Some Thoughts on Externalities

Particular irregularities in the world of economics cause the mainstream to throw up their hands, abandon hope for the marketplace, and cry out relentlessly for their government-savior. One such thing is externalities: when transactions between two parties have an unintended effect on a third. It couldn't possibly be that the people-- narrowly focused on their personal gain-- could account for such a misfortune more adequately than the all-knowing centralized planners of the state (or so they say).

Suppose that in the process of making toys for children, my factory exudes pollution that reigns over a city. Suppose my airport, while safely delivering its customers across the world, creates a bubble of disruptive noise for the surrounding neighborhoods. Or suppose that my school reduces the likelihood that its go-toers become criminals-- a "positive" externality that benefits many who will never pay for my good-doing. In such instances, do we leave it to the private sector to create its own solutions? Or do we call upon the power of government to try and set things straight?

The Ovesonian Twin Brains Thought Experiment: A Priori Evidence in Support of Reincarnation Theory

Comments on the latest post inspired a thought experiment I consider helpful in explaining the likelihood of my consciousness reincarnation theory. The theory is poised most critically on two key assumptions about brain-mind interaction:

1. Specific physical arrangements of matter- brains- result in consciousness formation.

Hopefully we can all agree here.

2. Any given consciousness is formed- and perceives through- not one exact arrangement of physical matter, but a range of different physical arrangements that share certain necessary physical characteristics (though the nature of these is not yet precisely understood), but differ in other ways physical.

This one's a little rougher. But I think you'll find that you agree.

Immortality is Inevitable, The Universe is Finite and Other Interesting Conclusions

Consider the following 3-step argument drawn out by myself during an enlightening discussion prior to the viewing of a certain Star Trek movie that I highly recommend:

Assumption 1: One is uncertain of all things physical.
Assumption 2: One is certain of the self.
Conclusion: The self is not physical.

Those who dispute the conclusion are most likely to oppose the first of the two assumptions (the second is generally accepted), so I'll state a brief defense: to be physical is to exist objectively. One's interaction with objects he supposes to be physical consists only of his perceptions. Perceptions are inherently fallible- i.e., one's senses are always subject to failure- therefore, though they cause him to suppose objects are physical, they can never this guarantee.

Understanding Anarcho Capitalism: A Simplified Case (Part 3)

If you haven't read it already, here's part two.

+++
Amendments
Prescript: The author's opinion on the ethical case against government has changed since the construction of the series's first part- although it should be noted that, as an objective description not, per se, of the author's opinions, but of the opinions of Anarcho Capitalists generally, the ethical case portrayed is not an inaccurate representation of relevant and widely-held beliefs. That said, with regard to the NAP, there are at least two major schools of thought within the Anarcho Capitalist community, and being that one of them was omitted- indeed, the one to which the author himself now ascribes- it will be described briefly here, and then annexed to part one. The author keeps in mind that, despite its length, this is intended as a simplified description of complex ideas, which will be tailored to an audience largely unfamiliar with libertarianism as a whole, and Anarcho Capitalism specifically. 

The reader may recall that explained in part one was the Non-Agression Principle (NAP), a central characteristic of the ethical case against government. However, the validity of this claim is dependent on the partisan's acceptance of ethical norms. According to- as Anarcho Capitalist Murray Rothbard once labeled them- "natural rightsers" (himself a natural rightser), it is unethical to violate certain rights- framed in the context of property rights- with which all human beings are naturally endowed. According to the theory- mostly derived from a Lockean interpretation of ethics- people have ownership over themselves, and things that they homestead, i.e., unowned land that they work, or unowned resources that they use- given selective definitions of "work" and "use" upon which we will not elaborate here. By this standard, members of government cannot claim to ethically own a country whose economic elements they themselves did not make productive, and, as no government has ever done so, it is therefore unethical for government to tax (or likewise support itself and exist).

Those who do not ascribe to this theory- that is, the non-natural rightsers- tend to be ethical consequentialists of some form, usually egoist or utilitarian. In either case, these partisans are concerned only with the ultimate effect of a given action on the welfare of people. So, if government "steals", we cannot claim- by these ethics- that it does so in an inherently unethical manner, as it is only unethical if the result, on net, hurts people. Thus, the Anarcho Capitalist consequentialist maintains that government should be disposed of because its actions have a net-negative effect on human welfare. Consequentialists may still maintain a rule-of-thumb closely resembling the NAP, i.e., they may conclude that actions which violate the NAP tend to be unethical. That said, the economic argument against government adequately describes- in and of itself- the entirety of the consequentialist position.
+++

A continuation of 'Why roles that shouldn't exist shouldn't exist'
Sub-category: Corporate Regulation

Why Do We Want What We Want Pt. 2- A Solution Found in Semantics

On further consideration, I do believe I've solved the problem I posed in my former post- that is, why intelligent people who believe a lesser intelligence brings greater happiness choose to retain their higher intelligence. It comes, I think, from a closer inspection of the concept of "welfare," and acknowledging a more precise definition.

Why Do We Want What We Want?

I enjoyed an interesting conversation with a friend the other day, when he expressed the oft-made claim that less intelligent people are generally happier than more intelligent people. I won't go into the context, but it did get me thinking about whether that was true, if so why, and, more importantly, who really believes that.

The Woes of Proposing Something New

Success is moderate in my push for household privatization (within my own house).

One complaint went something like: "if I wanted, who's to stop me from sneaking downstairs and stealing other people's food in the night? They'd never know, and what do you expect- security cameras?"

Apparently my skeptic never came to the realization that this was an activity of which she was perfectly capable under the current system. I leave my wallet- unsupervised and undefended- by my beside whenever I sleep, as do most in my family. Should she desire, a quick trip downstairs, or wherever else, could result in a great deal of easy cash.

But she doesn't.

Or at least, I don't think she does.

The point being, it's grasping for straws. She's fighting a proposal with an argument that has equal effectiveness against that which the proposal fights- the status quo. She, like others, has most likely rejected the idea out of gut feeling, and uses other arguments as her facade.

That's a difficult matter to solve.