Student-
Have not libertarians argued for a common law system, except one much more efficient as it would be more market based?
He seems to be implying that there is a optimal level concerning market forces which can be found through the social sciences. A field where there is certainty and perfections. I would ask which social science he is discussing.
Just another way of singing the old verse, “If only I was in charge things would be set right.”
Can honesty force you to objectively define better?
Emphasizing market failure - whilst de-emphasizing governmental failure. Emphasizing calibration and optimization - whilst de-emphasizing institutional and knowledge problems. It’s just intellectually dishones framing device to conceal one’s political preferenses. The further one travels into that particular rabbits hole, the harder it will be to gain back some common sense.
I agree with all that Jonathan has said in this topic, and, frankly, I find the whole “markets are sub-optimal” silliness to be somewhat bizarre, if not downright dangerous.
That’s always the underlying piece of critical information that doesn’t get discussed. Funny, since it is both the most important piece and the piece that shatters any statements similar to Othyem’s:
“In some instances government can theoretically help allocate resources better more in line with the desires of those running the government by incentivizing certain behaviors and activities.”
I believe that to be asolutely true; no need to slip in a "theoretically" . Since government is often contrasted with markets, there’s typically an extra implied statement as well:
"In some instances government can theoretically help allocate resources better more in line with the desires of those running the government and less in line with the expressed preferences of individuals by incentivizing certain behaviors and activities.
Can honesty force you to objectively define better?
LS, Yes. Greater ex post utility. In other words what the transactors would have done had they had all the appropriate information. To deny this is for one to tacitly accept that he or she knows absolutely everything about the future, otherwise how else could one claim that an intervention necessarily leads to less satisfaction for the transactors? Markets maximize ex ante utility and that’s all I’m willing to admit a priori.
I don’t think I’m saying anything that’s particularly controversial. My position is merely that theoretically in some idealized instances government can help bring people’s plans in alignment to what–ex post–would bring them the most satisfaction, taking a gods-eye view. This is presumably Daniel’s belief, although he would lay less stress on the theoretical part and claim it can do this often. In fact this is the orthodox economics position. Instead of dismissing this as wrong we should instead be emphasizing how such attempts to optimize are beset by impossible knowledge problems as well as public choice incentive problems. The market economizes on this, the government does not. It’s mistaken to think by admitting the government can sometimes clumsily stumble onto an answer and “get it right” that I’m somehow giving the green light for interventionist policies.
I think this is precisely the problem with most libertarians… they only inconsistently apply the core moral principle of liberalism - the abolition of all personal privilege beyond those privileges which are recognized by unprivileged law - and leave out the most important industries to which this principle must be applied, namely, law and security. These libertarians are minarchists and imagine that a Utopian world where just a little privilege in law and security is possible, ignoring the fact that law and security are precisely the industries which limit false claims of privilege. That is, these two industries are the primary means by which murder, theft, robbery, rape, assault and all the other implicit claims of exorbitant privilege are limited. By permitting these industries to be monopolized (privileged production), there is no longer any limit to the extent to which the privileged producer may aggrandize his claims of privilege in every industry, in all property, in all persons. This is the State.
The solution to the root problem begins in morality - as long as people generally accept the moral legitimacy of privilege, there will be the State. From a reformation in moral principles could flow a reformation in law. Specifically, we could see the end of subsidized public prosecution, State immunity from prosecution and individual liability of all State actors for their decisions even as agents of the State. From this would flow an end to the State’s monopoly on the use of legitimate force since the State could not legally justify its privileged status in this industry. And from this would flow an end to the State’s ability to coercively collect revenues, that is, to tax. With the collapse of taxation, the entire State apparatus would collapse.
Clayton -
Do you have an argument that doesn’t rest on a strawman or is this it?
Who are people?
It’s mistaken for you guys to think that government is anything other than a mass delusion, but I am willing to play along with this fantasy for the sake of conversation every now and then.
Clayton, I think Frank Herbert said it best (paraphrased) that law is a proxy for morality and conscience. Moral people don’t need laws.
Listen, LS, I don’t have all day to sit around and go back and forth with you here. This is why I comment so irregularly. If you have a point, then please just say it. Who are people? Umm, I..don’t know, people? Is this an attempt to embroil me in a debate or what?
How is my argument a strawman?
And when you say “you guys” who exactly are you talking about? If it’s me then perhaps you need to reread my previous posts if you’re unsure where I stand on this issue.
I just want to know who the people are you are reffering to. It’s not a big deal. If you meant everyone, you just have to say everyone.
Who claimed that an intervention necessarily leads to less satisfaction for the transactors?
You guys are anyone who refer to government as a collection of institutions. That’s a delusion, and I would be happy to debate you if you feel otherwise.
How does one measure utility or determine whether a given piece of information is appropriate? With the former, even under the widely recognized Von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility Theorem, there’s no way to make interpersonal utility comparisons that isn’t inherently arbitrary. Regarding the latter, is the task of economics to discover how people do act, or how they could act?
It’s worse than that, as LS has implied. The thing is, there is no answer to begin with.
You understand that normativity is necessarily subjective, right? That means no one else is obligated (prima facie or otherwise) to go along with your particular normative criteria. It also means that any and all such criteria are inherently arbitrary.
This has the same problem as above. Furthermore, it seems questionable to me as to whether Kaldor-Hicks efficiency relies on the necessarily subjective value judgements of the market participants with regard to being “better off” or “worse off”.
I highly doubt that Catalan is using the same definition of “efficiency” as you are, so you’re both probably talking past one another more than you’re talking to one another.
re: “I know I’ve argued the same thing before with him; how can you agree with Hayek on calculation, and then go ahead and claim that you have any real inkling of knowledge on what is optimal and what isn’t?”
As you say, Jonathan - we’ve been over this before.
Agreeing with Hayek on econmic calculation says nothing at all about any kind of global efficiency. And nothing in Hayek denies inklings about optimality.
When you look at rent control you have an “inkling” about the direction of optimality, right? You can have that without knowing exactly what an optimal quantity and price for rental housing is. I’m not the one here that is misunderstanding Hayek.
I want to clarify - I believe I wrote this a while ago.
Specifically, I want to take back any implication that libertarianism is simplistic when I refer to Econ 101. What I’m getting at is that a lot of libertarianism is simply a ratification of what we know about market efficiency. My point here is that (1.) what we know about market efficiency is very complicated, and (2.) a solid libertarianism ought to justify its ethics on its own, regardless of the positive claims of economics which are much more complicated than they are often presented.
How do you calculate efficiency globally?
Libertarianism has nothing to do with market efficiency, and everything to do with morals and philosophy. Market efficiency is a middle way used to bridge different moral and philosophical stances to demonstrate the consistency of libertarianism, but is not actually a justification for libertarianism because value is subjective.
In other words, just because you can prove that water is consistently wet, doesn’t imply that wet water is a good thing.
I said that “a lot of” it is - a lot of people treat it as such. And I specifically noted that the moral/ethical foundation is the better way to approach it (I personally think there are issues on an ethical/philosophical side but that’s another discussion).
re: “How do you calculate efficiency globally?”
Who said you can?