I didn't say you can't think abstractly, just that apparently you didn't want to...

fexl · on June 15, 2011

You wrote: "I don't think you even bothered to consider what I wanted to say."

I did consider what you had to say, and I addressed it directly. For example, you wrote "you have to propose some policies alongside your supposedly free market, such as property laws".

I gave my working definition of property. You also said that those laws would have to be enforced by the state/military. Not necessarily. People use private arbitration all the time, and loss of a reputation capital is a very steep penalty indeed in the business world. Prison cells are a poor substitute for restitution.

Also, if your state/military enforcement mechanism depends on the violation of property rights for staffing and financing (i.e. conscription and taxation), then isn't it ironic, don't you think?

You then suggested that property laws imply "There goes you free market down the drain." But I defined the free market as a group of people engaging with each other on the basis of mutual consent. Any trade which occurs with mutual consent is by definition one which respects property (see my clause 3).

You're right that I was bonding with the other discussion participant who said "Most categories break down if you stretch them far enough." I agreed with him that you had stretched the categories too far.

I understand what you mean by "Nobody is really free, just our average prison cell is bigger." In this world, there will always be someone trying to initiate coercion against you, no matter where you go. All you can hope to do is find a "prison cell" which is comfortable enough. If you want more economic freedom and lower taxes, perhaps you can move to Hong Kong or Singapore. If you don't want to risk harsh penalties for possession of certain plant materials, perhaps you should avoid Singapore and opt for Portugal or Spain instead. Even those choices have their own drawbacks. More trade-offs. I get it.

I also directly addressed this: "My point was that "let the free market sort it out" is not a strategy. It does not contain any actionable information, as you still have to define the actual rules of your "free" market."

I did define the rules of the free market: namely, that no individual initiates coercion against another. That is actionable. First, I take it upon myself to respect that principle. Second, I aim to deal only with other individuals who also respect that principle. That is all I can possibly do. That is action.

Also consider this statement of yours: "why am I not free to dump my waste on his land? Would a free market (allowing me to dump my waste on his land) somehow sort out that I wouldn't dump my waste on his land?"

The answer is yes, the free market would indeed sort out that you shouldn't dump your waste on his land. To do so is to violate his property rights. Your dumping of waste is an act of aggression.

Even dumping waste on your own property can be an act of aggression. For example, if you dump toxic chemicals on your land and they leach into the water table, you have actually dumped waste onto someone else's property haven't you? After all, the chemicals are now in the water that someone else owns by virtue of it being on their land.

On second thought, I think you made a very good point by emphasizing the rules of property. Property rights are the single most important concept in a free market, and defining them is critical. I did state my definition of property. I think it's the right definition, otherwise I wouldn't have stated it. :)

(By the way, I upvoted you for challenging me on this. Yesterday I did a rather surly downvote and I wanted to make up for it.)

Tichy · on June 15, 2011

I admit to using phrases loosely, and making things up on the go. For example if you say in a free market people consent to respect their property rights, I would say these people form a "government" and have thus defined government rules.

I am not sure if your definition of free market is really workable in practice (no coercion, people just respect each other etc.). So let me just ask again what I asked in another comment: are there cases in history where free markets have resolved a tragedy of the commons situation?

That was the original claim as I understood it: just let the markets run their course, and they'll fix the world's problems.

I think in the original example of a tragedy of the commons, villagers letting their sheep ruin the common grazing grounds. The solution was to set up fences, that is change the property rules - in my view a government intervention, not an achievement of the market. In that light it seems to me that things like CO2 certificates, as specified by governments, are worth a try.

fexl · on June 16, 2011

You wrote: For example if you say in a free market people consent to respect their property rights, I would say these people form a "government" and have thus defined government rules.

I define a government as a group of people who have a monopoly of force in a given territorial region. Such monopolies are very dangerous and often inimical to property rights. The very people who claim to defend property typically become the worst aggressors against it. Specifically, my own property is far more vulnerable to seizure by government employees than by ordinary burglars.

I'm sorry if that sounds like anti-government propaganda, but it's the simple paintful truth of history and the current moment.

Ideally, people institute governments for the purpose of protecting individual life and property, but it just doesn't turn out that way. After all, human beings are at the helm of such force monopolies, and it's generally unwise to trust human beings with that much power.

You wrote: I am not sure if your definition of free market is really workable in practice (no coercion, people just respect each other etc.).

On the contrary, the non-initiation of aggression works everywhere that it is tried, all the time. It happens billions of times per day, in homes, stores, and businesses all over the globe. It is the norm -- so common that it goes unnoticed and unremarked. Aggression and force are the exceptions, the deviations from the norm.

You wrote: So let me just ask again what I asked in another comment: are there cases in history where free markets have resolved a tragedy of the commons situation?

In a free market with strong property rights, there are no commons. The tragedy of the commons arises where there are no clearly defined property rights.

To answer your question directly: yes. One example is the elephant population in Africa. In areas without property rights, poaching abounds and the elephant population is decimated. In areas with property rights, elephant populations triple. There's no magic involved, and it happens for a simple reason: property owners want lots of elephants to live on their property. Wouldn't you? You might say that the "dirty little secret" is that these property owners sell hunting licenses for $50K a pop to Teddy Roosevelt types to go in and bag some big game. But what's so dirty about it if fewer elephants are killed and more elephants are born? Do you want elephants or don't you? ;)

You wrote: "That was the original claim as I understood it: just let the markets run their course, and they'll fix the world's problems."

I would rephrase that. Just let people run their course without initiating aggression against each other, and they will fix the world's problems. And when I put it that way, it seems obviously and trivially true. But that is the definition of a free market after all, so it's not just a word game.

You might say that free markets are not "workable" because very few people will behave that way. But as I point out, most people refrain from aggression against other people's property most of the time. It's the norm. Theft, murder, and rape are very rare and uncommon occurrences. They only seem common because they get so much attention when they do occur.

You wrote: villagers letting their sheep ruin the common grazing grounds. The solution was to set up fences, that is change the property rules - in my view a government intervention, not an achievement of the market

Not at all. Those are achievements of free people trying their best to minimize conflict. People don't like conflict and will try to minimize it on their own. I suggest you read "The Voluntary City" for some historical examples of people doing amazing things, seemingly impossible in this day and age, without the "magic" of government, a.k.a. unilateral force and aggression against other people. They even managed to build roads of all things -- the favorite example trotted out now as something only government can do. And they weren't toll roads either. Hard to imagine now, but it's so obvious when you see how they did it.

Common sheep grazing lands, and common fishing areas in the ocean, are all prime examples of tragedy of the commons. Where there are no property rights, there is no motivation to preserve what's there. It's just one giant ugly grab, indistinguishable from looting.

Perhaps you are arguing that only governments are capable of defending property rights, since only governments have the sufficient force to do so. That's what Ayn Rand thought, and I think she's wrong about that. I don't need to get into an argument about guns here, and here's why: guns are a last resort when it comes to defending life and property. Free and uncoerced people will try all sorts of things to avoid coming to that point. Sociopaths don't care, but they are rare. Most people will go to great lengths to maintain their reputation, which is why arbitration is so often effective.

I'm not going to address CO2 certificates, because to me that represents an externality that is extremely difficult to define in terms of specific offenders and victims. CO2 is one of those things that animals must produce in order to survive. I do think that the "free market", which again means any group of individuals interacting solely by mutual consent, are fully capable of dealing with any threat there. Consider the vast changes in awareness of environmental issues over the last few decades. Hell, these days it's uncool to throw cans in the trash and to waste energy. This is social pressure, not the threat of physical force.

More people need to get more wealthy so they can afford a clean environment. Poor people scrabbling in the dirt cannot afford to think about it. And I predict that as the Chinese become more capitalized, they will innovate in manufacturing and energy production to reduce emissions of all sorts. There's a simple reason for that. Producing waste requires energy, and energy costs money. But without capital, you cannot afford the innovation at the margin to clean up the processes.

Is the free market magic? Will it lead to the Kingdom of God on earth? Hell no. But I am sick of hearing people extol the virtues of force monopolies, and how if they don't apply the lash, nobody will ever do anything right or worthwhile. The reality is quite the opposite.

Tichy · on June 16, 2011

I don't agree with your definition of government. If people agree peacefully to adhere to a set of rules, they have effectively formed a government, too.

"Just let people run their course without initiating aggression against each other, and they will fix the world's problems."

But that is just what is so silly about Lomborg & Co. Obviously people running free do not fix the world's problems. They form dictatorships, exploit resources, fight wars and so on. Your condition of "peacefully" does not work out - people are not peaceful. In an utopia where people would be peaceful somehow it might work, but we don't live in such an utopia. And frankly I doubt such an utopia would ever exist, but that is for another discussion.

We seem to agree that only property management seems to solve the tragedy of the commons problem, except that you think markets create properties and I claim governments (or agreements of people) create properties. But how then do you suppose to solve the tragedy of the commons in our modern world? Air and sea pollution - how do you want to solve that, without all the governments in the world agreeing on property rules for those things? And that is not a market thing.

As for the elephants, how do the property owners defend against the poachers? I strongly suspect guns are involved.

Also, what are you supposed to do if you don't have an elephant farm? Just be consent with being poor? Poaching of elephants could probably be solved by giving everybody an elephant farm. But there aren't enough elephants to go round - and that is a fundamental problem of the human condition. There is not enough stuff to go around.

I think even if we could produce enough food and iPads for everyone, that problem would not go away. For example attractive mates might always remain a limited resource.

fexl · on June 16, 2011

You wrote: "I don't agree with your definition of government. If people agree peacefully to adhere to a set of rules, they have effectively formed a government, too."

Now that's a good point isn't it. I'm so accustomed to people in government doing everything by force that I no longer even consider the possibility of government by consent. OK I'll allow it. :)

So here's the thing. I will support a government that protects life and property from aggression, so long as the people in that government are not initiating the aggression themselves.

In short, I don't want anyone to commit theft or murder, including people with badges or uniforms.

You wrote: "Obviously people running free do not fix the world's problems. They form dictatorships, exploit resources, fight wars and so on. Your condition of "peacefully" does not work out - people are not peaceful."

Yes. However, people are only able to do those things when too much power is concentrated in their hands. Power corrupts, yadda yadda.

You wrote: "except that you think markets create properties and I claim governments (or agreements of people) create properties"

OK, but at this point I have amended my stance so we're in agreement here. Because if the people calling themselves "government" themselves respect life and property and deal with others on the basis of mutual consent, then, by my definition anyway, they are part of the free market.

You wrote: "Air and sea pollution - how do you want to solve that, without all the governments in the world agreeing on property rules for those things? And that is not a market thing."

I want to solve that the same way it's been solved for decades: through technological innovation. For example, a modern car emits far fewer pollutants than one from the 1970s.

A lot of pro-government extremists like to claim that's only because government forced the manufacturers to make more efficient cars, but I don't buy that. People are motivated to produce and use clean and efficient cars, but the only way to achieve that is through the application of financial and intellectual capital. People in government always like to come in from behind and claim victory for themselves, as if without them nothing good would have ever happened. That's a propaganda game and I'll have no part of it.

You wrote: "As for the elephants, how do the property owners defend against the poachers? I strongly suspect guns are involved."

You are correct sir. If necessary one must defend life and property with severe force. Fortunately in many cases the mere threat of such force is enough to prevent an attack. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not even fired. Therefore it is not true to say that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people.

You wrote: "that is a fundamental problem of the human condition. There is not enough stuff to go around."

I don't buy the Malthusian argument for one moment. The Earth, and the universe at large, is a place of massive abundance, a cornucopia. People will produce good things precisely to the degree that they are free to enjoy the rewards of producing them. Yes, it is true that they must "exploit resources" to do so. But that's such a loaded phrase. I just say "using things". People must use things in order to produce other things.

And yes, the production of good things always produces some bad things as well, and we call this "waste". For example, when you eat some food, it produces energy and vitality for you. It also produces waste in the form of feces. That will always be so; it is decreed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You might argue that people are lazy and sloppy by nature and will always go about spreading waste everywhere. But there are a few social dynamics working against that.

First, economics. Very often one can save money by reducing waste. But again this requires technological innovation to achieve those gains at the margin, and I maintain that free uncoerced people are best able to summon the financial and intellectual capital needed for that.

Second, property rights. If you try dumping your garbage on someone else's property, you might find yourself facing the business end of a shotgun. But let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Third, reputation. If you operate a factory and dump toxic chemicals in the nearby water supply, you may find yourself excoriated and your products widely boycotted. Most people are not sociopaths and will therefore care very much about this outcome. For actual sociopaths, see my first point above about shotguns.

You might argue that we need government to protect the little guys against big bad corporations who don't care about those market dynamics or pathetic bands of peasants showing up with pitchforks. Now if we're talking about a "government" in your sense of the word, to which I have agreed, meaning a group of people who protect life and property without attacking those very things in the process, then I can see the possible need for it. The "little guys" would in effect be outsourcing that business end of the shotgun to a better equipped and trained group. I have no problem with that. It's even a market function.

But where the whole government experiment goes awry is when that group itself becomes the principal threat to life and property -- and as you say, this happens repeatedly throughout history, with the institution of dictatorships and the instigation of wars. By some estimates, upwards of 200 million people were slaughtered by governments in the 20th century. With those odds, I'll take my chances with anarchy any day.

The key is, somehow, to prevent such massive aggregations of forceful power into the hands of a few human beings. So-called "democracy" does not help here, because the throngs often support the formation of such dangerous power because they are convinced those in power will give them something for nothing. As Bastiat put it: "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

Having diagnosed the problem, I cannot propose any cure other than for each individual to take it to heart and live according to the principle of non-aggression in his or her own life. Do not seek to live at the expense of others, and do not associate with those who do. Other than that, I got nuthin.

You wrote: "For example attractive mates might always remain a limited resource."

Yeah. People need to make more beautiful babies. Many ask "why would I want to bring another child into this world?" Unfortunately I see their point. I often sound like an optimist, but deep down I have this grim suspicion that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. To paraphrase Churchill (no hero of mine btw), people will always eventually do the right thing, after they exhaust all other alternatives.