On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 18 Nov 2013, at 18:13, meekerdb wrote: > > On 11/18/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote: > > 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. > > > And he's so concerned with anti-government straw men that he hasn't noticed > that a market requires government (including coercion) to define ownership > and punish fraud. Without government you couldn't own any more stuff than > you could carry and defend by force of arms. > > > I agree with Brent. Government can be the best thing a democracy can have, > ... until bandits get power and perverts the elections and the state power > separations (and get important control on the media, etc.).
But how to create a system that prevents the bandits from getting there? > But we should make clear that a government has nothing to say about your > food, medications, sports, religious or sexual practices, etc. As long as > there are no well-motivated complains, the state can't intervene. > > Bruno > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
