Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!wucs!esk From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: libertarianism vs. efficiency Message-ID: <462@wucs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 1-Nov-84 21:47:33 EST Article-I.D.: wucs.462 Posted: Thu Nov 1 21:47:33 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 02:45:52 EST Distribution: net Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept. Lines: 85 [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.