nvm

[Yeekim]

Wait, what? How does that justify ignoring externalities? Externalities have a huge effect on the economy.

Without any externalities anarcho-capitalism could work quite well, but I don't think it is reasonable to assume all individuals will have the ethics and enough foresight to not create them. The purpose of government is to mitigate the negative externalities individuals inflict on their fellow man, hopefully in such a way as to also minimize the negative externalities of created by the state as well (although that is not often the case). I tend to think a geolibertarian minarchism is the closest we can hope to get to anarchy without individuals quickly turning it into despotism.

This.

 

[Cutlass]

Cant measure? There is the SI system. It measures everything.
How does society work without government? Rothbard describes exactly that. Every time you engage in non-governmentally enforced activity, you engage in it
Seems like a criticism on consumer rationality, aka a person not knowing what is best for him?

The fact that man does not have the creative power to imagine categories
at variance with the fundamental logical relations and with the principles of
causality and teleology enjoins upon us what may be called methodological
apriorism.
Everybody in his daily behavior again and again bears witness to the
immutability and universality of the categories of thought and action. He
who addresses fellow men, who wants to inform and convince them, who
asks questions and answers other people’s questions, can proceed in this way
only because he can appeal to something common to all men—namely, the
logical structure of human reason. The idea that A could at the same time be
non-A or that to prefer A to B could at the same time be to prefer B to A is
simply inconceivable and absurd to a human mind. We are not in the position
to comprehend any kind of prelogical or metalogical thinking. We cannot
think of a world without causality and teleogy.

But humans are not logical or rational. So once you accept science, you reject Rothbard.

 

[Miles Teg]

Hey Xarthaz, you missed one:

@xarthaz: Parroting other people's arguments doesn't make you look smart, it just shows you are incapable of applying those arguments yourself. Give us one real world concrete example of your philosophy having ever worked, and we will be forced to back down. So, go out and find us this one concrete example. In 7,000 years of recorded human history, surely at least one society has gotten it right?

 

[Yeekim]

That is not an argument on economics, due to being an externality.

The story you linked provides even better quote:

It might be objected that the case of one person damaging another's property demonstrates a negative externality. However, it could be that the property owner approves of the new state and only did not enact it himself because he preferred to act in some other way. Or maybe, had he been given the choice, he would have approved of the way his property was used by another. How many people would feel worse off if someone threw a brick of gold through their front window?

Indeed, it could be that the owner of that store approves of it being looted. I feel so much humbled right now...

 

[Motina]

Can you give me one example where anarchy has led to a better outcome than government? By example I mean one real world concrete example. Not a theoretical example.

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".

 

[Lord Baal]

Hey Xarthaz, you missed one:

And still failed to answer it with his edit. I can interpret history anyway I want, it doesn't make me correct if my interpretation is flat-out wrong.

 

[JerichoHill]

It is what I would refer to as a starting point and a mindset change. Continuing this line of thought would have us bring the troops home from Germany, Japan, close those bases and those in other nations as well. Get back to me when you run those figures, smart guy.

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.

 

[JerichoHill]

Xarthaz,

If you refuse to acknowledge externalities, your theory has no basis in reality. While I approve of your new avatar (b00bs!), your knowledge of economics is lacking

 

[Lord Baal]

Thanks But it is not about acknowledging it but that its effect cant be determined.
My opinion is better than your opinion!

The mere fact that the effect of externalities cannot be determined is the death-knell of anarcho-capitalism, which relies on the externalities being perfectly in line with the theory. In other words, wishful thinking.

And no, your opinnion really isn't better than mine, as my opinion is backed up by 7,000 (250, if it pleases holy_king) years of recorded human history, not to mention demostrable trends in both political and economic theory, whereas yours is based on the writings of several utopian authors and an irrational and grossly inaccurate misreading of history. Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got one, but in this case your opinion appears to be suffering from a major case of the runs, since it keeps spilling the same crap with nary a sign of stopping.

Your premise is demonstrably false. I'm done here.

 

[JerichoHill]

Thanks But it is not about acknowledging it but that its effect cant be determined.
My opinion is better than your opinion!

Umm, I don't know where you get your economic theory from, but because of things called shadow prices we can determine their effect.

Saying that you shouldn't model something that you know is there, even if your model is slightly imperfect is quite silly.

 

[JerichoHill]

What???!

 

[JerichoHill]

I'm sorry, but anyone who claims that externalities are irrelevant to the study of economics has no claim on any sort of expertise in economics.

And I say that as a practicing economist, not someone quoting from a website content that they do not understand.

 

[Cutlass]

Thanks But it is not about acknowledging it but that its effect cant be determined.
My opinion is better than your opinion!

Denying externalities violates the non-aggression principle.

 

[Lord Baal]

I'm sorry, but anyone who claims that externalities are irrelevant to the study of economics has no claim on any sort of expertise in economics.

And I say that as a practicing economist, not someone quoting from a website content that they do not understand.

And this is why I don't need to reply to post 37, xarthaz: your premise is so easily proven false that I wouldn't know where to begin hammering at it, and why should I bother when there is actually a practising, published economist posting in the same thread, who is capable of killing your argument far more effectively than I ever could?

 

[PiMan]

How about addressing his argument?

How about making your own argument?

 

[JerichoHill]

How about addressing his argument?

The argument is a non-starter. He stated that externalities do not matter. That premise is false. Completely and utterly false. Externalities matter, in fact, they matter so much that once we realized that they exist, we really began to understand why previous models weren't working, the market wasn't pricing in the cost of the externality because the benefit was bourne by one actor and the cost on another. Several Nobels were given in this field

 

[Cutlass]

How about addressing his argument?

That's extremely simple. His argument is that people who profit from creating externalities that hurt others should be protected from the consequences of doing so at all costs.

Once upon a time the economic libertarians claimed that there should be no government regulation of externalities, and that anyone thinking themselves hurt should sue instead. However, unequal access to the courts and too high a burden of proof meant that the courts were frequently not a remedy. Over time that changed and with better access to the courts and some government backing negative externalities began to be reigned in. From there people from the "libertarian" and conservative camps began to advocate for laws to restrict liability, restrict access to courts, and reform torts so that those harmed lose the opportunity to redress their grievances.

What your Mises people are doing is just the next step: People are not harmed by externalities because they decided to write a theory saying that no one is ever harmed by externalities. And so as they define externalities as something which cannot cause harm, then there is no reason to have any mechanism for addressing and redressing that harm.

The people who are harmed would disagree. However, you choose to violate the principle of non-aggression and force them to accept being harmed with no remedy.

 

[Lord Baal]

The argument is a non-starter. He stated that externalities do not matter. That premise is false. Completely and utterly false. Externalities matter, in fact, they matter so much that once we realized that they exist, we really began to understand why previous models weren't working, the market wasn't pricing in the cost of the externality because the benefit was bourne by one actor and the cost on another. Several Nobels were given in this field

JH, you know as well as anybody that those Nobels don't count. They're externalities.

 

[Bill3000]

That was not the premise, but the conclusion

Well, then the conclusion is false.

 

[Cutlass]

That was not the premise, but the conclusion.

The conclusion is absolutely wrong. And if he does not change that conclusion, then you have to accept that everything he has to say is most likely wrong.