Anarchocapitalism questions

[mojed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The trouble with this is tragedy of the commons issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are no commons, then there can be no tragedy of the commons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. In the case of the environment, even if we could represent all the environmental effects of an action in economic terms (a cost), individually the cost would be very small and will unlikely provide a disincentive, but the sum of the costs is very large, possibly catastophic. I think a problem is that people aren't entirely rational, and their collective irrationality could lead to serious consequences.

I really don't think that a pricing system works for everything, particularly unstable systems. Use the saying "the straw that broke the camel's back" as an example. What is the cost of putting a straw on the camels back? Is it the cost of purchasing the camel divided by the number of straws that lead to the camel's back breaking? Is it zero if we can assume that no one will put the final straw on the camel's back? And what if the camel has infinite worth? Then even the average cost of placing a straw on the camel's back is infinite, so no one can afford it and the resource (using the camel for transportation) is wasted. With regulation, however, unusual systems which have breaking points can be used productively, without catastrophe.