From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Fri Aug 23 2002 - 20:21:09 MDT
On Tuesday, August 13, 2002 1:33 AM Dan Fabulich dfabulich@warpmail.net
wrote:
>> This is kind of like saying that if people
>> have freedom of the press,
>> what will they publish, don't you think?:)
>
> Not really. Actually, I think the most *convincing*
> arguments to liberals is to show how and why a
> minarchy/anarchocapitalist society would actually
> have rules (if not laws) that they regard as fair.
> Simply implying that it would, particularly without
> any thought or suggestion as to what fair rules
> even *look* like is what leads even our open-
> minded opponents to think of us as naive zealots.
This is true. My point though is that one cannot really say in advance
what sort of outcome or structures will evolve on a free market. We can
look to the past to see what was done before. We can also argue from
economic theory that certain things are more likely -- as well as to
show how government interference in the natural order usually creates
inefficiencies and encourages, as you put it elsewhere, rent-seeking.
Robert C. Ellickson's 1994 book _Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle
Disputes_ shows, e.g., how farmers and ranchers effectively dealt with
the problem of fencing off property. Think about this case. Let's
assume you have a farmer and a rancher who both have legitimate claims
to their respective properties -- or just that neither disputes the
claim. Their respective tracks of land are adjacent. The problem
arises when the ranchers cattle stray over onto the farmer's property.
Should the rancher have to build a fence or the farmer? Most hardcore
property rights type would put the burden on the rancher. (Ditto for
pollution and the like. This is basically the same thing. Someone
pollutes my land or my lungs, they've violated my property.) What
actually happened though depended on how neighborly these people were --
usually measured by how long they lived near each other. The longer
they lived near each other, the more likely they were to settle the
dispute in the least antagonistic fashion. A wealthy farmer, e.g.,
might build the fence, knowing his poorer rancher neighbor bould afford
the cost. Or he might allow grazing for a price. Etc.
>> If it's private arbitration, then it will be
>> up to what both sides can
>> agree to and can be enforced. In most
>> cases, I gather this will mean that the
>> polluter will be fined or at least stopped.
>> What the actual fine will be would depend
>> on the situation -- things like the value of
>> the property, the value of the damage,
>> court costs, and the like.
>
> No, no... You misunderstand. The *amount*
> of the fine isn't what was asked. Who would
> win in the case in which Alice dumps a bad
> in Bob's area before anyone realizes that
> it's a bad? Why would the market arrive at a
> fair answer to that question, rather than
> simply awarding the suit to Alice because
> Bob is practically destitute? And so on.
It's not so much how will the market deal with, but how would anyone?
The historical answer is common law. However, elsewhere I pointed out
that if Bob doesn't know if Alice's dumping is good or bad, he'd be much
more likely to either charge her for it or -- and this what the example
I used last time -- forbid her from doing so. (I mean not allow her
onto his property to dump the stuff. I definitely would not allow stuff
at all. I'd prefer to be safe. Of course, if someone says they want to
throw their dishwater in your swimming pool for $5000, you might think
twice, no?)
> You can't just *say* that the market would do
> this right. It must be shown.
See above. Also, what we can say is that the government solution
doesn't do it right. No one has the correct incentives under pollution
laws to do the right thing, since there's no way to attach rights or
values to properties in any fashion that's workable.
>> If all property is privately owned (whether
>> by one person or a group of people) or
>> unowned -- there will be no such thing as
>> public property -- then a vector person
>> can be prevented from coming onto a
>> particular property by the owner.
>
> So what happens if a destitute group of
> people find themselves in territory from
> which they cannot afford to escape?
> What if none of their neighbors will give
> them a loan? It's not like they can go
> elsewhere to ask someone else for a loan.
You act as if this is a feature only of free market anarchy. Under
current and previous governments, people only have freedom of movement
to the extent that the governments allow it. You really can't just go
where you want -- not overtly, at least, but you can also covertly sneak
onto private property, so that's not a distinguishing feature here --
without certain permissions. Right now, there are, e.g., refugees who
wouldn't mind coming to America, but can't because of legal barriers to
entry. (Notably, many people pay lots of money to be secreted into this
and other countries.)
> What if they have only one neighbor, who
> completely surrounds them? Does
> it matter if the neighbor did that intentionally?
I think it would. How would that neighbor then be able to deal with her
neighbors who might not like the same? I also think the common law
standard of a right of passage would apply here. Hardcore property
rights types might squawk at this, but people would most likely -- as
they do for the most part now -- allow people to pass through if they
are doing no harm and it's not a regular occurence -- i.e., someone
doesn't decide to use your living room as a thoroughfare.
What if a nation is surrounded? Oh, that already happens...
> It seems to me that a group could be forced
> into slavery in such a situation. "I'll bring you
> food from the outside if you'll follow my
> every order. Plus I get to whip you."
See above.
> This is actually a live political issue today.
> Gilmore is suing the government on the
> grounds that the government is not
> permitted to restrict his fundamental right
> to travel between the states, even if he
> refuses to present a government issued
> ID card. The right to travel seems to be
> fundamental to the right to associate freely
> with whomever you like, and
> to make trades with them.
As Hoppe puts it, there is not right to travel where one wants. There
is a right to go where one is invited. Trade and association, after
all, are two-sided. You are free to associate with me only if I agree
to associate with you and vice versa. Ditto for trade.
>> This is no different, in many respects, than
>> the government solution: not allowing
> disease v[e]ctors to immigrate or to move about.
>
> Er. In some cases, vectors whom some
> people might discriminate against, exile,
> or "confine to their homes" (read: imprison)
> maintain their right to travel about the country.
Governments do this now. Saying it would be wrong for a free market
society to do the same is not a condemnation of the latter, but more a
condemnation of humanity for being irrational sometimes.
> I mean, really, on libertarian grounds, could
> you possibly argue that the
> *diseased* have initiated force against you?
If they knowingly spread their diseases to me, yes. (This is in the
case of known contagious diseases, of course.) The same might apply to
negligence. Notably, when my coworkers or friends have colds, I don't
tongue kiss them -- and if they tried to tongue kiss me, I don't think
anyone would say I shouldn't stop them.
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:23 MST