Subject:
|
not sure what to call this
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:13:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1310 times
|
| |
|
|
Hmm... not sure if you are referring to whence resource property rights, or
is it the luck factor that you are wondering about.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes:
> That is the issue of how wealth is created
> from the environment, be it the favourable climatic conditions or the
> presence of natural resources, which are not available to all equally.
Chris has alluded to this problem in the past. Asserting labor mixin as a
mechanism to getting title to previously unowned land isn't the cleanest
way. The question boils down to is it first come first served. Think forward
a bit. Who or what will "hand out" titles to various pieces of Lunar or
Martian real estate? Is it who gets there first? How much land would the
first mars mission get to claim? All of mars? so many feet from where they
explored?
Or are you asking about the luck of the draw, the fact that some people own
land that has oil on it and some don't, through no particular fault or skill
of their own?
Well I tend to hold (and acknowledge this isn't too satisfactory an answer
up front) that these are both kinds of luck. In free market systems, luck
doesn't matter for long, because luck without skill dissipates and luck with
skill just turbo boosts what outcome would have happened anyway.
> There is no market mechanism by which these 'goods' are paid for and I do
> not believe there can be (How can you value the use of a resource now when
> you do not know what uses we may find for it in future or how long human
> civilization will last). This is where the 'total free market' falls down
> in my opinion and it is necessary to realise that any solution is
> sub-optimal,
The free market system may not be perfect in every way but there is no
utopia possible and there is no better system possible. No other system can
maximise happiness and freedom.
> from that realization should come a policy of maximising human
> happiness for all humans including those who are yet to be born and from
> this cascades all the non-free market thinking that Larry opposes. Do you
> agree?
No. Except for the part about my opposing it.
> I couldn't think of a good re-name for this, if it takes off I think it
> needs one though.
Me either
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: not sure what to call this
|
| (...) I agree. (...) I agree. (...) I don't agree. Not that I have to offer a better system, but how can you prove it's impossible? (...) I agree on freedom, but then, isn't there also a price others in the world have to pay for our freedom? If so, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
| (...) Please don't move it to email, Horst. Your contributions have been extremely well thought out and useful and you are now getting to a point that I have been looking for a reasonable way to raise to hear Larry's 'total free market' view on. (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
