esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (11/02/84)
[replies to ark, sevener, glosser, nrh, ward, klw, grunwald] First of all I would like to acknowledge my agreement with Dirk Grunwald at U of Illinois and ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward), and some good points made by klw@iwlc8.UUCP (kin wong). Now, on to longer comments. From: ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) >If I pollute the air you breathe or the water you drink, you should >have the right to sue me. Good. But how will the damages be determined? Not all the damages are easily measured. I suggest you read E. Clarke, *Demand Revelation and the Provision of Public Goods*. >From Tim Sevener: >The economist, Dennison, has estimated that a major portion of >economic growth in the past has been due to increased education and >training--MORE than increases simply in the amount of physical capital. Right on. Another example of a "public goods" phenomenon. From: glosser@ut-ngp.UUCP (Stuart Glosser) > ... how does one get the members of society to [honestly] reveal > their preferences? How would government, or any other social > institution know how much to spend on public goods? Read E. Clarke, *Demand Revelation and the Provision of Public Goods*. > It has been shown that attempts to determine social desires > by adding the expressed preferences of individuals (perhaps > via voting) can *possibly* lead to a paradox. Read Clarke. > On the other hand, I can argue just as well, without coercion, > social goods will be over produced. Suppose you had a society > that chose to use deficit spending. Deficit spending would be a form of coercion in libertarians' view, if I'm not mistaken. It was to them I addressed my statement that without coercion, public goods will be underproduced. > I'd like to add one final comment. To argue that without > coercion, there would be an underproduction, or even an optimal > production of public goods is a value judgement. It is based > on how we, as individuals, view society. Is honesty a social > norm? When asked the right question, will we give an honest > answer? There is no a priori answer to this. I don't think that a judgement about whether honesty is a socially accepted norm is a value judgement; it's a prediction not an eval- uation. "Optimal production" is not, strictly speaking, a value term either -- read the economic definition of optimality (see my recent article on economics of public goods). From: nrh@inmet.UUCP >>***** inmet:net.politics / hao!ward / 10:28 pm Oct 20, 1984 >>...This seems to exclude the right of a human to own land, which >>was not created by any human. > >Not at all. Nothing whatever is "created" by humans -- try making >pottery without clay, electronics without metal and silicon, cheese >without milk, and so forth. The "original owner" of land is the >person who first claims it and uses it. Libertarians differ on >what happens when the land is not, in fact, used. (Note that "use" >need not be industrial development: wetlands are "used" by duck >hunters, private parks are "used" by park rangers ... or owners). To your second sentence I say: then so much the worse for libertarian ideas about property rights! Why should my using something that I didn't previously own give me ownership?? Remember, libertarians say ownership includes the right to *exclude* others from the use of the thing, and why should they lose their right to use it just because you start using it first?!! Libertarians say I have a right to do what I want as long as I don't harm others, but now all of a sudden I lose my right to use a piece of land! My using the land would not harm you any more than -- or even as much as -- your excluding me would harm me! I detect a GLARING INCONSISTENCY. --Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks. Torek's political dictionary: Rea-gan-om-ics n. Living well on borrowed money.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/09/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / wucs!esk / 8:45 am Nov 6, 1984 >[replies to ark, sevener, glosser, nrh, ward, klw, grunwald] > >From: nrh@inmet.UUCP >>>***** inmet:net.politics / hao!ward / 10:28 pm Oct 20, 1984 >>>...This seems to exclude the right of a human to own land, which >>>was not created by any human. >> >>Not at all. Nothing whatever is "created" by humans -- try making >harm me! >I detect a GLARING INCONSISTENCY. > > --Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 And no wonder! Either my article got garbled on its way to you, or your response got garbled coming back to me. Here's the paragraph: Not at all. Nothing whatever is "created" by humans -- try making pottery without clay, electronics without metal and silicon, cheese without milk, and so forth. The "original owner" of land is the person who first claims it and uses it. Libertarians differ on what happens when the land is not, in fact, used. (Note that "use" need not be industrial development: wetlands are "used" by duck hunters, private parks are "used" by park rangers and invited guests or owners). I believe Murry Rothbard holds that if land is not possessed continuously it reverts to the "unowned" state, but I'm not up on the finer points. Now, of course, I amend that -- humans can create non-material property such as knowledge -- a novel can be created by a human, but the manuscript was made using things already around (wood for paper, various elements for ink).