Comments on: Government and Market Failure http://tatulln.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/government-and-market-failure/ "Adventure" is broadly defined in this instance Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:59:47 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Understanding Libertarians « William’s Continued Adventures http://tatulln.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/government-and-market-failure/#comment-106 Understanding Libertarians « William’s Continued Adventures Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:34:57 +0000 http://tatulln.wordpress.com/?p=56#comment-106 [...] from my regular advocacy of the position that government is in practice extremely bad at solving problems, the truth is that [...] [...] from my regular advocacy of the position that government is in practice extremely bad at solving problems, the truth is that [...]

]]> By: Thomas http://tatulln.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/government-and-market-failure/#comment-51 Thomas Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:46:54 +0000 http://tatulln.wordpress.com/?p=56#comment-51 Bill- Nice work dude! Your last paragraph in particular rings true; when a few people can gain a lot by influencing public policy, the public will ultimately lose. Your cynicism about the carbon tax is well founded. Indeed, the current ethanol craze is a 21st century version of the sulfur scrubber story, with agribusiness companies winning out instead of coal companies. It sounds like you are wary of the amount of power that corporations wield in government, another favorite talking point of that Ralph Nader fellow. I also like that you reiterate the fundamental truth that the idea of the free market is intrinsically connected to the idea of private property. Your logical deduction that the air and water must be divided into pockets of privately owned property for the system to be complete and consistent strikes me not only as infeasible, however, but as ludicrous. It sounds like a classic "reductio ad absurbum" to me. If you happen to believe that man is an independent, profit-maximizing, rational actor, who is out and has always been out to maximize his own pleasure (or to get the highest surplus) no matter what, then you will also believe that the notion of collective property does not work in any circumstance. Regardless of it being impossible to divvy up the air and water. If, on the other hand, you believe that man is smart but not particularly rational, instead co-dependent and feelings-driven, then perhaps you can envision a circumstance in which collective property might work after all. ~T Bill-
Nice work dude!
Your last paragraph in particular rings true; when a few people can gain a lot by influencing public policy, the public will ultimately lose. Your cynicism about the carbon tax is well founded. Indeed, the current ethanol craze is a 21st century version of the sulfur scrubber story, with agribusiness companies winning out instead of coal companies.

It sounds like you are wary of the amount of power that corporations wield in government, another favorite talking point of that Ralph Nader fellow.

I also like that you reiterate the fundamental truth that the idea of the free market is intrinsically connected to the idea of private property.

Your logical deduction that the air and water must be divided into pockets of privately owned property for the system to be complete and consistent strikes me not only as infeasible, however, but as ludicrous. It sounds like a classic “reductio ad absurbum” to me.

If you happen to believe that man is an independent, profit-maximizing, rational actor, who is out and has always been out to maximize his own pleasure (or to get the highest surplus) no matter what, then you will also believe that the notion of collective property does not work in any circumstance. Regardless of it being impossible to divvy up the air and water.

If, on the other hand, you believe that man is smart but not particularly rational, instead co-dependent and feelings-driven, then perhaps you can envision a circumstance in which collective property might work after all.

~T

]]>