional environment would be an economical disaster, but maybe you can convince me

In a free market externalities can be handled anyway you'd like to handle them. If you feel the best way to handle externalities is to sign your property rights away to a central authority that will take care of it for you then you are free to do so. You could literally sign your own copy of the constitution and the U.S. legal code as a contractual agreement and live exactly as you do now.

The only potential complication you'd face is in how many people would be willing to drink your koolaid with you, since you'd only be able to cooperate with people that want to cooperate with you rather than using an army and a police state to force the unwilling. Probably be a real bummer for someone like you.

[muserskiy]

In a free market externalities can be handled anyway you'd like to handle them. If you feel the best way to handle externalities is to sign your property rights away to a central authority that will take care of it for you then you are free to do so. You could literally sign your own copy of the constitution and the U.S. legal code as a contractual agreement and live exactly as you do now.

The only potential complication you'd face is in how many people would be willing to drink your koolaid with you, since you'd only be able to cooperate with people that want to cooperate with you rather than using an army and a police state to force the unwilling. Probably be a real bummer for someone like you.

what central authority?

[Rothbardian]

The legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the united states government. Or any other that you choose to participate with.

[Lagrange]

The legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the united states government. Or any other that you choose to participate with.

What do you do in situations where Coase theorem breaks down?

[Kman]

What do you do in situations where Coase theorem breaks down?

I dont know what your referring too but this theorem seems wrong to me.

Coase developed his theorem when considering the regulation of radio frequencies. Competing radio stations could use the same frequencies and would therefore interfere with each other's broadcasts. The problem faced by regulators was how to eliminate interference and allocate frequencies to radio stations efficiently. What Coase proposed in 1959 was that as long as property rights in these frequencies were well defined, it ultimately did not matter if adjacent radio stations interfered with each other by broadcasting in the same frequency band. Furthermore, it did not matter to whom the property rights were granted. His reasoning was that the station able to reap the higher economic gain from broadcasting would have an incentive to pay the other station not to interfere. In the absence of transaction costs, both stations would strike a mutually advantageous deal. It would not matter which station had the initial right to broadcast; eventually, the right to broadcast would end up with the party that was able to put it to the most highly valued use. Of course, the parties themselves would care who was granted the rights initially because this allocation would impact their wealth, but the end result of who broadcasts would not change because the parties would trade to the outcome that was overall most efficient. This counterintuitive insight—that the initial imposition of legal entitlement is irrelevant because the parties will eventually reach the same result—is Coase’s invariance thesis.

This nobel prize winning theorem seems to be encouraging terrorism, it rewards people for blackmailing, I could start jamming a popular radio station in order to extort money from them.... Seems highly economically destructive to encourage this type of terrorist activity... Will be very hard for a radio station to exist in such a chaotic enviroment.

[Rothbardian]

What do you do in situations where Coase theorem breaks down?

Not sure I understand the question exactly. You mean like with a small community with a lot of land that cannot feasibly be owned by everyone/anyone...or a river, lake, etc, that cannot be owned?

[muserskiy]

so you advocate for a government solution

"legislative"

[Rothbardian]

so you advocate for a government solution

"legislative"

No. I said a government is an option if you go with a true freedom. If that is what you and everyone else actually wants, then the only thing that will change is the government's involuntary nature. In reality, though, you know as well as I do that as soon as people no longer have to face armed federal marshalls and/or SWAT teams for disregarding uncle sam, uncle sam will be gone. He may live on in the hearts of some true believers like yourself, though you may find a few hundred....maybe a few thousand other like minded fellow travelers and live out your days in your own community. And that's fine, I am all for allowing people to live based on their preferences as long as they don't impose on others. That's why I'm an anarchist, really.

[Lagrange]

And that's fine, I am all for allowing people to live based on their preferences as long as they don't impose on others.

That's exactly why we need government to enforce contracts and property rights. Say we're in some kind of anarcho-capitalist society and you live in Town A (upriver) and I live in Town B (downriver). Now say that I have property rights over my part of the river and you have rights over yours. Say you own a factory that pollutes all the water downriver, including mine. Say also that you are far wealthier than me and that my negotiating position/ability is zilch. Do you not agree that the externality you pose on my property (my part of the river) is unjust? What is the solution?

[muserskiy]

Lagrange not only that, you HAVE to live in a world without assymetric information for that anarcho-whatever fantasy to work..

[ralfy]

In a free market externalities can be handled anyway you'd like to handle them. If you feel the best way to handle externalities is to sign your property rights away to a central authority that will take care of it for you then you are free to do so. You could literally sign your own copy of the constitution and the U.S. legal code as a contractual agreement and live exactly as you do now.

The only potential complication you'd face is in how many people would be willing to drink your koolaid with you, since you'd only be able to cooperate with people that want to cooperate with you rather than using an army and a police state to force the unwilling. Probably be a real bummer for someone like you.

Keep in mind that property rights were granted by the same central authority unless they were made possible by physical force. The means to "sign your own copy of [your] constitution" is also based on the same premise.

In which case, it's been "koolaid" from the beginning.

[Eran]

That's exactly why we need government to enforce contracts and property rights. Say we're in some kind of anarcho-capitalist society and you live in Town A (upriver) and I live in Town B (downriver). Now say that I have property rights over my part of the river and you have rights over yours. Say you own a factory that pollutes all the water downriver, including mine. Say also that you are far wealthier than me and that my negotiating position/ability is zilch. Do you not agree that the externality you pose on my property (my part of the river) is unjust? What is the solution?

If your presence and use of the river in Town B preceded the pollution emitted by the factory in A, your rights (whether property or use) have been violated.

You have standing to sue the factory for both compensation and an order to cease polluting.

Your likelihood to prevail in court is actually much better under an anarchy. Under government, factory owner is highly likely to be politically well-connected and use his ties to suppress your attempts to stop him. The legislation pertaining your suit may well be biased against you, etc.

Your best chance today would be to find a legal firm that will represent you (potentially as part of a class-action suit) in exchange for a percentage of the reward.

In an anarchist society, you'd do something very similar. Unless you are already insured against violations of your property rights (which I expect most people to be), you would find a specialist firm to help you. They might do it in exchange for a percentage, or might buy your tort rights outright, pay you a fixed amount and then pursue the polluters themselves.

Either way, you wouldn't have to face a wealthy polluter on your own - you'd recruit an equally well-resourced firm to be on your side.

[Rothbardian]

That's exactly why we need government to enforce contracts and property rights. Say we're in some kind of anarcho-capitalist society and you live in Town A (upriver) and I live in Town B (downriver). Now say that I have property rights over my part of the river and you have rights over yours. Say you own a factory that pollutes all the water downriver, including mine. Say also that you are far wealthier than me and that my negotiating position/ability is zilch. Do you not agree that the externality you pose on my property (my part of the river) is unjust? What is the solution?

Third party arbitration, courts, or maybe a fight to the death. What you statists don't understand is that there is a plurality of solutions because life is dynamic, as is humanity. If you want to join that other guy in signing a copy of the constitution and U.S. legal code then more power to you.

I just hope you think about this silly scenario in light of the fact that the U.S. government is the world's #1 polluter.

[Lagrange]

@Eran

What you describe sounds a lot like a state -- a judiciary that is able to enforce property rights sounds like a kritarchy.

Third party arbitration, courts, or maybe a fight to the death.

This is asinine. Imagine how wasteful it would be if whenever people felt their rights were violated they fought to the death. The economy would come to a standstill.

What you statists don't understand is that there is a plurality of solutions because life is dynamic, as is humanity.

All of the feasible solutions involve some kind of third party that can enforce contracts, i.e. a state. Complex societies are impossible under anarchy precisely because people's rights are much easier to violate when there is not a state apparatus to defend against abuses.

If you think "liberty" (in the anarchist sense) is more important than property rights, then you are no capitalist.

[mikema63]

A common criticism of anarcho-capitalism is that the third party arbiters and defense firms would just be another form of state.

Depending on how you look at it left anarchism would look like a very direct democracy where you can opt in or out of particular groups.

[Rothbardian]

This is asinine. Imagine how wasteful it would be if whenever people felt their rights were violated they fought to the death. The economy would come to a standstill.

All of the feasible solutions involve some kind of third party that can enforce contracts, i.e. a state. Complex societies are impossible under anarchy precisely because people's rights are much easier to violate when there is not a state apparatus to defend against abuses.

If you think "liberty" (in the anarchist sense) is more important than property rights, then you are no capitalist.

So you acknowledge that society is complex yet you think the way to address that complexity is to impose a single idea/preference on that complex society? Talk about asinine. Like a cave man trying to figure out how to work a combination lock and responding with a hammer.

You obviously missed the point entirely, which doesn't surprise me at all. You might not prefer the fight to the death system, and I don't either, but the point is IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO YOU. That's all anarchy means. People are dynamic and complex, and if you think that you understand the complexity of even a single other person better than they do then you're an outrageous megalomaniac.

So let people decide their own preferences. If they're not doing anything to you then you have no reason to care. If some people want to fight to the death to solve their disputes then who am I to judge? Different strokes for different folks. I'd rank them as being nearly as irrational as people like yourself that would choose to abdicate their rights and their life to a central power that structures society through violent oppression but again, I fully endorse your right to choose what works best for you. THAT is the point, and since we're getting to straight to the point, it's the only thing we disagree on. I acknowledge your right to make your own choices about your own life, yet you insist on denying me the same simple courtesy. You lack either the wit or the empathy to accept your fellow human beings as equals, yet you want to ramble on about complex social systems and what's best for all.

I think that you avoid this is because you know that without the violent, oppressive hypocrisy of statism to force people to comply with your will, no one would choose to do so, leaving you with no alternative but to hide away in the mountains somewhere.



Without it, who would protect us?