nvm

Why? Where did he make the mistake in his argumentation?

There are 2 types of externalites. The positive and the negative. The positive normally comes from things like public goods. Roads, education, that sort of thing. Because there are positive externalities, the people who pay for it do not recoup the entire investment. As such, the incentive is to under invest in them. (Remember, people respond to incentives.) Negative externalites mean that there is some way in which the people who are party to a transaction do not pay the entire cost of that transaction. Instead, some third party(s) is involuntarily being saddled with that cost. Now two things are happening: One, the third party(s) is a victim or aggression (to use your phrase) in that they were harmed, and were not given an opportunity to choose whether or not to be a party to the transaction. Second, the people who are parties to the transaction have received a benefit that they have not paid for. They took something from someone else without paying for it or receiving consent to do so. And they profited by doing so. So they have a direct financial incentive to continue doing that.

They are making money by hurting a third, involuntary, party.

And so they will continue to do so until something forces them to stop.

So all that really matters is whether or not that third party thinks that they are being harmed or not. There is no theory involved. If they can show that they have taken harm, then they have in fact taken harm, and have every right to require the actions of the others to cease, and to be compensated for the harm.
 
Where did Halbrook make the mistake in his argumentation?

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: HUH?

But it is precisely because externalities cannot be revealed through human action that they are irrelevant to the study of economics. As such, the idea of externalities cannot result in any additional knowledge about economics.

That statement, that you attributed to Halbrook, is wrong in its entirety. I don't see how that is not obvious. That statement is "externalites exist, but so what? who cares?" Well the people who were harmed care. And because they care, externalities become a critical part of the study of economics. You cannot study human behavior, of which economics is a part, if you simply dismiss what people care about and act upon with the simple statement of them being irrelevant. The statement is nonsense. Don't ever look at it again. It just confuses you.
 
There is no preference demonstration.If someone burns someone else's house down, the homeowner isnt the one who acted in getting his house burnt,, the pyromaniac was, so the act of his house getting burnt doesnt demonstrate the homeowner's preferences, but that of the burner.

I repeat... :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: HUH?

So fraking what? Are you honestly telling me, that after all the anarchic-capitalist stuff about non-aggression that you've been saying here for the past year or so, that you believe that anyone has a right to simply destroy something that belongs to someone else and the person who loses has no right have a say in the matter? Where does that end? If person A rapes and murders person B, should it be considered that person A has no rights in the matter?

No. According to your own ideology, everyone must consent to what happens. You have, with externalities, turned that around and said that people do not have the right to consent or not. According to your new ideology, might makes right. If a person has the power to hurt someone else, then by your definition that other person does not have a right to not be hurt.

How does this make sense to you?
 
We are talking about economics here, not political philosophy

Yes. I am. You are not. You are talking some utopian philosophy. Externalities matter in economics because they impose costs on people who are not consenting parties to the transaction. Because that happens, the parties to the transaction have an economic incentive to engage in behavior harmful to others. In order to understand an economic question, you need to understand the costs involved. All the costs. The externalities are a cost, and therefor must be considered.
 
And this is why i dont want to involve history in it. The facts can also be interpreted in a million different ways, look for any libertarian articles on the examples i posted. For all its worth, from the pov of economics its all worthless as arbitrary interpretations.
No, this is not a matter of interpretation. This is a matter of facts. There WERE states in Medievel Ireland. POWERFUL states that made their influence felt as far as Scandanavia and Iberia, that constructed navies, levied troops, hired mercenaries as far away as Orkney, collected taxes, tribute, hostages, fought and collaborated with invading states, managed a beurocracy, set the price of goods, the manner of dress for their subjects, held courts to impose Brehon, Norse, or Common Law, fought wars, mandated state religion and a million other very real, and very objective showings of power.
If you're going to start whiping out Po-Mo arguements against historical fact, then they equally apply to Economics.

I'd say Spain before the Nazis took over.. if we take the words of George Orwell. Then again, anarchism has governments... So the question is a strawman to begin with. It is "without masters", not "without social organization".
The Nazis never took over Spain. That said, the Spanish Civil war is certainly not an example of success, as not only did you have people being shot for their political beliefs just as much as on the Francoist side (if not more) you had people being shot for their political beliefs no matter what those beliefs were.
 
Where is the error in my argument?

There is no preference demonstration.If someone burns someone else's house down, the homeowner isnt the one who acted in getting his house burnt,, the pyromaniac was, so the act of his house getting burnt doesnt demonstrate the homeowner's preferences, but that of the burner.

The person who's home was destroyed in your example was not given an opportunity to consent or not consent. And was not compensated by the terms of the agreement. So if he did not "demonstrate his preferences", it is because his right and opportunity to do so was forcibly stolen from him. So saying that it does not matter is absolutely false.

This is no different from your claim that taxes are theft at the point of a gun. If taxes are theft at the point of a gun, how is arson not theft at the point of a molitov cocktail?
 
Since this is the Haiti topic on the front page, I figured I'd share this. Haiti doesn't need some great social experiment, it needs actual relief efforts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8502567.stm

G7 nations pledge debt relief for quake-hit Haiti

The world's leading industrialised nations have pledged to write off the debts that Haiti owes them, following a devastating earthquake last month.

Canada's finance minister announced at a summit in Iqaluit, northern Canada, that Group of Seven countries planned to cancel Haiti's bilateral debts.

Jim Flaherty said he would encourage international lenders to do the same.

Some $1.2bn (£800m) of Haiti's debts to countries and international lending bodies has already been cancelled.

"We are committed in the G7 to the forgiveness of debt, in fact all bilateral debt has been forgiven by G7 countries vis-a-vis Haiti," Mr Flaherty said at the end of the two day gathering of finance ministers in the Arctic town.

"The debt to multilateral institutions should be forgiven, and we will work with these institutions and other partners to make this happen as soon as possible," he added.

At least one million people are in need of aid in Haiti after the magnitude 7.0 earthquake which struck in mid-January, killing more than 200,000 people.

The G7 group - which includes Canada, the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy and Japan - has been under pressure to help Haiti recover since the 12 January quake by cancelling the money owed by Haiti.

Haiti was rated as the poorest nation in the western hemisphere even before the earthquake struck.

Though exact figures are difficult to obtain, the exact amount owed bilaterally to G7 countries is believed to be quite small. Venezuela and Taiwan are Haiti's other biggest bilateral creditors.

Brown's pledge

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hailed the pledge, saying: "It must be right that a nation buried in rubble must not also be buried in debt".

"The UK has already cancelled all debts owed to it by Haiti and I strongly welcome today's G7 commitment to forgive Haiti's remaining multilateral debt," he added.

"We will work with others to make sure this is delivered."

On Friday, the US voiced support for the plan to extend international debt relief for Haiti.

"The earthquake in Haiti was a catastrophic setback to the Haitian people who are now facing tremendous emergency humanitarian and reconstruction needs, and meeting Haiti's financing needs will require a massive multilateral effort," said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

He said the US would seek to reach an agreement for the funds owed to the multilateral donors, which include the Inter-American Development Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the International Development Association.

Mr Geithner also echoed the call by the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Dominique Strauss-Kahn, to provide full relief of the country's outstanding debt to the body, including a $102m emergency loan approved in January.

Last June, the international community agreed to cancel some $1.2bn (£800m) of the country's total debt of $1.9bn owed to bi- and multilateral lenders including the IMF, World Bank and the US government, as part of a programme for heavily indebted poor countries.

UK-based charity Oxfam has urged the writing off of about an additional $900m (£557m) that Haiti still owes to donor countries and institutions.

I'm certain this will help things more than any theoretical anarchic utopia could.
 
Since this is the Haiti topic on the front page, I figured I'd share this. Haiti doesn't need some great social experiment, it needs actual relief efforts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8502567.stm



I'm certain this will help things more than any theoretical anarchic utopia could.

I'm sure it will too. But they probably still need a great deal more to get out of the hole they are in.
 
xartazh said:
I'd say Spain before the Nazis took over.. if we take the words of George Orwell. Then again, anarchism has governments... So the question is a strawman to begin with. It is "without masters", not "without social organization".

apart from the fact that the nazis never took over spain and left franco alone down there after helping him into power, tell me, was it the collectivizations that made this revolution so anarcho-capitalist?
 
Please elaborate.
You can not use an analogy as an argument. You can use an analogy to illustrate an argument. Your burning house post is the analogy, what is the argument?

It's not: "There is no preference demonstration" since that is a statement. You need to show by argument that there is no preference demonstration. Just saying: it's like a house that is burned down, doesn't cut it, since it can be countered by: No it is not.

You see? :)
 
It wasnt stolen. He never had it, because the action was not made by him, it was the pyromaniac who burned the house. Only when there is exchange, is there demonstrated preference by both parties concerning an object's valuation.

You can't say that someone doesn't have a preference if you do not permit them to express that preference. By your argument, I could shoot you dead, take all your property, and that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do because you wouldn't be around afterward to express your preference.

In short, you are making excuses to make exactly the type of violence happen that you claim would not happen in your utopia.

But why wouldn't the violence happen when you design a system to make it utility maximizing? Which is what your system is.

Yours is a system of master and slaves. Of violently stripping away lives, freedom, and property. It boggles the mind that you can't see what it is that you are fighting for.
 
You show your preference for being shot by not purchasing adequate protection from being shot. If you'd really not wanted to be shot, you'd have purchased adequate protection.
 
Okay. Do we fire those troops or just close the bases? Because option a saves a few billion less than the other, but we're still in the low billions saved, smart guy.

If we were to adjust out thinking nationally, & figure if we still want to maintain the fighting capacity to handle a two front war at any given time, or not, then we could phase the military down some.......................... but this would probably require its own thread.
 
You show your preference for being shot by not purchasing adequate protection from being shot. If you'd really not wanted to be shot, you'd have purchased adequate protection.
Of course, if you were shot, any amount of protection you purchased would be retroactively inadequate.
 
Back
Top Bottom