From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat Aug 10 2002 - 08:35:49 MDT
On Friday, August 09, 2002 8:25 AM Charlie Stross charlie@antipope.org
wrote:
> Ah, at this point I have to confess to being a liberal but not a
> statist.
> I'm in favour of minimizing restrictions where possible. However,
> pollution is a big headache. It's even bigger when you think in terms
of
> unidentified -- new -- pollutants. For example, dioxins weren't
understood
> to be harmful pollutants until the 1970's; should people be exempt
from
> liability for stuff they dump before (as opposed to after) it's
identified
> as harmful?
That would depend on a lot of things and I don't think just knowing a
few libertarian ideas would settle the issue once and for all.
Generally, though, the aim would be to prove either intent or
negligence. (On the latter, if you're dumping stuff you don't know is
harmful and don't take the time to find out, then this could be
negligence.) Also, there's the issue of ownership. If land and water
and the like are owned, then people who own such could either allow or
forbid such dumping. For example, if I owned a lake and the land around
it and you ask me if you can dump your waste in it, I might say "No way"
even if you can show me reputable lab assays showing it to be safe --
just on the off chance the lab might be wrong or some as yet unknown
pollutant might be in the waste.
Also, statism and welfare-state liberalism have no easy solution for
this case either. Just saying, "The government will provide" tell us
nothing really -- save for that someone will initiate force to make
someone else do something they wouldn't do otherwise. (This doesn't
mean that we don't know anything of what will happen. For one thing,
initiating force typically results in far less than optimal solutions
because it redistributes costs in such a way as to undo market feedback
loops. In the long run, it also teaches everyone that they need not
negotiate, persuade, or bargain. They just have to capture power to get
what they want. This gives rise to interest groups, lobbyists, and the
like. All of this reduces overall social coordination and is not
extropic.)
I don't want to go through the whole song and dance on pollution. It's
been covered elsewhere. See, e.g., the links under "Conservation and
Environmental Protection" at http://libertariannation.org/b/cnsv1.htm
> Because there's only one gas distribution network (the pipes in the
ground),
> and the usual monopoly problems apply. An unregulated gas supplier can
become
> a regional monopoly and hike prices until consumers scream -- but
short of
> laying a whole load of new pipes there's no way to make an end run
around
> the methane monopoly.
Not at all. Piped gas doesn't only compete with piped gas. You should
look at it from the perspective of what gas does. E.g., it's used for
cooking and heating. In both these instances, there are other
alternatives -- propane tanks, electric heating and cooking, oil, solar,
and so forth. Piped gas suppliers, on a free market, would have to
compete with all those. The same applies to railways. Yeah, not
everyone is going to build a rail line to outcompete the big guys, but
there are trucks, ships, cars, planes, bicycles, and walking. A market
is not a collection of fragments -- such as a market for piped gas, a
market for rail service, a market for tires -- but a totality --
changes in one area might create costs that lead to people looking for
alternatives or other cost reduction strategies.
>> The
>> only reason for intervention is if there are non-free-market
conditions
>> related to the employment contracts.
>
> Er, in the world I live in there is not -- and never has been -- any
such
> thing as a free market. They tend to slide into disequilibrium very
rapidly,
> and local circumstances prevent people from moving where the work is
as
> easily as theory would dictate that they should.
Whoa! Markets and the real world are always in disequilibrium. There's
really no such thing as a market in equilibrium. This is why Austrian
economics maps onto the real world better than neoclassical mathematical
models. Does this mean markets don't work? Hardly! Disequilibrium is
why we need free and open markets -- to allow people to discover
opportunities for profit. If markets were in equilibrium, there would
be nothing left to discover and the economy would be static. Socialism
could takeover at that point.
>> Since any
>> state-imposed rule involves the threat of death (by the definition of
the
>> state as the monopoly user of violence in an area), imposition of
rules by
>> the state is allowable only as long as both rules 1 and 2 are not
violated.
>
> We have different definitions of the state. (Game over.)
>
> States often assert a monopoly power of violence, but in reality
> their monopoly is frequently brought into question. (Just ask the
> IRA.) Moreover, it doesn't define the full range of state activities
> effectively. The definition of a state as a local monopoly of violence
> is one I see coming from libertarians -- where did it originate?
(Hayek?)
>
> I look around and what I see is a bunch of entities that provide a
> consistent, geographically bounded legal framework -- backed up, where
> necessary, by the threat of force -- and a mechanism for extending
that
> legal framework (which we call government). Violence isn't inevitable
> in the system.
Actually, the definition I find that maps onto actual states is that
they have the legitimate monopoly on the use of force in a given
geographic area. If the state, e.g., takes your money, most people
don't cry "Thief!" If the IRA takes your money, most people would.
That definition, by the way, comes from either Durkheim or Weber --
_not_ from libertarians -- and is morally neutral.
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:59 MST