[net.politics.theory] Deer, Dogs, Cooperation -- Reply to Huybensz

mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (04/24/85)

Lines marked '>' are those of Mike Huybensz.

>This, really, is the basic problem with libertarianism.  "United we stand,
>divided we fall"-- and libertarianism wants to pull the teeth that keep
>us united.  On several levels.  Politically and economically.
>
>A simple example of this principle is the cartel.  If there was a whaling
>cartel, whales would not be in danger of extinction.  The cartel would
>manage the whales to maximize yield.  But because there is no good way
>to enforce a cartel among equals and newcomers, it falls apart (like OPEC)
>or is never started (and thus we have the decline of the whales.)  We do
>have working examples of successful cartels in the US though: state game
>management.  Before hunting became regulated, white-tail deer became
>practically extinct in NY state.  Since (I think it was Teddy) Roosevelt,
>they have been managed, and have a huge, maintainable population.

There are no significant shortages of horses, donkeys, cows, pigs, sheep,
goats, chickens, turkeys, dogs, cats,...
Yet all of these animals are consumed on a regular basis, and have been for
centuries!  Has there been some incredible dog cartel?  Have quotas on the
consumption of goats kept them from extinction?  These animals are available
in large numbers because people are allowed to establish ownership in them,
and thereby capture the benefits associated with care and conservation.
However, if a whaler attempts to tag a herd of whales as hers, or if Mr
Huybensz attempts to capture a herd of white-tailed deer, and protect them as
PRIVATE PROPERTY, (s|)he will soon find h(er|im)self run afoul of the law.
That bad law (rejection of property rights) creates problems is an argument
against bad laws, and not an argument for further coerced cooperation.

>The examples where maximization of benefits can only be secured by
>enforcing cooperation are innumerable.

Then perhaps you will supply us with an actual case.  Before you do, of
course, you should explain your basis of interpersonal comparison, so that
we know how the sacrifice of one person's interests and the gain in
another's interests combine to 'maximize benefits'.

>                                        Unless cheating is made uneconomic,
>cooperation will dissolve or never appear.  It's nice to minimize the
>coercion required, but to make that a priority goal will cause
>cooperation to suffer.

Indeed.  Now all that you need to do is demonstrate the priority of
cooperation.

                               Back later,
                               DKMcK