Topic: What does a Free Market mean to you? - page 4. (Read 6176 times)

We seem to be talking past each other. Perhaps we should start over.

I think a free market will lead to prosperity and that prosperity is the ultimate solution to pollution. Essentially, that other things being equal, the freer the market, the faster pollution will become less of a problem. But I'm only trying to make a much, much smaller point here -- nothing about a free market need make pollution problems any worse, except that people would be free to pollute their own property in cases where it didn't affect anyone else's property.

The "dissonance" I'm trying to avoid is where you have a discussion with someone and you keep talking past each other because you have drastically different understandings of the consequences of things. In order to figure out what pollution would be like in an actual free market, we'd have to agree on what many other things would look like under a free market system, and of course people will disagree on that.

I will agree with this though -- if you don't believe that a free market will add to prosperity, you should believe that a free market will probably make the pollution problem worse. If you believe a free market will add to prosperity, you should believe that a free market will probably make the pollution problem better.

However I'm not the one who put government in the equation.  You did.  I simply asked how your system would differ.  So it's not a consequence of my expectations.  Thus your line of reasoning here is invalid. 
Exactly?  Perhaps you should quote smaller pieces of text because what you appear to be saying is that you are arguing to avoid dissonance by which I (at least obviously to me)  meant cognitive dissonance. Specifically that by distancing yourself from an argument you can preserve a wrong idea.  Ummm...Bravo?

Lulz.  Firstly, If you believed that a free market will perfectly solve the pollution problem then all I need to do is focus on one respect no matter how small and demonstrate it as imperfect and your premise is incorrect.  So you're completely incorrect that all intermediate steps need to be argued.  Secondly, aside from you attempting to project the idea about the perfection of the free market in dealing with pollution onto me it's never been argued by myself or by you so it's a wrong characterization.

Well actually you're kind of equivocating there, your final clause saves you (sort of) but it begs the question.

Enclosing the air sounds like a possibly useful approach. Suppose we set up a bottling factory to just keep on bottling all the air that enters our airspace. If anyone tries to coplain that we are bottling their air, they will have to prove it is theirs that we are bottling, whereupon we can check for pollution in the bottles they claim contain their air, so we can countersue them for polluting our air.

Would what we get from them for polluting cover what we might have to pay out to others for "stealing their air"?

If we bottle enough, maybe demand for air will increase, driving up the price...

-MarkM-

Quite the opposite, I specifically point out that fact in the quote you cited above. The term "air" can refer both to a location that is filled with air, and the air that fills that location. The former can be property in the normal sense, the latter cannot unless you enclose it.

I agree. That's one of the ways something you do on your property can affect my use and enjoyment of my property. From where do you get that I disagree with this?

As I said, in the quote you cited: "[ I ]f you pollute air on your property in such a way that it damages my use or enjoyment of my property, the majority of free market advocates would argue that your conduct should be legally actionable."

I am sad that you bring about discussion to binary options. I dont see how i can even start to reason with you but i will give it a try.

In a reasonable,pragmatic society which goal is sustainability and healthy lives, nuclear plants is a no go. It is like roulette in which we bet our survival and we have alternative technologies at the same time.

We have science and it show us how radiation can affect us, we cant dispose or defend against it as well. It is obviously retarded .

It is amazing how you ignore the fact that air moves all the time around entire globe.

The one second i breath some certain cube of air and then it travels and you breath it.
Seriously wtf do you live on a different planet then the rest of us ?

That the government will make the effective decisions is a consequence. It's not the consequence that I expect. But it's the consequence that you expect. For example, you probably don't think that effective private organizations will be able to make rules about pollution and enforce them. I might. So I might not expect the same conseqeuence you expect.

Exactly.

Suppose I believe that a free market will perfectly solve the pollution problem. (I don't, but suppose it.) To have that conversation with you, we'd have to argue over all the intermediate consequences of the affects of a free market on all kinds of other things, disagreeing all the way. However, I only need to make a much smaller point, which is that the "problem of pollution" is not a problem of the free market. It's a problem generally with all systems that a free market will not make worse.

Wait. What?  Looking at my statement I see these words: "So in both what you espouse (I apologize but I don't know the majority of advocates of anything so I can't speak for them) and what exists the government still decides what is pollution effectively producing the same system with the notable exception being my ability to pollute my property as much as I like and those properties where I get permission to do so."

That's not a consequence of the system. It's a description of what you appear to be saying.  If it isn't then you should help make the description better.   I'm not sure what possible utility there is* in arguing (in the formal sense) about a system that isn't the one you are talking about.  I might as well have described candyland and gone on about the environmental impact of a licorice based economy. 

*Although after writing that it occurs to me that your approach avoids dissonance.

Assuming your characterization of what I believe is fair. I know your statement describes the consequences of my system that you foresee but not the consequences that I expect. So rather than arguing over what the precise consequences would be, since it doesn't matter for purposes of this argument, I assume they'll be what you expect them to be. (For example, I expect that private organizations will take over many government functions just as private security and private arbitration have started to do. So I would expect some organization to figure out better solutions to pollution problems than governments have. But I'm willing to assume that doesn't happen, since I don't know for sure that it will.)

So suppose we have the same system as we have now, except people are free to pollute their own property or permit others to do so. So, what's wrong with that?

Does that make things much better? Probably not. But I never claimed I had some miraculous solution to the problem of pollution. If you see advocates of a free market claiming that a free market will solve the pollution problem, then you have a legitimate complaint. Otherwise, unless you can show a free market will make pollution worse, what's the relevance?

Weird sentence.  Assuming what is true exactly?  I'm talking about your position.   Do you not know if my statement describes your position or not?

Of course. All arguments make simplifying assumptions and are invalid in cases where those assumptions don't apply to an extent that swamps the mechanisms of the argument. Nevertheless, I find Coase's criticism of Pigovian taxes to be devastating. But if you like them, by all means advocate for them. Though I think they're a bad idea, they're fully consistent with a free market.

It's only prohibitively expensive if you don't optimize it. But again, I agree that pollution is a hard problem and one that has little to do with a free market. The only relevance a free market has is that it would mean that pollution of one's own property that doesn't affect other people's use or enjoyment of their property would be allowed. Otherwise, it would be handled much the same way.

And people may be born with no wealth and be unable to borrow to finance starting a business. Education is an investment with an expected return like any other investment. If nobody is willing to make the investment with their own money, it's probably a bad investment. And I genuinely believe that for most of the recipients of public education, it does them almost as much harm as good. I consider public education more or less a failed experiment.

I don't believe public education is a better investment than whatever those who were taxed to pay for it would have done with their money. So I don't think it will improve welfare overall.

I agree, it's a fuzzy concept. It can't be explained in a buzzword or two.

Well, that's why earlier in this thread, there was a list of core policy issues that relate to what we mean by a "free market".

But yes, I agree, you can't make a simplistic list of buzzwords and say "that's what I mean by a free market". Complex issues are complex.

Even assuming that's true, what exactly is your objection? That people shouldn't be able to pollute their own property? That there's something wrong with a free market because it doesn't miraculously solve hard problems like pollution?

Ergo there are other things to pollute.  Answering the question "Why would you need pollution laws?" which you knew.
So in both what you espouse (I apologize but I don't know the majority of advocates of anything so I can't speak for them) and what exists the government still decides what is pollution effectively producing the same system with the notable exception being my ability to pollute my property as much as I like and those properties where I get permission to do so.  Again don't you think that's a little naive?

I'd say this solution also naively begs the question.

only if you start from the assumption that capital is distributed in a roughly equal manner, otherwise capital acts like mass and gravity takes over.

Coase makes arguments that regulations are never beneficial assuming there are no transaction costs or wealth effects. He knows these are unrealistic assumptions.

Prohibitively expensive to get everyone to write private contracts covering all types of polluting behaviors and enforce them in courts (this is a txn cost) -> legal regulation can improve welfare
Children may be born with no wealth and be unable to borrow to finance their education (this is a wealth effect) -> free public education can improve welfare

If you want a definition of the free market that includes public education and government regulation, then fine. However, you must then admit that this makes 'free market' a very fuzzy concept.
My 'free market' can be this, while your 'free market' can be that. Similarly my 'communism' can be this, while your 'communism' can be that; ask the Chinese. It is more productive to talk about specific policy issues rather than use loaded words. Of course, the ideologues will disagree.

The term "air" can refer to the location in which air is or the air that happens to be in a particular space at a particular time. It's not really sufficiently well-defined for a yes or no answer to "Is air property" to be meaningful. Suffice it to say that if you pollute air on your property in such a way that it damages my use or enjoyment of my property, the majority of free market advocates would argue that your conduct should be legally actionable. Whether you say that means they consider air to be property or not is not particularly important.

It's not that simple. Pollution is a hard problem for any system. It gets simpler when you get public property out of the picture, but it's still a big challenge for any legal system.

Most advocates of even a pure free market do not believe that you can pollute in such a way that you harm other people's use or enjoyment of their property and the legal system should let you get away with it. But neither does anyone, so far as I know, have a perfect solution to the problem of pollution -- in any political system.

It's not an free market issue, unless you encounter someone who says "a free market means anyone should be able to pollute any air or water that passes through their property with impunity, otherwise you don't have a free market". Few people say that. In practical terms, most free market advocates who are not anarchocapitalists will hold that ultimately, until someone thinks of a better way, the government (if for no other reason than because it runs the courts of last resort) will have to decide what pollution is allowed and what is not.

Some free market advocates support Pigovian taxes, where polluters must pay the full amount of any provable damages their pollution causes. I personally don't support such taxes for the reasons that Coase pointed out. Again, it's a very hard problem. I don't think anyone has a perfect solution.

And socialism prevents it how exactly?

...because there are other things to pollute.  Air for one.  Is air property?


How would your property laws differ?  Let me guess.  If I don't want pollution on my property it can't be there.  Talk about naively begging the question. Sheesh.

With no public roads or public parks, what would you need laws against polluting? I don't care if you pollute your own stuff, and we all support laws against polluting other people's stuff. Pollution laws are part of the problem, as they set permissible levels of damage you may due to other people's property with impunity. True, they do draw the line somewhere short of killing everyone on the planet.

Huh? This is the part that makes no sense, because if your market does not permit free trade of blow for blow, tooth for tooth, eye for eye, a hundred thousand on the beaches for one in tribute and so on and so on and so on then why should it not also not permit paper for paper, apple for orange, food for gold, or any other specific exchange that some pontif pontificates against?

A market in which people cannot trade one good for another is a market in which people cannot trade one good for another, regardless of which good it is they cannot trade for which good.

Basically what you are saying is a market is not free unless it is not free.

Which is good and true but is not a free market, it is an extremely controlled and manipulated market, in which the species that is the most adept and devious scammer carefully undermines the rights, even to life limb and liberty, of all other species, eating any species it chooses while making up elaborate contrived connivances for why this that or the other species deserves less rights than it does and so on and so on and so on.

And that is good, if you are one of that species. For example if there is a species that has enough clothing to survive the cold, or enough food to survive until the humans are cooked and ready to eat, it will be good to be one of those with warm clothing and a larder full of ripe humans and an oven to bake them in.

But if you do not have enough food, clothing, and shelter, then no, the market is not free, it is rigged against those who have not enough food clothing or shelter for themselves and their offspring, let along any excess they could trade at the market.

-MarkM-