1096 sats \ 26 replies \ @harrr 27 Jan \ on: Bitcoiner and Socialist bitcoin
Yeah, everybody can agree on that. Socialists think that the state is better at providing this than a free market.
See, that's the socialist in you, and an expression of how close all western countries are to socialism. You and the states can only think of spending more to solve those problems, that's why there's a need for a state to redistribute.
Meanwhile, rational people think that the government should shrink, spend less, and that a free market would be the best to provide the goods the market wants.
The problem with fully deregulated markets is the incentive to externalize costs (e.g. dumping toxic waste in a river to get rid of it while slowly killing people and fisheries downstream). You need a pretty powerful powerstructure if you want to counterbalance that.
reply
That practice should cripple a company’s reputation. But it doesn’t because of state subsidies and cover-ups.
There can and should still be legal repercussions for causing intentional harm to humanity.
reply
And legal doesn't necessarily mean coming from a public legal system. Laws and courts can be private.
reply
I've never heard anyone advocate for that before. Are there any robust arguments in favor of this you could link to?
I'm not trying to debate here, just curious because I've yet to encounter the idea.
I could imagine a few issues with such a system which may be tricky.
"I don't care for your laws, taking my business elsewhere, to the court across town..."
reply
It happens today in business contracts. When signing a contract with another business, both agree on a single court will uphold your agreement or be arbitrators.
Arbitration is also actually way more cost effective than court of law. Used all the time and in a private manner. Trying to reach settlement, with an independent 3rd party, before the case sees the light of public scrutiny.
reply
With the business contracts they agree on using a particular public court of law, or a private one?
I was more curious about the example above regarding externalities. Like a toxic chemical dump due to gross negligence or willful planning.
reply
About half of the legal systems in the world are called "Civil courts." They are wholly separate from the criminal courts run by the state's judicial branch.
Private law is just as common as state law in most countries. You may have used civil courts already without knowing you did so, such as if you bought real estate.
Cases with externalities like toxic dumping usually wind up in the criminal courts, but that really depends on if there was a pre-existing contract between the plaintiff & defendant.
reply
It was first theorized by Rothbard, and elaborated on further by David Friedman.
reply
It's not even theorized it exists in the real world even in an awful socialist country like France. Les Tribunaux de Commerce ( Commercial Courts) which arbitrate disputes between companies and contracts, are already private.
You can very well imagine a world based on contracts rather than thousands of useless laws, arbitrated by private courts specified at the beginning, when the contract is signed. Except for criminal cases maybe everything can be private. And even for criminal affairs I'm sure the free market would find a way to deal with it of better quality compared to public courts.
reply
Thanks. When I said "it was theorized" I was referring more to criminal law, as that's what people usually think is the hardest to privatize.
There are also historical examples, like medieval Iceland.
reply
Awesome, thank you!
reply
I've thought about this problem a lot and I think environmental damage is a uniquely good example of the need for regulation of the free market.
I realize the idea isn't perfect. But there is environmental damage that our technology doesn't have the means to fix. Therefore even if we punish wrongdoers we still end up with environmental damage.
Therefore I think there is a case for proactive measures, such as regulation, inspection and enforcement versus reactive measures like suing or jailing wrongdoers after the fact.
reply
It may cripple the reputation in a location that could be 1000 miles away, 30 years from now and for a group that are not customers.
As one example, because of corporates like 3M, BASF and DuPont PFAS levels in rainwater everywhere, even in Antarctica(!), are now above levels considered safe for humans to drink. The people responsible, who knowingly took the decision to dump toxic waste, have retired as millionaires if not billionaires.
Free market incentives don't always work perfectly, and it's only realistic to acknowledge that externalization of costs to other places, times and groups is a problem
reply
Csn you give one such example that wasn't subsidized or backed up by the legal system?
As mentioned by someone else, reputation/honor of an individual or a business can be the key to it's success or rapid downfall. Specially today with information travelling at the speed of light, there is 0 chances anyone can do such sizable damage, even in the middle of nowhere, without someone recording the fact and spreading it around the planrt in 5 minutes.
reply
This has nothing to do with subsidies or a public legal system. Externalization of costs is a fundamental issue and is as old as time. Anyone who thinks honor outcompetes greed in humans has never lived in the real world.
Society had to suffer tens of thousands of early deaths and spend hundreds of millions on environmental, medical and epidemiological research to establish the links between PFAS, parkinson's disease and certain cancers, after a few decades. Multiple Big Chem CEO's knew this all along from their own research, yet choose to keep it quiet. Yet, even today when this is public information, the reputation of these companies doesn't suffer the slightest. And even if it would, a simple M&A or rebrand will fix it (e.g. Monsanto)
reply
reply
Couldn't agree more 👍
I also think there's a significant difference in what most of the world would call socialism vs what Americans (in particular libertarians) call socialism. At least in discussions I've had this has muddied the waters
reply
The moral philosopher and anarchist Stefan Molyneux writes about this specific problem in his book Everyday Anarchy. I've asked his AI engine to summarise his position, here's the output:
In a free society, the approach to dealing with environmental pollution would be rooted in the principles of property rights and voluntary exchange. Pollution can be seen as a violation of property rights, where one party's actions negatively impact another's property without consent. In such a society, there would be a strong legal framework that allows for the protection of property rights, including recourse for those harmed by pollution.
For instance, if a factory pollutes a river and the pollution negatively affects the property or health of individuals downstream, those individuals would have the right to seek damages and restitution through a court system that respects and enforces property rights. This would create a financial disincentive for polluters, as they would be held accountable for the costs of their actions.
Moreover, a free society would likely encourage the development of private solutions to environmental challenges. Entrepreneurs and businesses would have the incentive to innovate and create products or services that reduce pollution, as there would be a market demand for cleaner alternatives. This could include technological advancements that minimize emissions or more efficient waste management systems.
In addition, voluntary associations and non-profit organizations could play a role in monitoring environmental conditions and advocating for responsible practices. These organizations could be supported by individuals who are concerned about the environment and wish to contribute to its preservation.
Overall, the key to addressing environmental pollution in a free society is to ensure that property rights are upheld and that the costs of pollution are internalized by those who cause it, rather than externalized onto society or the environment.
reply
In an ideal world I would agree 💯, but in the real world things don't work like that. The incentives just don't line up
But I think we can at least agree we should be moving towards a better world in this respect
reply
reply
It wouldn't be free of other, and likely worse, monopolies on violence.
I've been to too many places without effective government to have any trust in what you call a "free society" to be able to exist for any significant length of time without being corrupted. It only works if everyone behaves, but not everyone does (fact), hence you require violence (or at least the threat thereof) and because of the extremely strong network effect of violence you're back at square one: a monopoly on violence. It's the reason this "free society" does not exist and never has existed.
Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely want to live in such a free society, I just think there's a zero percent chance of it happening, at least with humans 😅
reply
This is not possible in a world where private property is correctly unforced.
If you pollute a river, you'll be sued by the farmers/fisherman/and all people downstream who will have suffer from your action. And you'll go to jail soon enough.
reply
Ideally yes, but reality today is very very different
reply
Because we live in very socialist regimes.
As long as you have a State spending more than 10% of the wealth produced, consider you live under a socialist regime.
reply
Capitalism and free markets are very good at advancing positive externalities but that doesn't mean they can't solve negative externalities.
In the short term, yes, this can be remedied by central state power. But in the long term a central state is inefficient at solving it and in the long term it will be incentivized by individual economic actors to solve it better.
reply