Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[phank]

Explain exactly what? I have to guess what puzzles you.

Oh, well, here goes. Private property is not necessarily sole ownership. For example, tens of thousands of companies are owned by millions of entities called shareowners. Perhaps in college you had part ownership of a car, or knew someone who did. How about a condo? All these I still put in the category of private property.

OK, thanks. It wasn't clear to me this is what you intended.

Actually in this present world, where there are States just about everywhere, theoretically at least, there is no private property anywhere. All the various States own everything, at least theoretically.

Not exactly. Perhaps you are defining "ownership" too strictly. What you're really talking about is limitations societies place on your use of property. "Private" property that you own, permits you much greater latitude of use, than you'd have with property you don't own. But your use is STILL limited by law in some ways.

So whatever problems occur because of a lack of private property rights have to be blamed on the States.

This strikes me as myopic. The reason you can't put a feedlot on your suburban property isn't because of a nasty old state, it's because your neighbors all object, and they have banded together to prohibit this use of your private property. The state is simply the agency of their aims.

A little bit more later.

Good.

Huh? The tragedy of the commons isn't fatal!?

The tragedy of the commons occured because the common WAS common, it was unregulated. Externalities are CALLED externalities because they are external to free market operations. They are costs paid by neither the producer nor the consumer, but they are costs nevertheless. So externalities must be internalized through regulation, to PREVENT the tragedy of the commons. The tragedy of the commons is the tragedy of inadequate regulation.

You raise a point that on close examination turns out to be a non-problem. This is partly because the State itself creates externalities or simply fails to entirely eliminate them--you know, eliminate one, another one pops up.

Always. And this is kind of to be expected. If there is ANY way to get someone else to pay some of your costs, and you get to pocket the difference as profit, people are going to find it and exploit it. And then another regulation plugs that loophole, and people will find another.

The story is told of a robber baron who called in his lawyer and said "Find me a legal way to do this". And the lawyer said "But sir, that's not legal!", and the robber baron said "That's not what I asked." There are endless ways to reach nearly any objective. If the objective is to cheat someone and profit thereby, well, that's what lawyers are for. So we have a constant "arms race" of people dreaming up legal ways to cheat, and other people making them illegal.

[Augustine2004]

Not exactly. Perhaps you are defining "ownership" too strictly. What you're really talking about is limitations societies place on your use of property. "Private" property that you own, permits you much greater latitude of use, than you'd have with property you don't own. But your use is STILL limited by law in some ways.

You miss the point of private property rights. They are not total freedom to use your property any way you like. Rather, everybody is to limit his use or employment of his property so that everyone has some and equal freedom to use his property as he wishes to. Please bear that in mind as you continue to read my post.

This strikes me as myopic. The reason you can't put a feedlot on your suburban property isn't because of a nasty old state, it's because your neighbors all object, and they have banded together to prohibit this use of your private property. The state is simply the agency of their aims.

Ah, thanks for raising that issue. Read on for an answer, and don't forget what I said above.

The tragedy of the commons occured because the common WAS common, it was unregulated. Externalities are CALLED externalities because they are external to free market operations. They are costs paid by neither the producer nor the consumer, but they are costs nevertheless. So externalities must be internalized through regulation, to PREVENT the tragedy of the commons. The tragedy of the commons is the tragedy of inadequate regulation.

Hmmm . . . but as I show later, the institution of private property is a good answer IMO.


Tweb does not allow me to link to articles in certain websites, so I will have to state in my own words the contents of articles by Mises Institute people especially including Mises and Rothbard that attack the externality argument. In summary, externalities are practical concerns only when the law disses the institution of private property, if I may so put it.

Take one example. An explorer discovers a secluded valley, whose beauty so captivates him that he settles there. Years pass when one morning he discovers construction going on at one end of the valley. Clouds of dust-laden smoke issue from earth-moving machines. On investigation he discovers that someone is building a factory.

The valley owner goes to talk to the factory owner, 'I was in the valley first! You have no right to despoil the beauty of my valley!'

The factory owner looks concerned. 'Oh? I did a survey, and nobody objected to the factory. I pointed out that it probably would produce some sooty air, but nobody objected.'

'Why didn't you survey me!?'

The factory owner became contrite. 'I must have missed you somehow.'

'I don't want the factory! I want the beauty of the valley preserved! All the smoke and dust is like vandalizing my wall with spray paint!'

'I'm going to stop the construction now and consider what to do. Probably relocate the factory elsewhere.'

'Please do that.'


Nothing like that usually happened in the first few decades of the Industrial Revolution. For the great part, the authorities let factory owners pollute the air and the ground and make a lot of noise. Private property be damned, full speed ahead!

[FLovell]

...

[Phank wrote:] ...How would I know? I am reading the consensus of the climatologists inScience, and Scientific American, and Science News. You know, those whose profession this is, and who are not owned by anyone with a vested interest in denial. But they COULD all be wrong, of course. I hope they are, to be honest.

FLovell, is this why you Amened phank's post!?

Yes, exactly, that is the part I was AMENing, the candid recognition (regardless of how equivocal or unequivocal one might feel the consensus to be) that the present consensus of professional climatologists and atmospheric physicists could be wrong. I found that to be most refreshing, so refreshing that I plumb lost m'head and AMENed it <grin>.

-- Frank

[phank]

Yes, exactly, that is the part I was AMENing, the candid recognition (regardless of how equivocal or unequivocal one might feel the consensus to be) that the present consensus of professional climatologists and atmospheric physicists could be wrong. I found that to be most refreshing, so refreshing that I plumb lost m'head and AMENed it <grin>.

-- Frank

Alas, it's part of the human condition that nearly every action we take, is necessarily taken on the basis of incomplete and ambiguous information. And that if we wait until there are no doubts, we've waited too long. The patient died before we were absolutely sure what the problem was. And often enough, this means we guess wrong, or what little we know misleads us, and we goof up. But this shouldn't mean that we should NOT do the best we know how with the best information we have, lousy as it may be.

[phank]

The factory owner became contrite. 'I must have missed you somehow.'

'I don't want the factory! I want the beauty of the valley preserved! All the smoke and dust is like vandalizing my wall with spray paint!'

'I'm going to stop the construction now and consider what to do. Probably relocate the factory elsewhere.'

'Please do that.'


Nothing like that usually happened in the first few decades of the Industrial Revolution.

And to be honest, I've never heard of anything like that ever happening at all. You were not surveyed because you were certain to object. The factor builder has an enormous investment by now, and he's not going to eat it just to be polite. Chances are, he has numerous investors and none of them are going to be willing to eat those startup costs either. And if the land really WERE private property, you could take the deed to a court of law, and not only stop that factory but get punative damanges. And I would support you all the way.

I have read about the early part of the industrial revolution, and your description is, uh, highly misleading. Those factories promised (but usually ended up not delivering) jobs, prosperity, good incomes. The externalities of pollution were not yet fully recognized. And the land on which they were sited was purchased from the owners, who were generally happy because their price was a lot higher than they'd ever expected, or would have received from another farmer. It wasn't until some time later that people started to realize that (1) only a few people got rich; (2) wages paid to the peons were no better than farming income used to be; (3) the pollution and eyesores were far worse than anyone dreamed was possible; (4) The factory owners owned the local politicians, who used to be owned by the largest landowners. Money still talked.

[Augustine2004]

And to be honest, I've never heard of anything like that ever happening at all.

Sigh, yeah, that's part of why I sometimes refer to the ideal of liberty (private property everywhere) and justice for all.

You were not surveyed because you were certain to object.

Not in my tale. The factory owner really did goof. Had the valley owner been surveyed, his objections would have made the factory owner go elsewhere.

The factor builder has an enormous investment by now, and he's not going to eat it just to be polite. Chances are, he has numerous investors and none of them are going to be willing to eat those startup costs either.

Construction had only just started, and the land can be sold off.

And if the land really WERE private property, you could take the deed to a court of law, and not only stop that factory but get punative damanges. And I would support you all the way.

Good.

I have read about the early part of the industrial revolution, and your description is, uh, highly misleading. Those factories promised (but usually ended up not delivering) jobs, prosperity, good incomes.

What!? You don't seem to be saying that factories generally offered jobs at certain wages then reneged, paying them much less than promised. And it's not as though people had to be enslaved to supply labor to the factories.

The externalities of pollution were not yet fully recognized.

True, but I suspect factories were noisy at least.

And the land on which they were sited was purchased from the owners, who were generally happy because their price was a lot higher than they'd ever expected, or would have received from another farmer

Was that an objection?

It wasn't until some time later that people started to realize that (1) only a few people got rich;

The more value a person produces, the more value he deserves to get in return. Or, let people keep the fruits of their labor. Let's go the private property way. Besides the more one has, the more he can help the needy. In general, the more productive a society is, the more it can help its needy.

(2) wages paid to the peons were no better than farming income used to be;

Well, you still have to explain how Great Britain got to be one of the richest nations in world history.

(3) the pollution and eyesores were far worse than anyone dreamed was possible;

I thought that point was already addressed? Or am I missing something?

(4) The factory owners owned the local politicians, who used to be owned by the largest landowners. Money still talked.

That is not the private property way. That is statism.

[phank]

I think part of the communication problem here is, I'm talking about what really happened, and you're talking about an ideal situation that has never obtained anywhere. And the problem I have with utopian ideals is, the models ALWAYS work perfectly. No matter what the ideal might be, in the models it never fails.

I've been involved in tracking community reactions, in generally rural areas, to big new developments. And at first, everyone is all psyched. The people see jobs and good incomes, the local government sees a hugely expanded tax base, the new development sees inexpensive workers and lax zoning and low taxes. Everyone is enthusiastic. In two years, perceptions are quite different. The streets can't handle the traffic, and are always jammed with cars and full of potholes. The schools can't handle the student load. The city can't afford all the new police, sewers and other infrastructure, etc. And yes, there's noise and pollution. Incomes are higher, but prices have risen to match; people are not economically better off. So there are growing pains.

But maybe that's all beside the point you're trying to make.

In general, the more productive a society is, the more it can help its needy.

Interestingly, this seems a hard point for some people to understand. I point out that the wealthiest societies are the most productive, and those societies do most to help their needy. I argue that we might profitably look at those societies (well, those nations) that are the world's most productive, to see what they have in common. So far so good. So, which nations are those?

Well, they've included the US, and most of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, perhaps Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan. And what do these nations have in common? Well, they have relatively large, relatively pervasive, relatively socialistic governments. So can we draw some linear relationship here?

Uh, no, we can't. The world is unfortunately full of relatively big socialist governments presiding over squalor and poverty, ignorance and misery. So a tentative conclusions might be, a fairly socialist government is necessary but far from sufficient to produce a highly productive society. That society must also be stable, educated, perceived as just. It must have a fairly free market, and government must ensure the market STAYS free - free of oligopoly, of monopoly, of restraint of trade. The government must certainly regulate, and generally provides, such things as infrastructure (roads, dams, etc.), education, courts and police. That government is reasonably diligent in ensuring the probity of those police and courts. Perhaps most of all, those governments are responsive to their citizens, they tend to be elected, and representative, and the election process is scrupulously honest, within human limits. And all of that provides the solid foundation on which productivity can be built, because it is a reliable foundation. But it also doesn't come cheap.

But by this point, I've lost my audience, who has in the past been victim to the slogan that government is evil.

[Augustine2004]

I think part of the communication problem here is, I'm talking about what really happened, and you're talking about an ideal situation that has never obtained anywhere. And the problem I have with utopian ideals is, the models ALWAYS work perfectly. No matter what the ideal might be, in the models it never fails.

You're 180 degrees wrong. I am implying or talking about the State's claim to be making the world better than otherwise. No matter how bad or evil or stupid or whatever the people of the world is, I am saying the State cannot make the world better. It CAN make the world worse, and probably is.

If you will comb history for instances when cult leaders got followers to believe the leaders can create heaven on earth, you should find a great many. YOU are on their side! Not I!

I've been involved in tracking community reactions, in generally rural areas, to big new developments. And at first, everyone is all psyched. The people see jobs and good incomes, the local government sees a hugely expanded tax base, the new development sees inexpensive workers and lax zoning and low taxes. Everyone is enthusiastic. In two years, perceptions are quite different. The streets can't handle the traffic, and are always jammed with cars and full of potholes. The schools can't handle the student load. The city can't afford all the new police, sewers and other infrastructure, etc. And yes, there's noise and pollution. Incomes are higher, but prices have risen to match; people are not economically better off. So there are growing pains.

You don't blame the State? Not at all? Why not?

But maybe that's all beside the point you're trying to make.

Which point?

Interestingly, this seems a hard point for some people to understand. I point out that the wealthiest societies are the most productive, and those societies do most to help their needy. I argue that we might profitably look at those societies (well, those nations) that are the world's most productive, to see what they have in common. So far so good. So, which nations are those?

Well, they've included the US, and most of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, perhaps Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan. And what do these nations have in common? Well, they have relatively large, relatively pervasive, relatively socialistic governments. So can we draw some linear relationship here?

Uh, no, we can't. The world is unfortunately full of relatively big socialist governments presiding over squalor and poverty, ignorance and misery. So a tentative conclusions might be, a fairly socialist government is necessary but far from sufficient to produce a highly productive society. That society must also be stable, educated, perceived as just. It must have a fairly free market, and government must ensure the market STAYS free - free of oligopoly, of monopoly, of restraint of trade. The government must certainly regulate, and generally provides, such things as infrastructure (roads, dams, etc.), education, courts and police. That government is reasonably diligent in ensuring the probity of those police and courts. Perhaps most of all, those governments are responsive to their citizens, they tend to be elected, and representative, and the election process is scrupulously honest, within human limits. And all of that provides the solid foundation on which productivity can be built, because it is a reliable foundation. But it also doesn't come cheap.

But by this point, I've lost my audience, who has in the past been victim to the slogan that government is evil.

The corrrelation between prosperity and the 'strength' of the government, whatever that may be, however that may be defined, is indeed somewhat positive. Actually, most nations are in the middle. It's only at the extremes that the correlation becomes clear. Take Red China, for example. At first the Communist government was brutally strong. Then it relaxed and became much more weaker. As compared to other governments around the world, it's now about in the middle. The China growth is attributable to the people's long tradition of entrepreneurship and business skills. Prosperity is not just a matter of a lack of government strength.

Evidence can not tell you as much about economics as about atoms, photons, and other physical stuff. Fortunately, Austrian economics IS rooted in reality, and we can infer that the State is probably making the world worse.

[phank]

You're 180 degrees wrong. I am implying or talking about the State's claim to be making the world better than otherwise. No matter how bad or evil or stupid or whatever the people of the world is, I am saying the State cannot make the world better. It CAN make the world worse, and probably is.

I understand that your model of the role of the state is utterly at odds with every society that has ever existed, good or bad. But you will have to find a society without any government, and show that it's superior somehow. And no such societ has ever existed.

If you will comb history for instances when cult leaders got followers to believe the leaders can create heaven on earth, you should find a great many. YOU are on their side! Not I!

For us to discuss this, you need to read what I say. I agree with you that bad government can make life miserable for nearly everyone. And my reading is, cult leaders have historically made lousy governors (there are some exceptions). But I'm not on the side of BAD government. As an analogy, I'm saying food is necessary for life, and you're saying that bad, spoiled, rotten, poisoned or otherwise dangerously inedible food is bad, therefor FOOD is bad. And THEN you're saying I'm recommending bad food! This is not correct.

You don't blame the State? Not at all? Why not?

Because it wasn't the state's idea to build a development there, and the state really was not involved except in providing infrastructure and public safety and schools. But that didn't change.

The corrrelation between prosperity and the 'strength' of the government, whatever that may be, however that may be defined, is indeed somewhat positive.

But I went to some effort to describe what good government is, what it does, how it works. So, since you write "whatever that may be, however that may be defined", I will repeat:

"The government must certainly regulate, and generally provides, such things as infrastructure (roads, dams, etc.), education, courts and police. That government is reasonably diligent in ensuring the probity of those police and courts. Perhaps most of all, those governments are responsive to their citizens, they tend to be elected, and representative, and the election process is scrupulously honest, within human limits. And all of that provides the solid foundation on which productivity can be built, because it is a reliable foundation."

Take Red China, for example. At first the Communist government was brutally strong. Then it relaxed and became much more weaker. As compared to other governments around the world, it's now about in the middle. The China growth is attributable to the people's long tradition of entrepreneurship and business skills. Prosperity is not just a matter of a lack of government strength.

This interpretation would amaze any politicician, bureaucrat, or historian. What the Chinese government did was, it learned wisdom. It is no less powerful now than before, but it is much SMARTER. It recognized the value of private enterprise, and encouraged some. At first, with the 5-year-plans and the Great Leap Forward, it did so very stupidly, with catastrophic results. But the Chinese are not dumb. They looked around and saw that if everyone were allowed a small plot of land, and allowed to keep or sell whatever that plot produced, those plots were amazingly productive. And so on. I and most politically savvy observers would say that the Chinese government has become far more powerful as a result.

Of a poor leader, the people say "we fear him."
Of a good leader, the people say "we respect him"
Of a great leader, the people say "we did it ourselves." The Chinese people did it themselves!

Fortunately, Austrian economics IS rooted in reality, and we can infer that the State is probably making the world worse.

Good government is just one aspect of good management. Good management can take an idea and turn it into huge profits and big successful businesses. Bad management can take those businesses and destroy them amazingly quickly. You can easily find many more instances of bad management and government than good. But you can't conclude that ALL management is bad. Good management is an absolute necessity.

[Augustine2004]

I understand that your model of the role of the state is utterly at odds with every society that has ever existed, good or bad. But you will have to find a society without any government, and show that it's superior somehow. And no such societ has ever existed.

You don't know history. Colonial Pennsylvania went without government for years. That period ended only after years of attempts to re-impose statism from the outside. The insiders fought all the way.

For us to discuss this, you need to read what I say. I agree with you that bad government can make life miserable for nearly everyone. And my reading is, cult leaders have historically made lousy governors (there are some exceptions). But I'm not on the side of BAD government. As an analogy, I'm saying food is necessary for life, and you're saying that bad, spoiled, rotten, poisoned or otherwise dangerously inedible food is bad, therefor FOOD is bad. And THEN you're saying I'm recommending bad food! This is not correct.

You're the one who read badly. In any case, you should provide examples of good government and show that the good indeed did outweigh the bad. Or maybe the government did nothing but good (something that makes anyone's credulity stagger about in sheer shock).

Because it wasn't the state's idea to build a development there, and the state really was not involved except in providing infrastructure and public safety and schools. But that didn't change.

You still don't understand what a private-property world would be like in detail. Look, if the State consistently makes the world better than what the private-property world would be, it is good government. If the State does not, it is bad. While I cannot rule out the possibility that occasionally the State will manage to do things right, I still consider it impossible for the State to consistently do well. I wish people would ask me to start from first principle . . .

But I went to some effort to describe what good government is, what it does, how it works.

See above.

So, since you write "whatever that may be, however that may be defined", I will repeat:



"The government must certainly regulate, and generally provides, such things as infrastructure (roads, dams, etc.), education, courts and police. That government is reasonably diligent in ensuring the probity of those police and courts. Perhaps most of all, those governments are responsive to their citizens, they tend to be elected, and representative, and the election process is scrupulously honest, within human limits. And all of that provides the solid foundation on which productivity can be built, because it is a reliable foundation."

I don't recognize the quotation. In any case, you're only ASSUMING that the State can be good. If you disagree, don't just quote stuff like that, SHOW how we may determine whether any given government is doing more good than bad. Please no comparing a nation to another nation.

This interpretation would amaze any politician, bureaucrat, or historian. What the Chinese government did was, it learned wisdom. It is no less powerful now than before, but it is much SMARTER. It recognized the value of private enterprise, and encouraged some. At first, with the 5-year-plans and the Great Leap Forward, it did so very stupidly, with catastrophic results. But the Chinese are not dumb. They looked around and saw that if everyone were allowed a small plot of land, and allowed to keep or sell whatever that plot produced, those plots were amazingly productive. And so on. I and most politically savvy observers would say that the Chinese government has become far more powerful as a result.

The most important factor is the degree to which private property rights are respected. That's what I meant. 'Strength' is the degree to which private property is dissed by the State.

Of a poor leader, the people say "we fear him."

Of a good leader, the people say "we respect him"

Of a great leader, the people say "we did it ourselves." The Chinese people did it themselves!

Oh, sure, the great leader builds skyscrapers, ships, airplanes, cars, pumps out oil, grows leeks, cultivates trees, trims lawns, builds houses, drives people around, police streets, . . .

Good government is just one aspect of good management. Good management can take an idea and turn it into huge profits and big successful businesses. Bad management can take those businesses and destroy them amazingly quickly. You can easily find many more instances of bad management and government than good. But you can't conclude that ALL management is bad. Good management is an absolute necessity.

Aren't you shifting the meaning of 'good government'?

So, you still think the State can make the world better than the private-property world would be. That is far less likely than a stopped clock being right twice a day. Part of the problem is that people are quite unpredictable. Moreover, the only way they can indicate what they want is to act FREELY. They can talk about what they want, but it is still essential they ACT FREELY in the context of a private property world. It's very hard to predict what one would choose in a given situation, if not impossible. Can YOU predict what YOU will do?

[FLovell]

Alas, it's part of the human condition that nearly every action we take, is necessarily taken on the basis of incomplete and ambiguous information. And that if we wait until there are no doubts, we've waited too long. The patient died before we were absolutely sure what the problem was. And often enough, this means we guess wrong, or what little we know misleads us, and we goof up. But this shouldn't mean that we should NOT do the best we know how with the best information we have, lousy as it may be.

Quite so and understood! But just as bad as (and potentially worse than) procrastinating until possessing perfectly complete info is rushing to judgment and committing to Rubicon-cro$$ing extraordinary "fixe$" without genuinely justifying (beyond reasonable doubt, not saying we should ever wait for justification beyond all possible doubt) knowledge of all the relevant dynamics behind the problem or well-assessing the unintended con$equence$ that Rubicon-cro$$ing "fixe$" may very well entail. I am not a global climate-change/warming denier, heck, I am a global climate change/warming inevitableist! But I have never seen such a colossally complex phenomenon as global climate dynamics so prematurely intensely politicized as "settled science" since Lysenkoism set Russia's agricultural science 50 years back behind where it could have been today. And so, it is refreshing to see SOMEone else acknowledge that the present consensus of professional climatologists and atmospheric physicists could be wrong (even if they did it to make a very different point from the point I would be trying to make with such a statement). I grant I lost m'head and went overboard (and I admitted that I had lost m'head and gone overboard <grin>), and I realize I am a politically marginalized minority (I freely acknowledge the possibility that I my perspective on this could be wrong -- heck, I HOPE that I AM wrong!).

-- Frank

[phank]

You don't know history. Colonial Pennsylvania went without government for years. That period ended only after years of attempts to re-impose statism from the outside. The insiders fought all the way.

We probably do not agree on what we mean by government. To me, a tribe with a shaman who resolves disputes, has a government. That shaman IS the government. Colonial Pennsylvania had a government in the sense I understand it. That is, some loose authority for resolving disputes and implementing community decisions.

You're the one who read badly. In any case, you should provide examples of good government and show that the good indeed did outweigh the bad. Or maybe the government did nothing but good (something that makes anyone's credulity stagger about in sheer shock).

You might wish to read the Federalist Papers. Or the US Constitution. In those documents, you will see clear awareness of the dangers of a strong OR a weak government. The clear goal was to find a happy medium. I think they did. It has worked for centuries.

You still don't understand what a private-property world would be like in detail. Look, if the State consistently makes the world better than what the private-property world would be, it is good government. If the State does not, it is bad. While I cannot rule out the possibility that occasionally the State will manage to do things right, I still consider it impossible for the State to consistently do well. I wish people would ask me to start from first principle . . .

Please do. I think some governments consistently do well. Not always, of course, but consistently. And one of the things those governments do right, in my opinion, is to recognize, legalize, protect, and enforce private property.

See above. I don't recognize the quotation.

ROFL! That quotation was what I wrote. And which you quoted in your own post! And when I said you don't read, I wasn't kidding! You don't even read what you RE-post.

In any case, you're only ASSUMING that the State can be good.

Exactly the opposite. I am OBSERVING that some states have led highly successful, wealthy, educated, prosperous, safe, educated, healthy nations. I was asking, what do these governments DO, that results in such happy outcomes.

If you disagree, don't just quote stuff like that, SHOW how we may determine whether any given government is doing more good than bad. Please no comparing a nation to another nation.

How can we tell if it's possible to do better or worse, without looking to SEE if anyone is doing better or worse, in our estimation? This is like saying "prove that you are tall, but no comparing yourself to anyone else or to any average." "Good" and "bad" are purely relative terms, and cannot be anything BUT relative. And that means relative to something different.

And so, once again, I have said that if a government presides over a nation that has been successful, wealthy, educated, prosperous, safe, educated, and healthy (and other good things), then that government is doing something right. Now, you may argue that without any government things might have been even better. But without any examples, this is an empty assertion.

The most important factor is the degree to which private property rights are respected. That's what I meant. 'Strength' is the degree to which private property is dissed by the State.

Then we use the words differently. To me, a government that fails to recognize the enormous value of property rights is a weak government, and won't last long.

Oh, sure, the great leader builds skyscrapers, ships, airplanes, cars, pumps out oil, grows leeks, cultivates trees, trims lawns, builds houses, drives people around, police streets, . . .

The great leader makes all of this possible, and easy. The great leader runs a system where such activities are rewarded, and beneficial. The great leader ensures that all citizens benefit not only by doing these things themselves, but by the broad social improvements arising from everyone doing these things. The great leader is an ENABLER, not a preventer.

Aren't you shifting the meaning of 'good government'?

Absolutely not. A nation is a large organization with goals and activities, like any large corporation. Their purposes, duties, and rules may be slightly different, but both absolutely require good management. And if management is doing poorly, it's important that the citizens/shareholders can replace those responsible.

So, you still think the State can make the world better than the private-property world would be.

I must admit, I really have nothing resembling a picture of what the "private property world" would be like, in your vision. We seem to agree that good government grants and protects and enforces private property rights, and we also agree that those rights have limitations. So how is this "private property world" of yours different?

That is far less likely than a stopped clock being right twice a day. Part of the problem is that people are quite unpredictable. Moreover, the only way they can indicate what they want is to act FREELY. They can talk about what they want, but it is still essential they ACT FREELY in the context of a private property world. It's very hard to predict what one would choose in a given situation, if not impossible. Can YOU predict what YOU will do?

You seem here to be talking about freedom, which is something a bit different. And here, I don't see how we disagree, but I'm having trouble seeing through your eyes here. The way it seems through my eyes, we are as free as possible given the constraints of a densely populated society. We STILL operate according to the golden rule.

[FLovell]

...The way it seems through my eyes, we are as free as possible given the constraints of a densely populated society. We STILL operate according to the golden rule.

At least, we SHOULD all of us be universally operating according to the Golden Rule (regardless of the sparsity or density of population) -- or even better, to the libertarian formulation of the Golden Rule, which is:

DO UNTO OTHERS AS THEY WANT TO BE DONE UNTO, OR ELSE LEAVE 'EM THE HECK ALONE!

-- Frank

[phank]

At least, we SHOULD all of us be universally operating according to the Golden Rule (regardless of the sparsity or density of population) -- or even better, to the libertarian formulation of the Golden Rule, which is:

DO UNTO OTHERS AS THEY WANT TO BE DONE UNTO, OR ELSE LEAVE 'EM THE HECK ALONE!

-- Frank

Yeah, this is kind of why the libertarians tend to be so disorganized. Dense populations mean, we can't leave one another alone. Everything we do has SOME effect on those around us. Just the space we use up, the air we breathe, the food we eat, the waste we generate, we all affect one another. Being left alone is the one option we cannot grant, if we wish to live in a society where we have cooperation, competition, division of labor, public services, associations of all sorts. Where we must share roads, land, products for sale, and so on ad nauseum. The frontier is gone.

[Challenger Grim]

Yeah, this is kind of why the libertarians tend to be so disorganized. Dense populations mean, we can't leave one another alone. Everything we do has SOME effect on those around us. Just the space we use up, the air we breathe, the food we eat, the waste we generate, we all affect one another. Being left alone is the one option we cannot grant, if we wish to live in a society where we have cooperation, competition, division of labor, public services, associations of all sorts. Where we must share roads, land, products for sale, and so on ad nauseum. The frontier is gone.

1) That's not exactly what libertarians preach (or I should say, not every branch of libertarian)
2) As for the frontier, look to the stars...