For madnak/borodog/etc

bunny · #1 10-23-2006, 12:07 AM

You both made a point recently that criticism of AC couched as "This bad thing would happen in an AC world" is of little value unless you also claim it wouldnt (or would occur less) in a state-controlled world.

There was a recent article here (in Australia) about the hole in the ozone layer - which is the biggest it has ever been this year, but is nonetheless shrinking over the long term. It struck me that this was a problem that states dealt with "better" than an AC world would have. What I mean is, AC would have waited until many people had suffered skin cancer and been able to sue for damages from those (users? producers?) responsible for the harm inflicted on them. States imposed rules by force. It didnt seem like an onerus burden on business to switch to non-ozone damaging products yet it wasnt happening until it was legislated into effect.

Is this a specific example where states have served us better than AC would have?

ShakeZula06 · #2 10-23-2006, 12:11 AM

It's a big time preferences thing. I think hmkpoker once said that he doesn't think AC should happen until businesses are disincentivized (from consumer backlash and/or just being cheaper to use something environmentally safe) from polluting the environment.

maybe I should have just waited for borodog since I haven't really said anything. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

bunny · #3 10-23-2006, 12:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's a big time preferences thing. I think hmkpoker once said that he doesn't think AC should happen until businesses are disincentivized (from consumer backlash and/or just being cheaper to use something environmentally safe) from polluting the environment.

maybe I should have just waited for borodog since I haven't really said anything. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you said something but I may not have got it. Do you mean that a "mature" AC society would have dealt with it ok. Ie that AC is not just what we have today minus government?

ShakeZula06 · #4 10-23-2006, 12:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a big time preferences thing. I think hmkpoker once said that he doesn't think AC should happen until businesses are disincentivized (from consumer backlash and/or just being cheaper to use something environmentally safe) from polluting the environment.

maybe I should have just waited for borodog since I haven't really said anything. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you said something but I may not have got it. Do you mean that a "mature" AC society would have dealt with it ok. Ie that AC is not just what we have today minus government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well here's the thing. In a free market if a business does something that pisses others off they lose business to others. However, polluting the environment may only be ruining the environment for people not born yet. Obviously people who are living now care, but will they care enough not to do business with them? With the current population probably not, because of time preferences, which is a big part of Anarchocapitalism. Ironically, if what they were doing would take effect very soon after, this wouldn't be a problem, because there would certainly be backlash from consumers.

bunny · #5 10-23-2006, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a big time preferences thing. I think hmkpoker once said that he doesn't think AC should happen until businesses are disincentivized (from consumer backlash and/or just being cheaper to use something environmentally safe) from polluting the environment.

maybe I should have just waited for borodog since I haven't really said anything. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you said something but I may not have got it. Do you mean that a "mature" AC society would have dealt with it ok. Ie that AC is not just what we have today minus government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well here's the thing. In a free market if a business does something that pisses others off they lose business to others. However, polluting the environment may only be ruining the environment for people not born yet. Obviously people who are living now care, but will they care enough not to do business with them? With the current population probably not, because of time preferences, which is a big part of Anarchocapitalism. Ironically, if what they were doing would take effect very soon after, this wouldn't be a problem, because there would certainly be backlash from consumers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is my point. Doesnt a state deal better with the situation where the costs to be born occur many years later (assuming everyone agrees on the prospective outcomes being undesirable)?

ShakeZula06 · #6 10-23-2006, 12:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a big time preferences thing. I think hmkpoker once said that he doesn't think AC should happen until businesses are disincentivized (from consumer backlash and/or just being cheaper to use something environmentally safe) from polluting the environment.

maybe I should have just waited for borodog since I haven't really said anything. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you said something but I may not have got it. Do you mean that a "mature" AC society would have dealt with it ok. Ie that AC is not just what we have today minus government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well here's the thing. In a free market if a business does something that pisses others off they lose business to others. However, polluting the environment may only be ruining the environment for people not born yet. Obviously people who are living now care, but will they care enough not to do business with them? With the current population probably not, because of time preferences, which is a big part of Anarchocapitalism. Ironically, if what they were doing would take effect very soon after, this wouldn't be a problem, because there would certainly be backlash from consumers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is my point. Doesnt a state deal better with the situation where the costs to be born occur many years later (assuming everyone agrees on the prospective outcomes being undesirable)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. Who says the state cares? As I said people may not care enough about pollution is it's outcomes only affect people not living yet. The state is not filled with benevelent demigods, it's made up of people. It's just a [censored] situation where either way the way things are going to be changed either through (1) consumers being smarter or (2) new ways to create energy that is environmentally safe and better for business.

Also, if everyone agreed that the outcomes are undesirable then we wouldn't need a state to make businesses not pollute.

I mean, uh, what borodog said [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

SLP · #7 10-23-2006, 12:11 AM

The first person to mix their labor with the ozone layer would own it.

ShakeZula06 · #8 10-23-2006, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The first person to mix their labor with the ozone layer would own it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you'd pay attention to what we said you might realize that none of us support the whole labor mixing thing. Good try though troll.

Propertarian · #9 10-23-2006, 12:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The first person to mix their labor with the ozone layer would own it.

[/ QUOTE ] Wrong!...Their theory of ownership is now "homesteading" which is the same thing with a different name, re-named because it is so blatantly preposterous.

SLP · #10 10-23-2006, 12:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The first person to mix their labor with the ozone layer would own it.

[/ QUOTE ] Wrong!...Their theory of ownership is now "homesteading" which is the same thing with a different name, re-named because it is so blatantly preposterous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep forgetting which it is. So when we make the switch to AC, are we going to give the moon to Neil Armstrong's heirs?