Anarcho-capitalism and coercion

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

If the bolded portion of Mises’ quote is taken completely out of context, then yes, he would be making the completely untrue claim that we can learn nothing from history. But if you read the entire section that the quote is present in, then Mises is saying that you cannot derive economic theory, or any theory, from an analysis of history. I can find quotes from some of his other works that express the same sentiment, though I’d need some time to look through my library.

You do that. He clearly said “nothing can be learned from history.” I didn’t say he thought it was worthless studying history, or that he said history is irrelevant. I said that he said “nothing can be learned from history.” And that is exactly what he said. In the context of my post, I’m sure Mises would agree with me. The horrible failures of early american capitalism and aristocracy do not disprove, to Mises and you, that laissez faire and aristocracy fail.

The names of organizations and historical figures are not evidence. Is simply saying “Jean-Baptiste Say” evidence in favor of capitalism, or is it simply a name?

Yes, they are evidence. You said “workplace democracy is not viable.” What other evidence can I give you than actual existing and prospering workplace democracies?

But yes.. my ineptitude… right?

[Chris_Bacon]

Nuclear?

@Rcder

…doesn’t produce an unlimited supply of energy with no opportunity cost.

'The amount of free energy contained in nuclear fuel is millions of times the amount of free energy contained in a similar mass of chemical fuel such as gasoline, making nuclear fission a very tempting source of energy.’

I didn’t say ‘unlimited’, I said that we wouldn’t need to worry about energy again.

Nuclear fission

Nuclear power

The ocean makes up most of the planet.

@Rcder

And yet it isn’t unlimited. How unfortunate for your argument.

I didn’t say ‘unlimited’, I said that we wouldn’t need to worry about water again.

[Rcder]

@Chris_Bacon

This might help Rcder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporationp

Does Mondragon use prices to calculate? Yes.

Does Mondragon operate on a for-profit basis? Yes.

Is Mondragon subject to complete democratic control by the workers? No.

Does Mondragon have a hierarchical management organization? Yes.

Does Mondragon discriminate when choosing employees? Yes.

Does Mondragon have a chairman with considerable more influence and control over the business than employees? Yes.

Was I arguing against this type of institution? No.

[Rcder]

You do that. He clearly said “nothing can be learned from history.” I didn’t say he thought it was worthless studying history, or that he said history is irrelevant. I said that he said “nothing can be learned from history.” And that is exactly what he said. In the context of my post, I’m sure Mises would agree with me. The horrible failures of early american capitalism and aristocracy do not disprove, to Mises and you, that laissez faire and aristocracy fail.

And you continue to completely disregard what he said in other parts of “Human Action” and what he said literally one sentence before the one you continue to incessantly quote as if it’s Holy Writ.

Yes, they are evidence.

So vomiting out names wins arguments now?

A: Capital is homogenous.

B: F.A. Hayek

QED?

You said “workplace democracy is not viable.” What other evidence can I give you than actual existing and prospering workplace democracies?

A priori economic theory? Besides, Mondragon (which is apparently the Patron Saint of anarcho-syndicalism from my quick Google search) isn’t even close to a syndicalist organization. Operating for profit? A management class with more power, money, and influence than the factory line workers? Discriminatory hiring practices? How positively capitalist.

But yes.. my ineptitude… right?

Right.

[Chris_Bacon]

@Rcder

@Chris_Bacon

This might help Rcder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporationp

Does Mondragon use prices to calculate? Yes.

Does Mondragon operate on a for-profit basis? Yes.

Is Mondragon subject to complete democratic control by the workers? No.

Does Mondragon have a hierarchical management organization? Yes.

Does Mondragon discriminate when choosing employees? Yes.

Does Mondragon have a chairman with considerable more influence and control over the business than employees? Yes.

Was I arguing against this type of institution? No.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.
From their website:

‘The sovereignty of the General Assembly, consisting of all the members and which operates on the basis of ‘one member, one vote’.’ - Democracy.
'The democratic election of governing bodies, especially the Governing Council, which is responsible to the General Assembly for its managemen.’ - Democracy.
‘Collaboration with management bodies designated to manage the company through the delegation of the members as a whole.’ - Democracy.
The MONDRAGON Co-operative Experience is open to all men and women who accept the Basic Principles and can prove themselves professionally capable of doing the jobs we are able to create. Therefore there is no discrimination of any type for religious, political, ethnic or sexual reasons.’ - Open Admission.
'This Principle implies the progressive development of self-management and, consequently, of the participation of the members in business management.’ - Self Management and Democracy.

I can go on.

http://www.mcc.es/ENG/Co-operativism/Co-operative-Experience/Co-operative-Culture.aspx#pBasicos

[Rcder]

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

From their website:

‘The sovereignty of the General Assembly, consisting of all the members and which operates on the basis of ‘one member, one vote’.’ - Democracy.
'The democratic election of governing bodies, especially the Governing Council, which is responsible to the General Assembly for its managemen.’ - Democracy.
‘Collaboration with management bodies designated to manage the company through the delegation of the members as a whole.’ - Democracy.
The MONDRAGON Co-operative Experience is open to all men and women who accept the Basic Principles and can prove themselves professionally capable of doing the jobs we are able to create. Therefore there is no discrimination of any type for religious, political, ethnic or sexual reasons.’ - Open Admission.
'This Principle implies the progressive development of self-management and, consequently, of the participation of the members in business management.’ - Self Management and Democracy.

I can go on.

http://www.mcc.es/ENG/Co-operativism/Co-operative-Experience/Co-operative-Culture.aspx#pBasicos

And yet management is paid considerably more than labor, the chairman wields vast influence on how the corporation is run, Mondragon is for-profit and uses prices to calculate, they discriminate based on the ability or skill of the laborer (as does any business), consumes resources without first consulting other worker’s organizations, I could go on. I’m not saying this isn’t a workable structure for a firm, but I am saying this isn’t socialism, syndicalism, or the democratic ownership of the means of production.

[Rcder]

I didn’t say ‘unlimited’, I said that we wouldn’t need to worry about energy again.

Except that you would because it’s scarce, meaning it must be rationed. The only way a good can be non-scarce is if it is unlimited and does not involve any opportunity costs to produce. Sorry.

I didn’t say ‘unlimited’, I said that we wouldn’t need to worry about water again.

See above.

[Chris_Bacon]

@Rcder

I didn’t say ‘unlimited’, I said that we wouldn’t need to worry about energy again.

Except that you would because it’s scarce, meaning it must be rationed. The only way a good can be non-scarce is if it is unlimited and does not involve any opportunity costs to produce. Sorry.

I didn’t say ‘unlimited’, I said that we wouldn’t need to worry about water again.

See above.

Scarce, adjective: ‘insufficient for the demand’. That doesn’t make non-scarce mean unlimited.

[Rcder]

Scarce, adjective: ‘insufficient for the demand’. That doesn’t make non-scarce mean unlimited.

A scarce good or service is any one that cannot satisfy all of humanity’s demand for it at no cost. That is, a non-scarce good or service exists if there are no limits to its production, and no limits to its consumption. If these conditions are not met then it must be rationed between competing lines of production which require it for the creation of consumer goods or producer goods. So essentially anything in existence that you can think of is scarce.

A resource that is very close to being non-scarce is oxygen. Also, I highly suggest you pick up an economics textbook, preferably one that isn’t used in a government-owned school.

[Chris_Bacon]

@Rcder

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

From their website:

‘The sovereignty of the General Assembly, consisting of all the members and which operates on the basis of ‘one member, one vote’.’ - Democracy.
'The democratic election of governing bodies, especially the Governing Council, which is responsible to the General Assembly for its managemen.’ - Democracy.
‘Collaboration with management bodies designated to manage the company through the delegation of the members as a whole.’ - Democracy.
The MONDRAGON Co-operative Experience is open to all men and women who accept the Basic Principles and can prove themselves professionally capable of doing the jobs we are able to create. Therefore there is no discrimination of any type for religious, political, ethnic or sexual reasons.’ - Open Admission.
'This Principle implies the progressive development of self-management and, consequently, of the participation of the members in business management.’ - Self Management and Democracy.

I can go on.

http://www.mcc.es/ENG/Co-operativism/Co-operative-Experience/Co-operative-Culture.aspx#pBasicos

And yet management is paid considerably more than labor, the chairman wields vast influence on how the corporation is run, Mondragon is for-profit and uses prices to calculate, they discriminate based on the ability or skill of the laborer (as does any business), consumes resources without first consulting other worker’s organizations, I could go on. I’m not saying this isn’t a workable structure for a firm, but I am saying this isn’t socialism, syndicalism, or the democratic ownership of the means of production.

‘There is a broad delegation of powers on a day-to-day basis. Hence the importance of the election of the Governing Council, renewable every four years (half of the members every two years) and the appointment, through this Governing Council, of the executive management, to whom the economic performance and strategy of the company are delegated to a great extent.’

The chairman is accountable to the workers, and is voted in and out.

‘Co-operative dividends, are each member’s share in the profits (dividends) or losses (negative dividends) obtained by the co-operative during the year. Between a maximum of 70% and a minimum of 30% of the net profits available are distributed as dividends, depending on the financial situation of the co-operative.’

The workers get a lot in the way of dividends, so I don’t see how you can say that the chairman gets considerably more than the workers.

‘Collaboration with management bodies designated to manage the company through the delegation of the members as a whole.’

That is pretty democratic.

[Chris_Bacon]

@Rcder

Scarce, adjective: ‘insufficient for the demand’. That doesn’t make non-scarce mean unlimited.

A scarce good or service is any one that cannot satisfy all of humanity’s demand for it at no cost. That is, a non-scarce good or service exists if there are no limits to its production, and no limits to its consumption. If these conditions are not met then it must be rationed between competing lines of production which require it for the creation of consumer goods or producer goods. So essentially anything in existence that you can think of is scarce.

A resource that is very close to being non-scarce is oxygen. Also, I highly suggest you pick up an economics textbook, preferably one that isn’t used in a government-owned school.

If everything in existence is ‘scarce’ then the word ‘scarce’ becomes meaningless. We need to use a new word to describe what we are talking about, because we are both on two different planets - metaphorically.

[Rcder]

The chairman is accountable to the workers, and is voted in and out.

Sort of like a CEO, or any executive at any company in existence? The chairman has control over policy and is the face of the company, giving him considerably more influence and power than his subordinates, regardless of what their “Let’s hold hands in a circle and attune our spirits to Gaia” statement of principles says.

The workers get a lot in the way of dividends, so I don’t see how you can say that the chairman gets considerably more than the workers.

And yet, like a capitalist firm, there is a worker and pay hierarchy, profits are reinvested in the firm, and stockholders are payed dividends for investing.

That is pretty democratic.

It is nominally democratic (the workers have leeway in choosing representatives), they do not consult other worker’s organizations, they do not produce purely for the benefit of their workers and society, they do engage in capitalist business activities, and they are not subject to the will of other workers whose lives will be effected by the production of this firms goods and services.

This isn’t syndicalism.

[Rcder]

If everything in existence is ‘scarce’ then the word ‘scarce’ becomes meaningless. We need to use a new word to describe what we are talking about, because we are both on two different planets - metaphorically.

Everything in existence is made of matter, but is the word meaningless? No, it describes a condition facing the physical universe, just like scarcity. It’s inconvenient for you, however, because it completely explodes the crux of your argument, that syndicalism can produce a post-scarcity world.

Feel free to make up whatever word you want to to try and salvage your argument. Maybe we’re currently living in “macroscarcity” and syndicalism will give us “microscarcity”.

[Chris_Bacon]

@Rcder

If everything in existence is ‘scarce’ then the word ‘scarce’ becomes meaningless. We need to use a new word to describe what we are talking about, because we are both on two different planets - metaphorically.

Everything in existence is made of matter, but is the word meaningless? No, it describes a condition facing the physical universe, just like scarcity. It’s inconvenient for you, however, because it completely explodes the crux of your argument, that syndicalism can produce a post-scarcity world.

Feel free to make up whatever word you want to to try and salvage your argument. Maybe we’re currently living in “macroscarcity” and syndicalism will give us “microscarcity”.

Not at all. ‘Matter’ refers to an actual thing. ‘Scarcity’ is a comparative word, much like ‘big’ or ‘small’. If you said, everything in existence is small, the word ‘small’ would become meaningless - it doesn’t tell us anything.

I propose we use the ‘scarcity’ from the dictionary; you know, ‘insufficient for the demand’. So as I’ve always maintained that doesn’t imply ‘unlimited’.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Does Mondragon use prices to calculate? Yes.

Does Mondragon operate on a for-profit basis? Yes.

Is Mondragon subject to complete democratic control by the workers? No.

Does Mondragon have a hierarchical management organization? Yes.

Does Mondragon discriminate when choosing employees? Yes.

Does Mondragon have a chairman with considerable more influence and control over the business than employees? Yes.

Was I arguing against this type of institution? No.

Thechnically Mondragon is a worker co-op. But either way:

The MONDRAGON Co-operatives operate in accordance with a business model based on People and the Sovereignty of Labour, which has made it possible to develop highly participative companies rooted in solidarity, with a strong social dimension but without neglecting business excellence. The Co-operatives are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person, one vote

To continue:

Over the years these links have been embodied in a series of operating rules approved on a majority basis by the Co-operative Congresses, which regulate the activity of the Governing Bodies of the Corporation (Standing Committee, General Council), the Grassroots Co-operatives and the Divisions they belong to, from the organisational, institutional and economic points of view as well as in terms of assets

Sounds like a workplace democracy to me, something you expressly said was not feasible. Too bad it’s the 7th largest company in Spain, and the largest in the Basque Country.

But again, my ineptitude, right?

[Autolykos]

@Chris_Bacon

I would add that capitalism is also characterised by the selling of labour for profit.

I wouldn’t. But I don’t see anything wrong with selling labor for profit anyways.

@Chris_Bacon

It also depends on which resources you think a human is free to consume. We can explore this in further depth if you want?

I don’t really see how it depends on that. When I say that other people take up resources that we could otherwise occupy and consume, the question of which resources we could consume is irrelevant. But I’m fine with exploring this in further depth.

@Chris_Bacon

Sorry, I don’t understand what that means.

I mean, do you use the same standard to evaluate capitalism?

@Chris_Bacon

You’re welcome. That’s an interesting point. I don’t know what he’d say. But, as with all philosophy, we have to be clear what we mean by the words we are using. What does ‘we’, ‘I’ or ‘you’ mean, and who or what do they refer to? The question of identity.

Personal identity has no meaning to external reality. All it knows (so to speak) are the laws of physics.

@Chris_Bacon

Again, another really interesting point. I’d say that we can’t be sure that even what we think, is actually what we think. For example, if we take thoughts to be explained in terms of neurons, then surely they could be constructed by another source. Perhaps all syndicalists think the exact same things.

The thing is, using the hypothetical vantage point of external reality is really useless when talking about human concepts - which is why I think methodological dualism is absolutely necessary.

@Chris_Bacon

I don’t see why it would stop working in a syndicalist society. If you removed property, there is very little anyone can actually do to harm you - other than physically. So I’d say that trust would be more commonplace.

Sorry, by “stop working” I meant the limiting scale of a syndicalist society, whatever that may be - kibbutz-scale, bigger, smaller, whatever. My point is, wherever familial/communal sharing and reciprocity end, capitalist production and exchange begin.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

And you continue to completely disregard what he said in other parts of “Human Action” and what he said literally one sentence before the one you continue to incessantly quote as if it’s Holy Writ.

Do you, or do you not think Mises would agree with me that the “fact” that early american capitalism (laissez faire) and aristocracy was absolutely terrible for 99% of the population does not prove that laissez faire and aristocracy are terrible systems?

I get the context of the quote, and I don’t think you do. It means just what it says, nothing (meaningful) can be learned from history (according to Mises).

Or does the fact that aristocracy was terrible for 90% of the population effect the economic “laws” that lead you to think laissez faire and aristocracy is good?

So vomiting out names wins arguments now?

A: Capital is homogenous.

B: F.A. Hayek

In this ^ complete non-sequiter, you would be right. Good thing for me it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Now if it went like this:

A: Mass production and the assembly line will not lead to greater productivity.

B: Ford Motor Company

That would be a valid response. And that’s what I did. You said workplace democracy is not feasible. I showed you existing and prospering workplace democracies.

A priori economic theory?

Lol… well if actual existing and prospering workplace democracy is not as important to you as a priori economic theory, then I don’t know what to say. Let me know when take your fingers out of your ears.

Besides, Mondragon (which is apparently the Patron Saint of anarcho-syndicalism from my quick Google search) isn’t even close to a syndicalist organization. Operating for profit? A management class with more power, money, and influence than the factory line workers? Discriminatory hiring practices? How positively capitalist.

Well this just shows how unfamiliar you are with socialism. It’s what we would call a transitory system working within a capitalist paradigm. Revolutions aren’t always quick and militant, friend.

t Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between the worker-owners who do executive work and those who work in the field or factory and earn a minimum wage. These ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 in different cooperatives and average 5:1. That is, the general manager of an average Mondragon cooperative earns 5 times as much as the theoretical minimum wage paid in his/her cooperative. This ratio is in reality smaller because there are few Mondragon worker-owners that earn minimum wages, their jobs being somewhat specialized and classified at higher wage levels.^[10]

Although the ratio for each cooperative varies, it is worker-owners within that cooperative who decide through a democratic vote what these ratios should be. Thus, if a general manager of a cooperative has a ratio of 9:1, it is because its worker-owners decided it was a fair ratio to maintain

I mean, it really appears you’re just making stuff up now.

The yield obtained from this fund is used to cover long-term retirement, widowhood, and invalidity benefits, complementary to those offered by the Spanish social security system.

Seems the profits are generally used to go back to the workers…

The first of the Rochdale Principles states that co-operative societies must have an open and voluntary membership. According to the ICA’s Statement on the Co-operative Identity, “Co-operatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.”

Furthermore:

To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category. Examples of social discrimination includeracial, religious, sexual, sexual orientation, disability, and ethnic discrimination. To fulfil the first Rochdale Principle, a Co-operative society should not prevent anyone willing to participate from doing so on any of these grounds. However, this does not prohibit the co-operative from setting ground rules for membership, such as residing in a specific geographic area or payment of a membership fee to join, so long as all persons meeting such criteria are able to participate if they so choose

Good thing I’m a nice guy. Libertystudent would never “subsidize your ignorance” like this:

the second part of the principle deals with how members are compensated for funds invested in a Co-operative, and how surpluses should be used. Unlike for profit corporations, co-operatives are a form of social enterprise****. Given this, there are at least three purposes for which surplus funds can be used, or distributed, by a Co-operative.

• “Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership.”
• “Developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible;” in other words, the surplus can be reinvested in the co-operative.
• Benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co-operative;” for example, a Consumers’ Co-operative may decide to paydividends based on purchases (or a ‘divvi’).
• “Supporting other activities approved by the membership.”

Again, it seems you’re just making stuff up about how these companies operate. Dishonesty is a very poor debate tactic, if you get called out on it.

If you would like your ignorance subsidized any furhter see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principles

[Autolykos]

@Chris_Bacon

If we were to completely switch to renewable energy, which would take effort - but we can do it, then we wouldn’t need to worry about energy again. We don’t need to worry about food again, since we can create it artificially now. And through desalination we can purely sea water, so we need not worry about water either. The very fact that we still have poverty in the world today shows some of the failings of capitalism.

Perhaps, there wouldn’t be as many Audi TT’s in a syndicalist society, but we wouldn’t have people starving to death.

Thanks for the more detailed answer.

Can renewable energy really make us not have to worry about energy again? Based on this, the entire world used about 1.7 x 10^13 kilowatt hours of electricity per year in 2007. Since that was a few years ago, we can round up and use 2 x 10^13 kilowatt hours for our purposes.

Let’s take solar energy first. According to this, the average amount of solar energy that reaches Earth (or “insolation”) is 5 kilowatt hours per square meter per day, or 1.825 x 10^3 kilowatt hours per square meter per year. Now the average efficiency of solar panels (according to here) is 20%, meaning one fifth of the solar energy hitting the solar panel gets converted into electricity. So on a per-year basis, solar panels can generate 3.65 x 10^2 kilowatt hours of electricity per square meter. Dividing our yearly energy-use figure by this number, we get 4.66 x 10^10 square meters, or 4.66 x 10^4 square kilometers, of solar panels to produce all the energy mankind currently uses in one year.

However, the electricity produced above is for direct current (DC) only. Most household appliances use alternating current (AC), which is what’s generated and transmitted by modern power plants. To convert DC power to AC power, an inverter is required. Worst-case efficiency for inverters (based on this) is around 50%, meaning half of the DC power is lost. This is the same as reducing our overall efficiency of solar panels to 10%, which doubles our required area to 9.32 x 10^4 square kilometers. To give you a better sense of this scale, a square of land about 305 kilometers on a side roughly has the same area.

With that said, solar energy is extremely capital-intensive. Photovoltaic cells are essentially a kind of semiconductor, so they require silicon and perhaps other raw materials to be manufactured. Furthermore, that manufacturing process requires a high degree of precision (though not as high as that for integrated circuits, such as computer CPUs). Semiconductor factories are highly automated and hence require existing power sources to be able to work. Silicon and the other raw materials must also be mined and processed before they can be used.

Another issue is that, even though the source of solar energy (the sun) is renewable, the electricity produced from harnessing it is not. When used to power machines, electrical energy is typically converted irreversibly into some other form of energy, such as mechanical or chemical energy. In addition, treating electricity as inexhaustible would lead to demand for it increasing at an exponential rate. After all, when something isn’t seen as scarce, what reason is there to not use more, besides personal preference?

Let’s say that, after widespread adoption of solar energy, the energy consumption per capita for the entire world (~7 billion people) rises to match that of people in the United States today: about 1.2 x 10^4 kilowatt hours per person per year. This would raise total electricity usage by about four times what it is today: 8.42 x 10^13 kilowatt hours per year.

Now, the real kicker here (as I see it) is that solar power currently produces only 0.05% of the world’s electricity! It seems that getting from that number to even a full 1% is daunting - solar power production would have to scale up by 20 times. So hopefully you can get a sense of just how difficult it would be to completely switch to renewable energy. Artificial food and desalinization are at least as capital-intensive as renewable energy sources, if not even moreso.

FInally, keep in mind that everything done, every action taken, has an opportunity cost. If you’re reading this post right now, it means you’re not out going for a walk, cooking dinner, etc. To perform a massive shift into those areas of technology may well involve opportunity costs that the vast majority of people find to be hardly worth it. If so, then as a libertarian, who would you be to stop them?

[EmperorNero]

Yes, exactly. Or, to supply the current energy needs of the United States, we would have to cover the area of Spain with solar panels. It’s just not feasible, we don’t have the fricking resources. Prices tell us that. If it was feasible, the profit and loss system would do it. The Problem, Chris_Bacon, is that you don’t understand the basic function of market pricing. The profit motive is not some arbitrary system that keeps us from using efficient resources, renewables are expensive precisely because they are inefficient. If they were efficient, they would be the cheapest option. And the profit and loss system is the best way to make them efficient, as history has shown. Resources do not appear out of thin air if we abolish the need to pay for them. This is very basic supply and demand economics, which you just plain have to learn before continuing to spout nonsense. No offense, but if you want to deal with the real world you have to understand how market pricing works. Here’s a book I happen to like.

[Chris_Bacon]

@Autolykos

@Chris_Bacon

If we were to completely switch to renewable energy, which would take effort - but we can do it, then we wouldn’t need to worry about energy again. We don’t need to worry about food again, since we can create it artificially now. And through desalination we can purely sea water, so we need not worry about water either. The very fact that we still have poverty in the world today shows some of the failings of capitalism.

Perhaps, there wouldn’t be as many Audi TT’s in a syndicalist society, but we wouldn’t have people starving to death.

Thanks for the more detailed answer.

Can renewable energy really make us not have to worry about energy again? Based on this, the entire world used about 1.7 x 10^13 kilowatt hours of electricity per year in 2007. Since that was a few years ago, we can round up and use 2 x 10^13 kilowatt hours for our purposes.

Let’s take solar energy first. According to this, the average amount of solar energy that reaches Earth (or “insolation”) is 5 kilowatt hours per square meter per day, or 1.825 x 10^3 kilowatt hours per square meter per year. Now the average efficiency of solar panels (according to here) is 20%, meaning one fifth of the solar energy hitting the solar panel gets converted into electricity. So on a per-year basis, solar panels can generate 3.65 x 10^2 kilowatt hours of electricity per square meter. Dividing our yearly energy-use figure by this number, we get 4.66 x 10^10 square meters, or 4.66 x 10^4 square kilometers, of solar panels to produce all the energy mankind currently uses in one year.

However, the electricity produced above is for direct current (DC) only. Most household appliances use alternating current (AC), which is what’s generated and transmitted by modern power plants. To convert DC power to AC power, an inverter is required. Worst-case efficiency for inverters (based on this) is around 50%, meaning half of the DC power is lost. This is the same as reducing our overall efficiency of solar panels to 10%, which doubles our required area to 9.32 x 10^4 square kilometers. To give you a better sense of this scale, a square of land about 305 kilometers on a side roughly has the same area.

With that said, solar energy is extremely capital-intensive. Photovoltaic cells are essentially a kind of semiconductor, so they require silicon and perhaps other raw materials to be manufactured. Furthermore, that manufacturing process requires a high degree of precision (though not as high as that for integrated circuits, such as computer CPUs). Semiconductor factories are highly automated and hence require existing power sources to be able to work. Silicon and the other raw materials must also be mined and processed before they can be used.

Another issue is that, even though the source of solar energy (the sun) is renewable, the electricity produced from harnessing it is not. When used to power machines, electrical energy is typically converted irreversibly into some other form of energy, such as mechanical or chemical energy. In addition, treating electricity as inexhaustible would lead to demand for it increasing at an exponential rate. After all, when something isn’t seen as scarce, what reason is there to not use more, besides personal preference?

Let’s say that, after widespread adoption of solar energy, the energy consumption per capita for the entire world (~7 billion people) rises to match that of people in the United States today: about 1.2 x 10^4 kilowatt hours per person per year. This would raise total electricity usage by about four times what it is today: 8.42 x 10^13 kilowatt hours per year.

Now, the real kicker here (as I see it) is that solar power currently produces only 0.05% of the world’s electricity! It seems that getting from that number to even a full 1% is daunting - solar power production would have to scale up by 20 times. So hopefully you can get a sense of just how difficult it would be to completely switch to renewable energy. Artificial food and desalinization are at least as capital-intensive as renewable energy sources, if not even moreso.

FInally, keep in mind that everything done, every action taken, has an opportunity cost. If you’re reading this post right now, it means you’re not out going for a walk, cooking dinner, etc. To perform a massive shift into those areas of technology may well involve opportunity costs that the vast majority of people find to be hardly worth it. If so, then as a libertarian, who would you be to stop them?

Thanks for the indepth answer. You’ve shown that solar power isn’t feasible, so I won’t promote it at any rate. But what do you think of nuclear power? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country. If you look at that, you see that France’s primary energy production is nuclear power at 75.2% of overall energy production. Obviously building a nuclear power plant has high costs, but once it is up and running its running costs are very low.

On the issue of scarcity, ‘fast breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is up to five billion years’ worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants’. I don’t think you can maintain that uranium-238 is scarce, although rcder has already said that it is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power)