US Federal Government

[Renton]

For it to make sense for someone to own a piece of ocean and use it sustainably, preserving and nurturing it would have to be the most economical option, which it clearly isn't. Far greater short-term profits can be acquired by drilling and overfishing, the effects of which are the problem of the next fiscal year or generation.

If what you say is true, then beef companies would just slaughter every single cow tomorrow and put them on the market to maximize the short term gain.

Overfishing happens because each fisherman is acting in his own short term AND long term best interest by extracting as much as possible. It is in his best interest because he must assume that the other fishermen will do the same. This is called the tragedy of the commons. If a seafood company owned a plot of ocean, it would be in it's financial best interest to farm it in a sustainable manner so the company may reap profits long term. Not only that, the company would also want to preserve the ecosystem and food chain as much as possible so that the crop they are harvesting will thrive and many more catches will be possible.

A lot of people assume that capitalists are all about short term profits but thats not true. Businesses are long term endeavors and the people who run them have to consider the long term, they cannot afford not to. Shortsighted fishermen who fish out their plots will be put out of business by their more prudent counterparts in due time.

[CoccoBill]

Shortsighted fishermen who fish out their plots will be put out of business by their more prudent counterparts in due time.

Is that before or after the fish stocks are depleted and oceans polluted? This is my point really, no one is stopping them from being stupid, and most people are stupid*.


*"Stupid" used for added emphasis, replace with "ignorant", "ill-informed", "only human" or something similar as seen fit.

[Renton]

Is that before or after the fish stocks are depleted and oceans polluted? This is my point really, no one is stopping them from being stupid, and most people are stupid*.


*"Stupid" used for added emphasis, replace with "ignorant", "ill-informed", "only human" or something similar as seen fit.

Certainly before. Markets have a way of rectifying these problems rather quickly. If a scarce resource with alternative uses isn't being used in its most valued way, then that resource will be bid on by people who intend to get full value out of it. In this hypothetical context of short term over-fishermen, that would happen in the form of prices rising such that it isn't worthwhile to buy a plot with only short-term gains in mind.

Free-market capitalism isn't pro-business. Probably the vast majority of CEO's today would be hugely in disfavor of truly free markets because it would threaten their state-enabled monopolies. The kind of "stupid" or "ill-informed" behavior you are speaking of cannot happen for long in a competitive market before bankruptcy occurs. It can only happen when competition is not allowed to happen, when property rights are inadequate.

[CoccoBill]

Certainly before. Markets have a way of rectifying these problems rather quickly. If a scarce resource with alternative uses isn't being used in its most valued way, then that resource will be bid on by people who intend to get full value out of it. In this hypothetical context of short term over-fishermen, that would happen in the form of prices rising such that it isn't worthwhile to buy a plot with only short-term gains in mind.

The market will rectify it in a way that can squeeze the most value out of what's left. If the previous fisherman harmed the fish stocks enough, it makes no sense for others to invest there and breed and revive the stocks until it's the least harmed part of the ocean. There's no mechanism in the free market to ensure that resources that are not directly providing market value are preserved or maintained, such as making sure oceans aren't polluted, or that they are instantly revived if something happens to it.

Free-market capitalism isn't pro-business. Probably the vast majority of CEO's today would be hugely in disfavor of truly free markets because it would threaten their state-enabled monopolies. The kind of "stupid" or "ill-informed" behavior you are speaking of cannot happen for long in a competitive market before bankruptcy occurs. It can only happen when competition is not allowed to happen, when property rights are inadequate.

I highly doubt that the vast majority of businesses enjoy state-enabled monopolies. There's no rule that says a business must become bankrupt well before any natural catastrophes or that sort will happen.

[Pascal]

Certainly before. Markets have a way of rectifying these problems rather quickly. If a scarce resource with alternative uses isn't being used in its most valued way, then that resource will be bid on by people who intend to get full value out of it. In this hypothetical context of short term over-fishermen, that would happen in the form of prices rising such that it isn't worthwhile to buy a plot with only short-term gains in mind.

Free-market capitalism isn't pro-business. Probably the vast majority of CEO's today would be hugely in disfavor of truly free markets because it would threaten their state-enabled monopolies. The kind of "stupid" or "ill-informed" behavior you are speaking of cannot happen for long in a competitive market before bankruptcy occurs. It can only happen when competition is not allowed to happen, when property rights are inadequate.

This completely ignores the concept of externalities, the costs being bourne by society rather than the businesses. Given they don't appear on balance sheets, businesses will ignore them. And I don't believe society is strong or organised enough to completely boycott a product due externalities they can't see or feel personally until it's too late

[Renton]

I didn't ignore externalities, I just didn't address them. One thing is pretty clear though, governments are currently doing a piss-poor job of mitigating externalities. Again with the Deepwater Horizon spill, if BP were clearly accountable to private property owners, instead of vaguely accountable to a United States government that sucks BP's dick 23 times before breakfast each day, they might have gone bankrupt with all the settlements they'd need to make, instead of the couple of billion they had to pay to the U.S. for violating the clean water act (BP's revenue is like 500 billion a year for comparison).

If landowners also owned the cone of volume from the air above them to deep underground, any air pollution or ground water pollution that they suffer would be considered an act of aggression and they would be in a position to sue the polluter. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't ignore externalities, it just deals with them in a different way than governments do. And on top of all that, no one said there couldn't or wouldn't be laws under these conditions. We just arguing for a state that doesn't interfere in markets and that empowers individuals.

[Pascal]

Individuals are in an awful position to sue for things like damage caused by water pollution or air pollution. The average citizen isn't going to understand the law and what constitutes a breach. Initially the court system would be jammed with thousands of individual lawsuits, and then companies would just move externalities to poorer areas where access to justice is lower (assuming they followed the same system).

I don't understand how it would work. I'm not saying the government is doing a good deal with mitigating them, but theoretically they are in a far stronger position than private citizens and I couldn't see a system involving private citizens ever being stronger than what we have currently due to the practical problems with access to justice, speed, efficiency, discovery, etc.

[d0zer]

Individuals are in an awful position to sue for things like damage caused by water pollution or air pollution.

They're also in an awful position to track & monitor such things. The damage done by pollution may not be immediately visible, and its consequences may take a lot of time to realize. Putting the burden on homeowners to routinely collect water, air, soil samples, have them analyzed and track the data over time is ridiculous.

That kind of thing needs to be done in a centralized manner, where data-aggregation is built into the system on a large scale and trends can be analyzed etc. That's the role of the government.

[Pascal]

Most of these arguments can also be applied to class action lawsuits which I would imagine would ideally be a useful tool

[Renton]

They're also in an awful position to track & monitor such things. The damage done by pollution may not be immediately visible, and its consequences may take a lot of time to realize. Putting the burden on homeowners to routinely collect water, air, soil samples, have them analyzed and track the data over time is ridiculous.

That kind of thing needs to be done in a centralized manner, where data-aggregation is built into the system on a large scale and trends can be analyzed etc. That's the role of the government.

Homeowners wouldn't need to do those things. Even with complete anarchy, watchdog companies would emerge to fill those roles. But again, I haven't advocated for pure anarchy at any point here, just increasing private property rights.

Handling pollution is certainly one of the number one roles that I think government might be necessary to achieve. I just think the government can do those things without setting the prices of shit and taking over entire industries and markets.

[bode]

I really couldn't give flying fuck whether the place I have surgery is economically accountable or not. A hospital is there to give the best possible treatment, not be a profitable enterprise.

What a depressing thought that everything comes down to money.

sadly this is the exact opposite of the current state of medical care in the US. Hospitals are first and foremost a profit driven enterprise.