Free Market Environmentalism

[Sage]

I've recently come across this Austrian economist, Walter Block, (who just happens to support Ron Paul) and I've been floored by his brilliant arguments for individual liberty, especially in controversial issues.
Here is an interview from the 80s in which he elucidates the genius of leaving environmentalism to the free market. Funnily enough, he actually converts the interviewer to the libertarian outlook he subscribes to.
Here is Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUF ... re=related
Enjoy!

[daybrown]

I've recently come across this Austrian economist, Walter Block, (who just happens to support Ron Paul) and I've been floored by his brilliant arguments for individual liberty, especially in controversial issues.
Here is an interview from the 80s in which he elucidates the genius of leaving environmentalism to the free market. Funnily enough, he actually converts the interviewer to the libertarian outlook he subscribes to.
Here is Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUF ... re=related
Enjoy!

Waitaminit. At the outset, he says a job of government is to define property rights. Isnt that what regulation is? How can you define property rights without regulation?

Another libertarian myth. Just as there aint no free lunch, neither is there a free market. All markets have a venue, a hosting service, which charges those who do business in it. Whether it be a local livestock sale barn or Wall Street, the broker/auctioneer takes a cut from each transaction, and is, to some extent, responsible to see that both the seller gets paid and the buyer gets what he thinks he paid for.

Whether local or federal there is still the problem of the honest broker. Regulations were invented to try to ensure honest dealing. Remove too much regulation, the buyers get screwed, and dont come back. Use too much regulation, and the cost of the market overhead drives vendors away. Either way, you need true representations of what is in the 'free market'. How do you insure that at a reasonable cost?

[Sage]

Waitaminit. At the outset, he says a job of government is to define property rights. Isnt that what regulation is? How can you define property rights without regulation?

Regulation is defined as :
1. The act of regulating or the state of being regulated.
2. A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.
So, it's true, defining property rights necessarily implies regulation, in that the government says my property starts at x and ends at y. In doing so, my conduct is controlled in that I am free to do what I want on or with my property while at the same time not infringing on the property of others. The government is not imposing anything unconstitutional or setting up an endless bureaucracy; it is only recognizing the area of land or objects that I own.

Another libertarian myth. Just as there aint no free lunch, neither is there a free market.

Just because the government is regulating by establishing property rights doesn't mean there isn't a free market. The negative connotations you associate with "regulation" do not apply here. And yes, we obviously don't live in a free market today.

All markets have a venue, a hosting service, which charges those who do business in it. Whether it be a local livestock sale barn or Wall Street, the broker/auctioneer takes a cut from each transaction, and is, to some extent, responsible to see that both the seller gets paid and the buyer gets what he thinks he paid for.

Not true. If I want to pay my neighbor to cut my grass, it's between me and him. I give him $20, he works for two hours - no livestock sale barn needed. True, there are businesses that use middlemen, but it is not inherent in commerce.

Whether local or federal there is still the problem of the honest broker. Regulations were invented to try to ensure honest dealing. Remove too much regulation, the buyers get screwed, and dont come back. Use too much regulation, and the cost of the market overhead drives vendors away. Either way, you need true representations of what is in the 'free market'. How do you insure that at a reasonable cost?

In a free market there is little regulation, in terms of licenses, permits, certifications, etc. So, as you say, if the buyer gets screwed and takes his business elsewhere, the seller will be forced to improve his satisfaction of the customer if he wants to keep his job. He'll be forced to make an honest deal, and both the buyer and the seller will benefit. It is not a zero-sum game. The market has a beautiful way of working things out!
And, there is no overload of regulation in a free market, so no problem of driving vendors away.
As for insuring "true representations", it is the market that dictates what happens and at what cost it happens. There is very minimal government intervention.

It seems to me that free market capitalism should be especially appealing to thinking people, such as on these forums. It is the only economic system that is based on seeing reality as it is; if you refuse to accept reality, you will have to accept the consequences.

[Toban]

Wow, this guy's got good ideas. Brilliance! The free market is clearly the best way to solve environmental problems. Funny how the environmentalists all want more socialism. They like to protest the problem but haven't any idea of what the best solution is.

[daybrown]

Its a quibble to call it defined property rights and not regulation. When you make a private deal to have your lawn mowed or whatever, that's your business. But a market implies a collective pool where everyone is supposed to have access to the same product with the same idea of what that product was.

When Wall Street insiders collude to have the fed dump liquidity into the accounts of the brokerages, then they know before hand when the stock price will be supported. And when that liquidity is withdrawn, when the price will fall.

When the four major precious metals houses collude to dump silver contracts, they know the price will fall. SEC regulation is spozed to prevent this kind of thing, but nothing has been done after 17 months. Is that a free market? Why should the SEC have any interest in what ever deals any of the customers, be they large or small, decide to make with each other about when they will buy or sell?

Swiss financial analists used their computers and identified a mysterious and dramatic increase in the number of put calls just before 9/11/01. Is there any reason to be concerned about the free market function of Wall Street?

Is there any reason to prevent banks from taking depositor money and using it in ventures like WhiteWater?

Crassus figured out how to manipulate the Roman Grain market by having his friends appointed grain inspectors on the docks. Told to be assiduous in the search for vermin, supplies in Rome got short and the price went thru the roof. But the *regulation* was only there to prevent the introduction into the city of more rats and to reduce disease. A large part of the success of the Romans was due to the REGULATION they installed to ensure functional sewer systems and clean water for the citizens as a public health policy.

A fact that libertarians in general totally miss. Any free market requires infrastructure investments by the community which supports it. Who should bear the costs of those investments?

[Sage]

To daybrown:
First of all, the act of government defining property rights IS regulation. I'm not hiding from that. You are assuming that regulation is incompatible with a free market. It is not. It is an inherent in a free market. If the government did not define and protect property rights, then by definition, it would not be a free market.

Furthermore, a market is NOT a

collective pool where everyone is supposed to have access to the same product with the same idea of what that product was.

A market is simply a place where buyers and sellers can get together for the purpose of exchange. That's it. Your arguments would be a lot stronger if you defined your terms (hint, hint).

Finally, we DO NOT live in a free market. Repeat: we DO NOT live in a free market. You seem to be assuming that I think we do. With your examples of Wall Street, the SEC and the put options, all you do is support my position that we live in a mixed economy.

Any free market requires infrastructure investments by the community which supports it. Who should bear the costs of those investments?

It is true that infrastructure requires investments. Isn't is pretty obvious that in a free market, with minimal government intervention in the economy, that it would most likely be private business bearing those costs?

[daybrown]

Who getsta define "minimal"? The definition keeps changing as we become aware of unexpected benefits or downsides. The question with regulation has a lot to do with who crafts the rules. Much of the problem now is that some rules are written by corporate hacks hired by bureacrats whose spin is to benefit their corporate sponsors and not even the playing field a free market needs.

Much of the problem is also by regulation twits whose careers are built on increasing the level of complexity. No one size, libertarian, nor liberal, fits all. Environmentalism became a movement because of the perceived downsides to entrepreneurial activities. Deregulation became a movement because of the perceived damage to reasonably sound economic production. I dont have a dog in this fight, just get annoyed with the one sidedness of both positions as if each has a divine mandate to tell the rest of us what the rules should be.

Regardless of whether you view a system as socialist or capitalist, the question is whether it is being competently managed. The Scandinavians are smarter than most other nations, so they are able to operate a more socialist system to ensure that the next generation grows up well balanced enough to be competent managers of their economies. They are discovering right now, that their policies which worked so well for Nordic gene pools fails miserably with Islamic immigrants.

There are other examples where socialism was abandoned, but the level of competence and honesty was so low that what would otherwise become free market capitalism became cronyism. There has been a decline in competence and honesty in the Untied States of Denial, and now we argue about what level of regulation is needed to cope with it.

But in any case, while rataional discourse here mite arrive at some conclusions, we know that it aint upta us, but the mass media and what they tell the sheeple to think. Dont argue with me, argue with the spinmeisters.

[Sage]

to daybrown:
I'm sorry, but your posts are so convoluted and aimless that it seems pointless for me to reply. You don't seem to be responding to my posts; you go off on tangents and don't tie them into the discussion; in short, you rant. And judging by the number of posts you make, it seems clear to me that you don't edit or analyse your ideas very carefully before posting.
I regret having to question your ability to form arguments, but it is really detracting from the quality of the discussion.

[daybrown]

to daybrown:
I'm sorry, but your posts are so convoluted and aimless that it seems pointless for me to reply. You don't seem to be responding to my posts; you go off on tangents and don't tie them into the discussion; in short, you rant. And judging by the number of posts you make, it seems clear to me that you don't edit or analyse your ideas very carefully before posting.
I regret having to question your ability to form arguments, but it is really detracting from the quality of the discussion.

This aint great literature. I post a lotta stuf that disturbs sensibilities; dont read it. Much of what I post does not fit into any of the usual dualisms, left/right, Dem/GOP, Liberal/Conservative, or in this case Green/Capital. Those who post do so out of the conviction that they know something, and dont like it when I dont defend their perceived enemy, yet point out the downsides of positions.

In this case, there is no such thing as a free market. Such markets as there are would come to a grinding halt if we installed all the regulation the environmentalists ask for. The only question is the appropriate amount of regulation and who getsta decide what that is. Get it wrong, and economic instability results, then revolution and famine. Which is bad for both the capitalists and the environmentalists.

[Sage]

This aint great literature. I post a lotta stuf that disturbs sensibilities; dont read it. Much of what I post does not fit into any of the usual dualisms, left/right, Dem/GOP, Liberal/Conservative, or in this case Green/Capital. Those who post do so out of the conviction that they know something, and dont like it when I dont defend their perceived enemy, yet point out the downsides of positions.

In this case, there is no such thing as a free market. Such markets as there are would come to a grinding halt if we installed all the regulation the environmentalists ask for. The only question is the appropriate amount of regulation and who getsta decide what that is. Get it wrong, and economic instability results, then revolution and famine. Which is bad for both the capitalists and the environmentalists.

Once again, you miss my point entirely. I have no problem with the content of your posts (OK, I do disagree) but my main concern is the structure. You do not respond to other posts; you go on long walks of tangentially espousing your thoughts, punctuated with bursts of mental diarrhea.

Just to clarify: I have no problem with your opinion; it is yours to have. I DO have a problem with you ignoring the points I make and then making your arguments so cloudy that they repel the mind. I'm just asking you to carry out a nice, rational discussion. We're obviously not going to reach any important conclusions if one of us cannot follow the rules of critical thinking.

[daybrown]

You are welcome to your opinion as well. I repeat my point. who getsta define regulation? If you are a bystander you may be more concerned with the social and environmental costs of a deal, but if you are making the deal, then your concern is the perceived personal benefit.

Secondly, you cannot have a free market; there is no such animal. every venue has a social and infrastructure cost. What deal you choose to make with a neighbor is less of a problem. But who pays for the roads the farmers use to bring the produce to market? Who pays for the roof on the auction house, or the computer terminals on Wall Street?

Environmentalism is a result of the perceived cost to the whole society of capitalist deals which go way beyond the cash value exchanged. Who getsta decide how much the traders should chip in to maintain their fair share of the infrastucture, and how liable are they to the unintended pollution or environmental degredation caused by their effort to profit?

Whether we like it or not, there is a growing perception that regulation was manipulated to increase profits for some at the cost to the entire system. That perception now includes the notion that the whole system is on the skids. Wallace, in his anthro classic "Culture and Personality" notes that when this happens, people's coping skills dont work so well and they start to engage in magical thinking. Hence the Fundies await the Rapture. Wiccans rely on Tarot, Runes, and Astrology, and the politically motivated are absolutely convinced that if only everyone would listen to them, things would turn around.

Hence the Greens and Libertarians have at each other, each side ignoring the downsides of what they advocate. I dont see where you admit of a downside in what you have proposed in this thread either. This is all very ambiguous, and ambiguity makes people uncomfortable. But I'm not selling reassurance either.

Lastly, I learned how to touch type 50 years ago; do a lot of it, rip stuff off in no time for posting. I dont worry about it if I'm not as clear as I'd like to be. This is not great literature. Nobody's gonna get a prize. Its just ideas that sometimes are worth entertaining.

[Nick]

The Free Market is akin to Natural Selection. They both have a natural tendency to progress toward more efficiency and balance. Socialism, on the other hand is akin to opening Pandora's Box, it is inherently less efficient and will always result in some people getting screwed over and straight up robbed, i.e. taxation. This is only the VERY tip of the ice-berg. This isn't to say we shouldn't set up laws to protect individual's basic rights and property, e.g. a Constitution, but any attempt to socialize something on a public level should be completely outlawed. Bottom line is this, the hearts and minds of men are easily corrupted, and corrupt men will inevitably use socialism to manipulate, oppress, and enslave the masses.

[daybrown]

Under Capitalism, the guy who runs the factory rides home in a limo to a trophy wife at the door of his villa.
But under Communism, the guy who runs the factory rides home in a limo to a trophy wife at the door of his dacha.

Nevertheless, it is in the public good that there be factories; the only question is the cost of management. In like manner it is in the public good that there be police, fire, and a miliatary, which are all socialist organizations whose main interest comes to be the benefit of the membership, leaving open the question of what the public pays for those services. Which are just as prone to corruption as any other form of socialism.

Smarter populations tend to be more socialist with more investment in the development of their kids to have a more talented and creative next generation to compete in the global market. Dumber populations focus more on the use of force to control what stupid people mite do. Their power elites support the breeding of dumber people as a counter weight to the professional and middle manager class who mite catch on to the high cost of upper management.

It dont matter whether you call the system communist or socialist, apparactchniks and capitalist pigs will figure out how to manipulate the system for their personal benefit. In either case, the cost of management keeps rising until the system becomes top heavy and falls over.

[DHodges]

It dont matter whether you call the system communist or socialist, apparactchniks and capitalist pigs will figure out how to manipulate the system for their personal benefit. In either case, the cost of management keeps rising until the system becomes top heavy and falls over.

This is the problem with any system, socialist, capitalist, or what have you: centralized power tends to grow and become more centralized. It tends toward fascism and totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is not incompatible with either socialism or capitalism.

So how do you determine what the legitimate functions of government are, and then keep government strictly limited to those functions? Whatever restrictions and rules you put into place, eventually ways around them will be found by those who seek power. There will always be emergencies to justify the government gaining power it didn't have previously - on a temporary basis, of course.

That sounds like I'm blaming particular people for being 'bad', but really it is as much of a function of how beaurocracies work as the people in them.

The price of freedom remains eternal vigilance.

I dont worry about it if I'm not as clear as I'd like to be.

It would be very helpful if you would work on it. The way you present your ideas really detracts from them being taken seriously.

[daybrown]

Many of my ideas are too far out of the box, too challenging to conventional sensibilities, that they cant be taken seriously, even tho they are rational. Thats part of the problem leading to tyranny; the electorate is no longer rational enuf to support anything but demagoguery; reality is too complex for them.

But one of the alternatives to global tyranny, is a global system of small independent city states. The Silk Road was such a system that operated for millennia just beyond the hegemony of the empires that fill our history books. Then, about 1000 years ago, i a Nordic system extended from Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia, Denmark, and along the rivers to the Baltic, ending at Astrakhan on the Caspian to hook up with the trading network that ran East.

Its not like the nation state is always a permanent entity. Moravia completely disappeared. And now we see the principle of self determination create Slovakia, and recreate the Balkan states. Dividing Kenya, Congo, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Sri Lanka, and other areas into their tribal regions seems reasonable. If the Mongols can have Mongolia, why cant the Kurds have Kurdistan?

The dissolution of the Untied States of Denial could lead to Mexico getting back those parts it is now filling with Mexicans. Mormons can have Utah. Blacks can have MS & AL. Jews can have New York and Miami. The Fags can have MA and Northern California.

You get to vote with your feet. Think Libertarianism is a good idea? there'll be a state run by Libertarians. Or a state run by Socialists. You wanna ban abortion and breed welfare queens, you figure out how to support them. Put up or shut up.

I've said that often, and the silence is just fucking deafening. They wanna ban abortion, but they want your tax money to pay for the welfare. No, this system dont work that way. You get to stew in your own juice. The city of Singapore is a tyranny; but they are painfully aware that if they do not respect the rights of the professionals, those people will vote with an airplane ticket to whatever town offers a lower cost and more rational form of urban management.

Its starting to look like the medieval Masons. Governments can oppress the the shit out of their people, but if you piss off the Masons, you dont get any more castles built and end up going out of the king business. Aristotle:"Most men are such slaves to passion, they'd do better in the hands of a more rational master."

Well ok. the debates about who the rational masters are, have been largely carried on by neurotic zealots. If you are not rational, educated, and self controlled, you are a slave no matter what you think your political rights are. And if you are, then you get to go wherever in the world you think your rights to be sentient will be respected. Often, that wont be under the mob rule of democracy.

[DHodges]

You get to vote with your feet. Think Libertarianism is a good idea? there'll be a state run by Libertarians.

Maybe New Hampshire

[Unidian]

Ron Paul wants to solve air pollution by defining air as private property. I'm sorry, but if people can't see the basic screaming insanity of that, nothing I possibly could say about it is going to help.

It seems to me that free market capitalism should be especially appealing to thinking people, such as on these forums. It is the only economic system that is based on seeing reality as it is; if you refuse to accept reality, you will have to accept the consequences.

In ethics, that is called "the naturalistic fallacy," meaning that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." I wouldn't get my hopes up about getting an enthusiastic response from a community of "thinking people" when you propose a basic fallacy that people learn about in Philosophy 101. However, since a certain number of philosophy fans here at Genius Forum haven't bothered to learn even the basics of their own self-proclaimed discipline, it might do reasonably well in this particular venue.

Oh, and lest I forget...

RON PAUL 08!!! Wooo-hooooooo! RevolutioN!!!! I don't like taxes!!!!!11!1!11eleventyone

[Unidian]

Nick,

Bottom line is this, the hearts and minds of men are easily corrupted, and corrupt men will inevitably use socialism to manipulate, oppress, and enslave the masses.

You don't think capitalism can be used to do this as well, and in fact has been in multiple instances? If not, then frankly, you're out of your mind.

It's all about getting the "ought" from the "is" again, Nick. Just because Darwinism is the law of the jungle doesn't mean it should be the law of human society. There's nothing more oppressive to human beings than unmitigated natural selection. Absolutely nothing. It is hell exceeding Hitler and Stalin put together, and that's precisely why every morsel of human progress for the last ten thousand years has been solely directed towaard escaping it.

[Philosophaster]

I found the videos (the link given is first in a series of five) pretty interesting. He made some good points about how logging works with government-owned forests: the companies merely lease the forests, giving them no incentive to engage in sustainable practices, because once the lease is up, the company can just move on. If they owned some of the forests, they would probably treat them better, because better treatment would lead to more profit in the long run.

At the same time, I have to question whether there could ever be much of an economic incentive to do something like preserve an endangered species, for example. I have a hard time seeing how that could work with privatized environmentalism.

[Unidian]

I dunno, they could probably start selling "save the spotted owl" T-shirts or somesuch. They have an answer for everything, you know.

Personally, my chief concern is not whether such ideas will work, per se. My concern is what kind of a world they would lead to. Maybe it's just the little bit of Native American blood in me, but I think it's bad enough land has become a commodity to be bought and sold. Now they want to make water and even AIR private property, too? I wrote a satire piece about making the air we breate private property once, never imagining a US presidential candidate would propose that very plan just a few years later. To me, it's just beyond the pale.

Any number of free market schemes to protect the enviroment (or to do anything else) might be feasible in principle. But does that mean we want to go that route? Hacking off your head with a machete will cure a headache, too. But what kind of life are you going to have (for the next five seconds)? Is it a life worth living?

[DHodges]

At the same time, I have to question whether there could ever be much of an economic incentive to do something like preserve an endangered species, for example. I have a hard time seeing how that could work with privatized environmentalism.

That's a good point - "free markets" are not a magic bullet you can use to solve any problem. Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes not.

On the other side, some problems can be handled well by government regulation, while other problems may be better addressed in other ways. More government is not always the best solution, either.

[Nick]

It's all about getting the "ought" from the "is" again, Nick. Just because Darwinism is the law of the jungle doesn't mean it should be the law of human society. There's nothing more oppressive to human beings than unmitigated natural selection. Absolutely nothing. It is hell exceeding Hitler and Stalin put together, and that's precisely why every morsel of human progress for the last ten thousand years has been solely directed towaard escaping it.

This is based on the assumption there is no Rule of Law. If laws are enforced properly then the things you worry about simply wont happen, or at least not nearly as much as you think they will. Second, your missing how dangerous it is in a Socialist society even with the Rule of Law when you have a Government in control of so much money(power) and then on top off that they hold all the big guns AND enforce the law as well. It's only a matter of time until Tyranny rules with an iron fist. Now that's scary!

[Unidian]

Then why aren't you willing to pay for the rule of law (through taxation), Nick? It's not free, you know. The creation and enforcement of laws costs money.

But in the other thread, you called me a "scared little girl" for talking about how we need certain protections. LOL. Are you a scared little girl, Nick? Why not throw caution to the wind and truly embrace The Law of The Jungle? You won't have to pay taxes, and the markets (which will be barter-only) will be truly free in every sense. Paradise, right?

[Nick]

Then why aren't you willing to pay for the rule of law (through taxation), Nick? It's not free, you know. The creation and enforcement of laws costs money.

But in the other thread, you called me a "scared little girl" for talking about how we need certain protections. LOL. Are you a scared little girl, Nick? Why not throw caution to the wind and truly embrace The Law of The Jungle? You won't have to pay taxes, and the markets (which will be barter-only) will be truly free in every sense. Paradise, right?

I never said I'm against all taxaction, and I specifically stated that I would support socialization of basic services such as fire/emergency, law enforcement, and defense. What I'm against is direct and unavoidable taxation such as the income taxes and payroll taxes. A limited and reasonable sales tax on certain services would more than suffice to support these things.

[daybrown]

You get to vote with your feet. Think Libertarianism is a good idea? there'll be a state run by Libertarians.

Maybe New Hampshire

Would rational Libertarians really pick a place that is so close to masses of of likely economic refugees and welfare cases if the socialism they think is so bad collapses in New England and New York? Hello?

WY, ID, MT, and AK, where the population density is much lower, and much further from the desperation of ignorant passionate social dependents- would indicate some awareness of reality rather than capitalistic idealism.

Wouldnt rational Libertarians also look for a local economy with a wide variety of resources that entrepreneurism could take advantage of? What's NH got? Granite? Whoop dedoo.

I'd expect a movement of political and economic realists would look at Jared Diamond's criteria for rapid recovery after economic collapse he outlined in "Collapse". Namely a region with a low homogeneous population with lotsa timber for the global market with decent soil to grow their own food in a warmer climate that had a longer growing season and needed less firewood to get thru the winter.

A reliable supply of oil & gas with hydropower to keep the lights on would also attract investment. Singapore does not any any of the above, but it does have a government run like a family business that treats professionals like valued staff, and doesnt clutter their media with asinine rants from economic theorists like Libertarians.