Hypothetical

[Giant_Joe]

@hayekianxyz

To use a phrase that I think is thrown around far too much, I think you’re only looking at the seen.

Actually, I think I was looking at both. The obvious “government is the solution” seen, and the “we can do it voluntarily” unseen. Or are we talking seen and unseen for each case?

Yes, it’s possible for public goods to provided voluntarily, I’ve never denied that. But I think it’s also silly to argue there aren’t any goods that are not provided because of the free rider problem.

I don’t think it would be completely silly to argue that. I think there is an argument for it but I don’t find it convincing. Other people do. I’m convinced that if an asteroid were to destroy the Earth, people would make voluntary efforts to stop it and government action wouldn’t be necessary.

Of course, if you read Ostrom’s work you’ll see that there are plenty of cases in which people have been able to voluntarily overcome such problems and provide public goods, but there are specific conditions necessary to realise this, and they aren’t always present.

Makes sense, and I agree.

So to go back to your original question of “How would an anarchy handle this?”… It would handle it (I hope) just like any other situation. Through voluntary action. Whether it would be effective or not is to be (hypothetically) seen. I’d hope that there would not be some kind of resurgence of the state that would be caused by nationalism or institutional worship of any kind. I suppose what Ostrom said has bearing here, but I’d have to agree with the idea that people are more willing to preserve their lives than to just receive some public good that makes their lives incrementally better. I’d say that overall it’s impossible to tell, but my bet would be that an anarchist society would be willing to donate resources to this cause to save themselves.

Once again, to say this is to misconceive the whole problem. Look at the numerical example I provided earlier, for any given individual the choice isn’t between death and donating, it’s between being slightly better or slightly worse off and living or dying depends on the actions of other people. In the case where many billions of USD are required to provide the necessary good, my $20 won’t do much good. So why bother donating?

I know this part isn’t directed at me, but maybe I can lend a hand. This stuff is bordering on game theory, and I know a professor (who I actually had lunch with yesterday) who has done plenty on game theory and simulations concerning public goods theory. I’ll dig up some stuff on it.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-evolutionary/#AppEvoGamThe (The “behaviour and public goods game” stuff)

Public goods game

[apehead]

@hayekianxyz

so perhaps it’s not unreasonable to assume that the government could do this in a way that the market couldn’t, much like the moon landings.

I don’t see why markets would be incapable of moon landings.

@hayekianxyz

Once again, to say this is to misconceive the whole problem. Look at the numerical example I provided earlier, for any given individual the choice isn’t between death and donating, it’s between being slightly better or slightly worse off and living or dying depends on the actions of other people. In the case where many billions of USD are required to provide the necessary good, my $20 won’t do much good. So why bother donating?

I don’t really see how this is an issue. If there aren’t enough consumers (potential asteroid victims) willing to pay for a service (asteroid removal), then the asteroid hits. This is only a problem if you happen to feel that “asteroids hitting Earth” is undesirable. If you find this outcome more undesirable than the satisfaction of possessing $20, you will feel compelled to donate.

You seem to hold the opinion that “people ought to give up their money to prevent asteroids from hitting Earth”. Why do you think that your opinion should be forcibly impressed on others?

[Angurse]

@hayekianxyz

Once again, to say this is to misconceive the whole problem. Look at the numerical example I provided earlier, for any given individual the choice isn’t between death and donating, it’s between being slightly better or slightly worse off and living or dying depends on the actions of other people. In the case where many billions of USD are required to provide the necessary good, my $20 won’t do much good. So why bother donating?

It seems like you are glossing over the dramatic effects “it’s between being slightly better or slightly worse off and living or dying” do people really compare life and death along similar lines like slightly worse off and slightly better off? Because I sincerely doubt it. And you could obviously apply it to various charities and political campaigns and see that ordinary people have given massive amounts in light of disaster (political or otherwise).

[Valject]

Pursuant to the above:

Being in the general interest of the continued prosperity of any individual, be it a business or a person, to survive, it is not entirely unreasonable to suggest that funds would start to change hands toward end of humanity’s defense. There are those that may decide the threat is not real and continue about their daily business. There are those who may pull out from current investments, take everything they have, and enjoy what may be their last days on Earth. Some will research the level of destruction an impact will have, and many will take this information and use it to find the most suitable place to survive. Survival not being an option due to impact, those same might turn to charity toward whatever organizations are best equipped to destroy an asteroid. The biggest and the best defense agencies would, of course, be at the top of that list, but out of necessity they would have to buy, rent, or have given to them out of charity new technologies developed by any fields related in some way to the destruction of asteroids. Computers and electronics, precision instruments, launch mechanisms, and the like would not necessarily be developed by defense companies themselves. One company would not be able to do such an extravagant thing at our current level of technology. However, many companies may decide that the risk of loss in R&D may pay off at a future date with new technologies to be sold on the market. Remember also two things: defense insurance companies find it in their interest to prevent an asteroid collision, and therefore might speculate as to the redirecting of income towards that end. There is also, as stated by yourself, the fact that the entire world is a free market. Is in crazy to think that with so many sources of funds and technology and material resources that the burden of expense for blowing up or redirecting the path of an asteroid would be a huge burden? Such a case may or may not be a testament to the ability of people to work together without the father-hand of government to guide them, but that as case may be can be set aside. More interestingly would be to see the multitude of ways people would find to profit off of the possible end of humanity.

Compare that with a society that leaves things in the hand of a few governments, who will act when and if they get the available funds, if they make the right decisions, and if they even deem such an asteroid a threat. One organization can only make one choice. What will it be? Not telling the public, to prevent panic? Deciding that the threat probably isn’t real? Deciding it is real and using funds to develop technologies that might work and might not, without simultaneous other technologies competing for that spot? Do they enslave their people to promote production of new technologies? Do they tax 90% of income to find funding? How much ingenuity can a few politicians have that could compete with the cleverness of a world-wide market? Does it not ask the same question in reverse? What would we do in that situation today, with the governments of the world that we have?

In either situation of course, we are faced with the possibility that there might not be a solution. I am inclined to believe that acting individuals are more likely to find one if it does exist than a committee might be. I make no claim that that is anything other than an opinion, if a reasoned one.

[Valject]

“Because I sincerely doubt it” is a terrible argument. I will give a counter-example to the argument you didn’t offer, just to demonstrate:

“I don’t really care much for life. If everyone around me died and I didn’t, I would feel a little better, even though I would be lonely. If everyone including me died, well, that would suck. I wouldn’t be lonely, but I wouldn’t be able to stare at my favorite rock any more either. Oh well.”

History is littered with people that becry: “Everything sucks! Life isn’t fair!” There are probably a handful among those that would laugh at the thought of an asteroid destroying the planet. Hell, I have friends that laugh at the idea of freedom and being allowed to choose what you do with what you own. The passions of one person are not necessarily the passions of other.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Fanciful counterfactuals do not make his argument terrible… if a minority of people hold that view, what’s the significance?

[Angurse]

@Valject

“Because I sincerely doubt it” is a terrible argument. I will give a counter-example to the argument you didn’t offer, just to demonstrate:

That wasn’t really the argument though… did you keep reading?

@Valject

“I don’t really care much for life. If everyone around me died and I didn’t, I would feel a little better, even though I would be lonely. If everyone including me died, well, that would suck. I wouldn’t be lonely, but I wouldn’t be able to stare at my favorite rock any more either. Oh well.”

History is littered with people that becry: “Everything sucks! Life isn’t fair!” There are probably a handful among those that would laugh at the thought of an asteroid destroying the planet. Hell, I have friends that laugh at the idea of freedom and being allowed to choose what you do with what you own. The passions of one person are not necessarily the passions of other.

OK? I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make, I haven’t denied that some won’t contribute in the slightest. The actions of “a handful” do little to hurt my case, and really aren’t a strike against statelessness. Since, as we know, some people simply have nothing and cannot contribute, so a state still couldn’t do anything to make everyone contribute either.

[Caley_McKibbin]

There are no public goods and there is no free rider problem.

[Valject]

“It seems like you are glossing over the dramatic effects “it’s between being slightly better or slightly worse off and living or dying” do people really compare life and death along similar lines like slightly worse off and slightly better off? Because I sincerely doubt it. And you could obviously apply it to various charities and political campaigns and see that ordinary people have given massive amounts in light of disaster (political or otherwise).”

For clarity, I was making the point that there very well could be people who compare life and death along the same lines as “slightly worse” and “slightly better”. In this, I had no interest in who is contributing what where. I am merely pointing out that saying “Does X really happen? I sincerely doubt it.” is not an argument. In fact, it may be the case that you are completely right, but pending omniscience, it would be impossible for you to no, and still impossible to prove even with omniscience. Certainly this has little to do with your argument, but what can I say other than I am a stickler? I might add that I made no statement as to how this affects who contributes what in a given society. The point I was trying to make was only that which was stated.

[Valject]

“It seems like you are glossing over the dramatic effects “it’s between being slightly better or slightly worse off and living or dying” do people really compare life and death along similar lines like slightly worse off and slightly better off? Because I sincerely doubt it. And you could obviously apply it to various charities and political campaigns and see that ordinary people have given massive amounts in light of disaster (political or otherwise).”

For clarity, the point I was making had nothing to do with who contributed what. It had to do with the argument “Does X happen? I sincerely doubt it.” It was a statement that supposes omniscience in the mind of the speaker, but even granting such omniscience, it would still be impossible to prove how different people compare things. That is the point I was trying to make. I might add that I did not write any argument as to how this affects who will contribute what. What I wrote is to be taken at face value, in that “sincerely doubt it” is not supportive of its subject. Whether or not it has any bearing on the issue at hand is of no concern to me. I am just a stickler, I suppose, but there you have it. What I meant was what I typed, nothing more.

[Valject]

For clarity, nothing is more annoying than retyping something that you mistakenly believed did not get posted to a message board. Alas, I am covered in shame!

[apehead]

@Valject

Alas, I am covered in shame!

I can think of worse things to be covered in.

[Angurse]

“I am merely pointing out that saying “Does X really happen? I sincerely doubt it.” is not an argument.”

You’re right that is not an argument, nor was it intended to be an argument.

“That wasn’t really the argument though”

[Valject]

Someone else’s shame?

[apehead]

@Valject

Someone else’s shame?

Eww…

[Valject]

@Angurse

“I am merely pointing out that saying “Does X really happen? I sincerely doubt it.” is not an argument.”

You’re right that is not an argument, nor was it intended to be an argument.

“That wasn’t really the argument though”

Very well. As you know your mind better than I would, I accept that you were merely making a statement about your own belief of how others value life and death. If I were make any point to that, it would be that I am of the opinion that people do make life or death choices along similar lines as “slightly better” and “slightly worse”. I won’t repeat why I think so, since I have given examples in previous posts. You don’t really have to keep pointing out that this wasn’t a major part of the overall debate. I conceded that in my first rebuttal. Quite pointedly, even.

[Angurse]

@Valject

I conceded that in my first rebuttal. Quite pointedly, even.

Where?

[Snowflake]

Just a quick framework issue here:

An entity which bands together for the sole purpose of dealing with the asteroid, and then disbands once the earth is safe is not a government. So there’s really three options here:

1. Have the State solve it.

2. Have the voluntary market solve it

3. Have an involuntary organization solve it, reverting to the voluntarism once the problem has been dealt with.

The latter two count as ‘anarchy’, since they are not a territorial/coercive monopoly on use of force. Presumabley, the organization in the third option leaves everything else as is, and just kind of goes around looting untill they have enough to build an anti-doomsday device.

I bring this up because I feel it demonstrates that even if the free market cannot deal with collective action problems, and some have already made a good case that it can, it is only enough to justify coercion. This is a necessary but insufficient condition for the state.

[Esuric]

@hayekianxyz

No, I’m saying that the free market, for better or for worse, would never have put a man on the moon. Look, if you believe that the free market could somehow coordinate the consumers of asteroid destruction and provide the good in question, then by all means elaborate.

The private sector is sending people into space as we speak.

List of private spaceflight companies

[Dondoolee]

Under the assumption that some anarcho-capitalistic system “works”:

Wouldn’t this be a more rate of development question?

To clarify, if a massively centralized program with a great amount of resources available is here now (particularly subsidized for externalities) , at what point would a more decentralized program “catch up” with the subsidized program? Obviously this is all dependent on the situation and the externality. With an asteroid, on intuition alone, I do not think 10 years would be enough to deal with it. But this may be a more empirical “rate of development” question, that I would be most interested in looking at (and know next to nothing about).

Also, and I think this is very important; it would probably be best to look at a more “anarchic” system replacing a government at a more natural pace than a revolution. It would seem like a bad idea to incorporate some major spike in political social homeostasis, as that would seem to be an externality in itself (and it may very well be interesting to discuss as what counts as a “major spike” or what is a “natural pace”).
And a very honest question, how should a government deal with and calculate externalities? How do you draw the line between practical and impractical things to worry about? What would you trust more based solely off of numbers to solve your problem; 3 govts with a population of 2 billion people each, 10 govt with 600 million people each, 1000 govts with 6 million people each?

And perhaps this is something to think about as well: We do have people selling alien abduction, rapture, and Mayan (?) calendar apocalypse insurance as we speak; how much more money do you think these people would be making in an “anarchic” society selling more in demand and rational asteroid insurance policies? I do not think government has a monopoly in fear mongering, after several fraud convictions Peter Popov is still a millionaire and I can still buy his holy water that will relieve me of debt. Perhaps brighter and more scientific minds and “more rational” causes would take the place of politicians and people who believed in the most “ancient” 19th century “Biblical” doctrines.

To bring up a bit of a political point with externalities; politicians and governments can make quite a career off of pandering to such things. The market, I would think, would tend to work in a similar manner. On a similar strain of thought, what are your thoughts on a catastrophe on the internet, or some Tower of Babel like catastrophe with language?

On a concluding note: I think there is a major flaw with the “you’re in anarchy, go….“ type of questioning. I do not think this is so much of an anarchy/minarchy/ etc question; but a momentum shift strategic question, or perhaps (for dogmatists and ideologues) a revolutionary vs. reactionary tactical type of question. Personally, I think it should be more of how to shift the Fabian momentum and social mentality back towards Burke rather than towards Brown. Unfortunately, I also think Sisyphus has a more promising and rewarding task