I'm confused, and suspect the difficulty is in our ethical assumptions, not your math.
You don't say so explicitly, but I presume in this scenario you get *all* the benefit, while your neighbours pay part of the cost. Perhaps you are a part time thief and a full time worker - only 5% of your gains are stolen. Do we allow you to steal, even encourage you, because you do more real work than stealing? Precious few people would agree with this contrived example.
Does this change in your favor if the harm you do is less direct and targeted than theft? Why?
And in particular, consider anything that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, even while producing an increase in total wealth. Even ignoring diminishing marginal returns (Adding 1 billion to Bezos' wealth won't create as much happiness or utility as e.g. enabling 500 poor people to retire in comfort), this still seems wrong to me in an ethical sense. Those not gaining from Bezos' new-found wealth should not be paying for it. Full stop. Utility to Bezos (or any other especially rich person) is not of any value to me.
> the CO2 produced in the process was at least as great as would have been produced by burning gasoline instead. We still have the program because, although it did not reduce CO2 emissions, it did raise the price of corn, and farmers vote.
I have two questions, Dr. Friedman, and this seems to be a good (albeit not perfect) post in which to ask them…
The way in which we deal with externalities is one of the many questions that would have to get answered in an anarchocapitalist society or any other such system of voluntary order. When I express my belief that a condition of voluntary order would be preferable, the usual response I get is as you have no doubt come to expect: "How could such a society work?" "Without government, we'd all be clubbing each other for rat meat within five minutes." Etc.
I believe that the best cases for how such a society could work are made in your "The Machinery of Freedom," Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed," and Rothbard's "A Libertarian Manifesto." However, people tend to get irritated when my answer to their question is to suggest that they read three full books! So, my first question is this: Is there a place in which the answer to this question is effectively summarized? A resource that describes how rights-protection agencies might function, for example, or that addresses common objections? I would be happy with a resource that does so in overview fashion, or anything you might have written in summary of your particular arguments on the subject. Anything to which I could direct people's attention without asking that they read 1500 pages of anarchist theory! David Gordon at Mises offered me one good suggestion, which I am examining now. If you have any others, I would be much obliged.
My second question is this: I have been searching for an audiobook version of "The Machinery of Freedom," but thus far, I have only been able to find your recording on YouTube, and as far as I can tell, that only covers the first half or so of the book. Is there anywhere where I can purchase a complete version in audio format?
> Consider a decision where the person making it receives all of the benefit but pays only 95% of the cost, with the remaining 5% falling on someone else. [...] If benefit is more than 100% of cost he does it and should, since doing it benefits both him and us.
I don't understand the last part - how does it benefit us if he receives all the benefit?
Would you package externalites in terms of rights? For instance, Business B is harming Business A by competing with it (externality). Buts its not Business A's right to not be harmed from competition. Or take minor inconveniences (loud noise, emitting odors, etc.) imposed by others, where the costs are just expected to be lumped. People have the right to impose minor inconveniences.
And rights would be subject to numerous considerations (who was there first, who is better able to deal with the costs, what does the social calculus look like, etc.). Rather than make everyone pay for all their costs, we'd figure out the rights arrangement first and then determine damages.
Not all externalities should be taxed, only those that the imposing party doesn't have a right to impose.
I'm confused, and suspect the difficulty is in our ethical assumptions, not your math.
You don't say so explicitly, but I presume in this scenario you get *all* the benefit, while your neighbours pay part of the cost. Perhaps you are a part time thief and a full time worker - only 5% of your gains are stolen. Do we allow you to steal, even encourage you, because you do more real work than stealing? Precious few people would agree with this contrived example.
Does this change in your favor if the harm you do is less direct and targeted than theft? Why?
And in particular, consider anything that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, even while producing an increase in total wealth. Even ignoring diminishing marginal returns (Adding 1 billion to Bezos' wealth won't create as much happiness or utility as e.g. enabling 500 poor people to retire in comfort), this still seems wrong to me in an ethical sense. Those not gaining from Bezos' new-found wealth should not be paying for it. Full stop. Utility to Bezos (or any other especially rich person) is not of any value to me.
> the CO2 produced in the process was at least as great as would have been produced by burning gasoline instead. We still have the program because, although it did not reduce CO2 emissions, it did raise the price of corn, and farmers vote.
Ain’t that the truth. You gotta laugh really.
I have two questions, Dr. Friedman, and this seems to be a good (albeit not perfect) post in which to ask them…
The way in which we deal with externalities is one of the many questions that would have to get answered in an anarchocapitalist society or any other such system of voluntary order. When I express my belief that a condition of voluntary order would be preferable, the usual response I get is as you have no doubt come to expect: "How could such a society work?" "Without government, we'd all be clubbing each other for rat meat within five minutes." Etc.
I believe that the best cases for how such a society could work are made in your "The Machinery of Freedom," Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed," and Rothbard's "A Libertarian Manifesto." However, people tend to get irritated when my answer to their question is to suggest that they read three full books! So, my first question is this: Is there a place in which the answer to this question is effectively summarized? A resource that describes how rights-protection agencies might function, for example, or that addresses common objections? I would be happy with a resource that does so in overview fashion, or anything you might have written in summary of your particular arguments on the subject. Anything to which I could direct people's attention without asking that they read 1500 pages of anarchist theory! David Gordon at Mises offered me one good suggestion, which I am examining now. If you have any others, I would be much obliged.
My second question is this: I have been searching for an audiobook version of "The Machinery of Freedom," but thus far, I have only been able to find your recording on YouTube, and as far as I can tell, that only covers the first half or so of the book. Is there anywhere where I can purchase a complete version in audio format?
Thanks for all you do.
> Consider a decision where the person making it receives all of the benefit but pays only 95% of the cost, with the remaining 5% falling on someone else. [...] If benefit is more than 100% of cost he does it and should, since doing it benefits both him and us.
I don't understand the last part - how does it benefit us if he receives all the benefit?
Would you package externalites in terms of rights? For instance, Business B is harming Business A by competing with it (externality). Buts its not Business A's right to not be harmed from competition. Or take minor inconveniences (loud noise, emitting odors, etc.) imposed by others, where the costs are just expected to be lumped. People have the right to impose minor inconveniences.
And rights would be subject to numerous considerations (who was there first, who is better able to deal with the costs, what does the social calculus look like, etc.). Rather than make everyone pay for all their costs, we'd figure out the rights arrangement first and then determine damages.
Not all externalities should be taxed, only those that the imposing party doesn't have a right to impose.