A quick question for AC Peeps: Market failure

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See, this is exactly what I mean. Make sure that your monopoly courts refuse to recognize property rights that would avoid tragedies of the commons (since there can only be tragedies of the commons where there are commons) and outlaw legal actions that would act to internalize costs, and then get yahoos on the intarwebs to call it a "market failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry if I don't automatically accept your assertions that every awful outcome of state capitalism is from the state part and not the capitalism part.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why don't you actually adress the points, made numerous times, that governments *do* refuse to recognize property rights that would negate the tragedy of the commons, and *do* make it illegal to persue legal redress that would internalize costs? Oh, that's right. Because it doesn't suit your preconceived notions and rhetoric.

[ QUOTE ]

Our ability at this point to effect environmental change on such a broad scale makes the thought of 10,000 class action suits against companies for contributing to 2.33% of my cancer and 5.88% of the reason all the frogs are dead in my pond is quaint though.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again you trot out arguments debunked long ago.

And how is it that you own a pond, socialism-man?

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
So why don't you actually adress the points, made numerous times, that governments *do* refuse to recognize property rights that would negate the tragedy of the commons, and *do* make it illegal to persue legal redress that would internalize costs? Oh, that's right. Because it doesn't suit your preconceived notions and rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept all those assertions, I've never argued that a State is the answer to these problems anywhere. And certainly the unholy alliance of capital and the State has made possible a great variety of ills that perhaps would not have been possible otherwise. I simply don't accept that granting individuals private ownership rights over everything will solve them either. I'm quite anti-Statist thank you very much, you can chill with the personal attacks.

[ QUOTE ]
And how is it that you own a pond, socialism-man?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to the ability for individuals to sue firms for environmental damages in AC-world

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys ever believe in market failure (assuming the government is not involved)? Ever ever? Please explain if so or if not with examples preferably (or MSPaint).

[/ QUOTE ]


People can interact voluntarily (mutually beneficial trade) and people can interact aggressively (anti-social parasitism). The latter part is immoral and if you want to call anything a 'market failure' then this anti-social behaviour would be it.


People wanting to supply positive rights (healthcare, food, education) would be an example of anti-social behaviour.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]

People wanting to supply positive rights (healthcare, food, education) would be an example of anti-social behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Sorry I don't buy that. Explain?

[Iq75]

Thank you for the links. They certainly answered my question.

[ QUOTE ]
No, they wouldn't. This is a tired old myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can’t think of any pro antitrust argument that you or others have not already replied to in previous post, so I’ll just say that we disagree about the antitrust legislations net welfare gain for society.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See, this is exactly what I mean. Make sure that your monopoly courts refuse to recognize property rights that would avoid tragedies of the commons (since there can only be tragedies of the commons where there are commons) and outlaw legal actions that would act to internalize costs, and then get yahoos on the intarwebs to call it a "market failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry if I don't automatically accept your assertions that every awful outcome of state capitalism is from the state part and not the capitalism part.


[/ QUOTE ]

And yet you often assert that every awful outcome of state socialistm is from the state part and not the socialism part.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People wanting to supply positive rights (healthcare, food, education) would be an example of anti-social behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Sorry I don't buy that. Explain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you have to use military force to fund it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People wanting to supply positive rights (healthcare, food, education) would be an example of anti-social behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Sorry I don't buy that. Explain?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not anti-social if you supply it with your own money. But very few people who want to supply this stuff want to pay for it themselves.

[kniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The history of environmental degradation and the destruction of natural capital and calling it a "profit" rather than a "loss" is one giant market failure which will become glaringly apparent to even the most myopic individuals over the next 50 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is exactly what I mean. Make sure that your monopoly courts refuse to recognize property rights that would avoid tragedies of the commons (since there can only be tragedies of the commons where there are commons) and outlaw legal actions that would act to internalize costs, and then get yahoos on the intarwebs to call it a "market failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

Boro,

Can you expand on this or link to a prior explanation? I am not sure what you mean. What property rights are you talking about? What legal actions are you talking about? Specific kinds of torts? Are you suggesting that state ownership of environmental habitats is less efficient than if the area was privately owned with greater legal remedies to private land owners to enforce against those who pollute their property?

[Borodog]

I don't have time right now, but Rothbard discusses it in FOr a New Liberty, the full text of which is available in both PDF and HTML from http://www.mises.org .