On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market > > solution can't - or is highly unlikely - to work. > > Yes, but this is circular. You're saying that the market cannot work > for things that you do not allow to be part of the market. The > government has to exist, otherwise how is the government to exist? > It isn't part of the market because no one wants it to be, not because no one allows it to be. > > > No one is going to clean > > up the commons, just as they didn't in medieval villages, because there > is > > no incentive for an individual, or a specific group, to do so. > > The medieval times were not exactly a period of free market, so this > would be an example on how government can solve things... or not. In > reality, many of the things we learned in high school about medieval > times are myths or gross simplifications > Not the tragedy of the commons, however. But even if it was the logic would hold. > > > The tragedy > > of the commons is one reason to have governments, because everyone wants > > something done that no one will do "off their own bat" - but they are > > prepared to chip in a donation towards the government doing it, or > > organising somone else to do it. > > If they are prepared to chip in a donation there is no problem. If > there is money to be made, the free market will be glad to oblige. You > don't seem prepared to call things by its names: the idea of > government is that, when people are not prepared to chip in, they are > forced to do so, ultimately by violent means. The paradox here is that > you are trusting a small group of people with this coercive power and > then expecting this small group and power asymmetry to result in more > altruism. > > Again, reality is complex. Current forms of democracy would not work > if implemented in previous cultures, because people would not accept > the social norms that come with them. You cannot police everything or > even 1% of what's going on. Systems work because they become stable. > This stability does not come from consent (I was born into this system > and never consented to it, neither did you). It comes from the > emergence of sets of incentives. I disagree with many laws that I'm > not going to break because the personal cost to me would be too great. > Suppose I decide I don't trust the government with my tax money, so I > decide to take it instead and give it directly to organisations that I > deem worthy: hospitals, schools, research centres and so on. I would > end up in jail for "chipping in". In fact government robs me of my > freedom to chip in, because they take all of my "chip in" money and > then some, and then give it to banks. > > Incentives also emerge from free markets, importantly the incentive to > be nice to the people you trade with. Where there are more trade > routes there are less wars. If you are polluting the air I breath you > are being hostile towards me, and I am less likely to want to enter a > transaction with you. But these delicate balances can't arise under > coercion and market distortion. > > > And if no one does it, we all end up worse > > off (perhaps fatally so in this case). It ain't rocket science, although > > game theory has something to say about it. > > Prisoner dilemma scenarios don't magically disappear once you > introduce coercion. In fact, I argue that they multiply. > You seem to be arguing against a straw man here. I explained why the free market can't fix the tragedy of the commons. You haven't answered my point. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
