In an attempt to refocus again on the natural resources theme of this thread, I changed my avatar. It is now the “Olivitos marsh”, a wildlife refuge on the Eastern shore of the Gulf of Venezuela close to the base of Lake Maracaibo. It occupies a very smallarea. It is close to a number of petrochemical developments. The petroleum industry itself is interested in keeping this area pristine for safe reproduction of sea, air and land animals.
Now you’ve just entirely changed the example. The whole point of the example was the previously the state was not interfering the the running on casinos in a certain area, until a certain individual decided to bribe the state into preventing people from opening or running casinos. The whole point is that the individual is merely delegating the task of restricting competition to the state.
If you assume as you imply that the state restricted coercion without being bribed to do so then yes, Robinson and the mafia are in the same position. Neither are acting contrary to libertarian principles.
Of course he is. If beforehand there was only 1 supplier of casinos and after Robinson bribes the state there are two, how is this not an increase?
Now you’re just changing the example. A bribe is simply money paid for a service, it just so happens that the mafia in this case is paying for the service of restricting competition. Without the mafia paying the bribe the state would not be restricting competition, hence the bribe is coercive.
No, unless me and a shopkeer are the same person because I delegate him the task of finding my food? The point is the mafia actively seeks to restrict competition and they do this through paying state officials to use violence against those that open casinos. Much in the same as one would pay a PDA to secure their property rights, only as a monopolist the state can abuse it’s coercive powers as seen in this example.
No, it does not. If the mafia seeks to kill anybody opening a casino it does not become a state. Likewise if you try and kill anybody who attempts to sell oranges you don’t become a state.
The point is that we can ignore the state for the sake of the argument. If we assume the state does not exist the situation does not change. The mafia simply directly resorts to violence through killing anybody else opening a casino and Robinson simply hires a PDA to defend himself, just as he would hire to state (through bribery) to defend his property against the mafia, all you have to do is drop the assumption that there is a monopolist provider of defence.
I don’t think so. Not entirely at least.
Hm. Rothbard :
In such a case, for example, Robinson, seeing that gambling casinos are outlawed in a certain area, bribes policemen to allow his casino to operate—a perfectly legitimate response to an unfortunate situation.
I don’t read Rothbard as clearly saying that Robinson already owned a casino, then came the mafia and got the state to create new regulations or whatever. It sounds to me as if Robinson wanted to setup a new casino, and “seeing that gambling casinos are outlawed in a certain area, bribes policemen to allow his casino to operate”.
If Rothbard is describing just one scenario in two steps, then I admit I misread him. But frankly it sounds as if Robinson wants to setup a new casino in a place where casinos are outlawed.
Anyway, your scenario may be something like this :
There are two casino owners in a city – Jones and Smith. Jones decides to bribe the city government in order to get Smith’s casino shut down – that’s an offensive bribe. Fine. So if Smith wants to stay in business he now needs to pay up…a defensive bribe – fine. Now I do agree with Rothbard that that’s an unfortunate situation.
I also think that further analysis shows that Smith is not that worse off after paying the bribe – the real losers are the users of casinos.
Right, that’s the point. Robinson’s bribe was defensive, he is paying the state to allow his casino to operate when competition is already restricted. The mafia on the other hand are paying the state to restrict competiton before it was restricted, it’s therefore offensive.
But that’s not relevant.
Of course he is, he’s worse off by the amount of money he spent to bribe the state.
Yes it is relevant. In Robinson is not a casino owner then he is entering the casino market, which he knows is a rigged market, and he’s paying the state for the privilege of operating in that market.
But he can now charge more to his customers. The customers end up paying for the bribe, not the casino owner.
That’s silly, by your standards any buisness owner who pays any of the taxes government imposes on buisness is acting immorally, they’re paying the state to enter into a “rigged market”.
No, they now have a greater choice of casinos. They aren’t forced to use Robinson’s casino, he can’t charge them higher prices than the other casino owner was originially charging and prices will drop in fact because of an increase in supply.
Alright, I haven’t seen this point brought up…so here’s my two cents (trying to get this back on topic)
What gives you the right to decide that leaving land pristine is in X’s best interest?
If someone comes along and decides to build a park along, I’m guessing you’ll feel fine and dandy about that. But if an entrepreneur sees opportunity in sucking every single ounce of petrol, wood, and nutrient from that land, then I don’t see what gives you the right to claim that he can’t do so. Someone or a group of people irritating your sense of aesthetics doesn’t give you the right to force them to hold the land in a hostage and stationary state.
Besides this is the kind of thing that only the price system decides. If enough people have an interest in seeing that land stay pristine, then it will probably become a tourist attraction and stay that way (only this time with a boatload more wildlife experts running the show). If not, then people have more of an interest in getting gasoline for their cars, industries have an interest in pete moss, people suddenly think furs are the next best thing, people REALLY need a thneed, whatever.
The only way I think you might have a say is if you built right next door for the sole purpose of gazing upon that land, only one day to see it completely deforested. Then, you might be able to get retribution for them lowering the value of your land (which, price-wise, is another factor that an entrepreneur would have to consider).
Or, if you really didn’t like it still, go door-to-door telling people not to buy thneeds. Tell them to boycott it because of the damage it causes to the humming fish, truffula trees, etc.. To reiterate: I don’t see a right to initiate force on behalf of one’s aesthetics.
I didn’t say that. Besides, I can retort that by your standards, any mercantilist who buys privileges off the state is a honest entrepreneur…
Okay, that makes sense and I admit partial defeat. Now, why would the state accept Robinson’s bribe ? The state was originally paid by the mafia to restrict competition. Now it’s being paid by Robinson to allow more competition. If the state lets Robinson into the market the mafia may complain ?
Thank you, Fephisto, for getting back on topic.
I guess the example of Alaska, so much in the news due to Sarah Palin, illustrates your case.
It is not clear at all whether American society rather prefers Alaska’s wild areas to be left as parks or to be used for drilling oil. National opinion seems evenly split. Both points of view are being argued fiercely.
How can the market establish today the price of pristine land 100 years from now when most virgin ecosystems will already have been destroyed? What will the opportunity cost for our greatgrandchildren be of logging and drilling such lands today?
Does Austrian theory of time preferences (I am talking here of a specific time preference of 100 years after all of us are dead) shed any light on this?
The same way it establishes a price for everything?
Which is, in this case?
Would you please elaborate?
If you believe that the free market can provide a price for other things and not this you should explain why.
Giles is correct, the burden of proof is always on the Statist or the person who wishes to suppress the price mechanism. The closest thing on this topic I guess is the section of MES on durable goods and the ‘capital value of a good’.
I am not suppressing the price mechanism.
I am just calculating that, since so much land worldwide is being deforested, whatever land is left unharmed will be valued in the remote future at an exponentially higher price. Pristine land will be so expensive that it would be a good investment to leave it untouched right now so that its value automatically increases over the years.
If you think so, then go forth and speculate.
You still don’t answer the question, why wouldn’t it be possible for the market to establish prices that accurately reflect the preferences of individuals in society.
My answer is: The preferences of individuals in U.S. society concerning Alaska resources have been extensively polled, and it seems that most people would prefer to leave those areas unharmed. Just a few conglomerates related to the Bush government are interested in drilling for oil there. So the valuations of those resources are much higher than the benefit society would get in terms of output measured by barrels of oil.
First off, polling is meaningless, preference can only be revealed through action. Secondly you defeated your own argument as you point out that the only reson these people would be allowed to drill there is because they’re able to use a coercive state, not as a result of the the free market. So ultimately the failure is not the result of some “free market” we supposedly have, rather it is a failure as a result of improperly defined property rights. Lastly, you’re avoiding the question, why would the price system work for every other good except “national” parks.
Polling is not meaningless. A lot of people do not want drilling in Alaska and grassroots would become very active should serious drilling attempts occur there.
I do not see why my argument is defeated. The coercive state has tried to drill during this eight years of Bush presidency and it has failed. It is one example when the will of the people not wanting any drilling has actually won over the coercive state. There has been no failure at all.
I agree with you on the part that there are improperly defined property rights. But I have no clue on how there could be an agreement on how to define those property rights to everyone’s satisfaction.
I am not avoiding the question. Instead, I am reiterating for a third or fourth time that the price for pristine land in the future will be a lot higher than the price of the output of oil that would be recovered from its exploitation today.
I agree with you. And I dont think why anyone would be in disagreement with you. Above all Economics is about scarcity and we are talking about land being more scarse.
Ruben: I am not into land study or anything but you could back up your argument (already true) by taking into account countries with over population growth and their land mass.