|
|
#71
06-20-2007, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Anarchocapitalism questions
[ 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. 
|
|
#73
06-21-2007, 03:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Anarchocapitalism questions
[ QUOTE ]
On a level playing field, businessmen outcompete criminals day in and day out. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, along as the levelness of the Playing field is gaurenteed by the State. One only has to look at regions with weak or failing states to see the proof of this. In these regions violent "criminals" are active in many markets including those deemed legitimate by the State. ACists correctly identify the violent coercive nature of the State, but then often seem to drop the ball due to an intrinsically undeveloped theory of power. The state projects much much much much more violence and coercion into legal markets than it does illegal ones. It does everything it can to control these, which of course includes excluding non legitimate violence from other parties or agents. This is why when the State fails, and can not project "legitimate" (intentional quotes)violence into markets, criminal elements move into leverage violence, fear and aggression in those markets. Illegitimate markets the State merely seeks to manage or manipulate for its own ends, such as criminalizing its own civilian population in order to gain leverage over them. But of course it is ultimately mistaken to say the State this, or the State that, if you are seeing the State as the end beneficiary. The state is a tool, not a cardinal entity, a means not an ends. Remove this tool and a new tool will be found to take its place.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
