undefined | Better HN

0 pointsboon12y ago0 comments

The completely anarcho-capitalist solution is that someone owns the river. If you want to dump into that river, then you have to deal with the owner; if you want to take from the river, then you have to deal with the owner. The owner would have a vested interest in keeping the water clean for people buying the water coming out of the river.

I'm not saying there aren't externalities to free markets, I think there are. I just don't think government is any better at dealing with them than markets. Friedman always says it better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHFIbfUi5rw

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

dragontamer12y ago· 2 in thread

You do realize that your "Anarcho-capitalist" solution describes the EPA's history. Precisely the moment when the US Government declared ownership of the Mississippi River, and all federal lands under its protection.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/652

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_National_River_and_...

Your solution is really called "internalizing the externality", and a near hundred-year-old analysis can be found in Coase's Theorem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

Your solution requires "some entity" to create the concept of ownership, and then sell pieces of the shared resource to other people. You ensure that an owner exists for every part of the river, and then you get an economically optimal solution.

But WHO declares ownership? WHO enforces this ownership? If you believe in "private protection agencies" and "private courts", it is obvious that ownership of "The River" should be settled in the "private courts".

Eventually, you start building an entity functions exactly like the current US Government (except you use Libertarian friendly words to describe it). So please, describe to me a technique that isn't currently being used by the US Government to solve the problem of Externalities. Otherwise, you end up just describing our current Governing philosophy.

boonOP12y ago

That's fine. I don't care about convincing you. I care about convincing people who have the same perspective on individual freedom that I do that are reading this thread.

I guess if there's no convincing you, then your open-mindedness claim dies with this discussion.

Toodle-oo.

dragontamer12y ago

Your solution was valid. The problem is, you didn't realize that the US Government already is doing what you're describing.

You're calling me close minded, when YOU are the one walking away from this conversation. As I said, you gave a valid solution, but this solution you're talking about requires a Government.

But if you don't feel like discussing it... sure, c ya later. I will say that this is the first time someone has called me "close minded" for calling their solution analogous to one of the most economically stable solutions known.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse