Spontaneous Order

[Robespierre]

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/economics/faculty/powell/docs/econ206/Cyber-Law-Evolution.pdf


That's a well written paper about the spontaneous evolution of order and rules on the internet, which is, in effect, an anarchic system. To be clear, when I call it anarchic, I do not mean chaotic, but rather, free of widespread coercive government.

An interesting point in the individualist vs. collectivist/statist debate has made itself plain to me. I am relatively certain that most on this forum will sneer at creationism as a pointless religious back-alley, that need not be treaded. I agree. I also feel this way about statism, which relies upon the same principles as creationism. The appeal to centralized power by statists is often accompanied by claims that order would break down without some over-arching authority, or that without centralized power, no society is possible. Like creationists, the basis of these arguments lies in "revealed truth" and a blind hope for some higher meaning.

Society can now and has in the past existed without coercive centralized domination. The question is, what do you value, and how do you fit into your own model of social interaction? If you value "collective" decision making, as in voting, what will you do when the collective makes a decision that you find utterly objectionable? Many american democrats must be asking themselves this very question. Is the will of the hive always right? Even if the hive prefers to enslave some minority portion of itself?

[mgb]

I'm not sure you can compare the internet with the real world. Since this is a "type" site I'd venture to say that the internet isn't populated by the same distribution of types that the world is.

As well, the internet still exists within the outside world sphere, borrowing many things, like currency from the real world.

[Robespierre]

I'm not sure you can compare the internet with the real world.

I'm sure that I can. Where do you suppose that the internet exists?


Since this is a "type" site I'd venture to say that the internet isn't populated by the same distribution of types that the world is.

The internet is a sub-domain of the world. There are no "types" that exist on the internet that do not exist in "the real world". Also, the "types" that inhabit many specific places in the "real world" do not represent the distribution of types in the entire world. This doesn't make these specific places any less real.

[mgb]

Dman isn't going to be able to touch on this one, monopoly wise.

I think you have another achilles heel though (provided you aren't one legged). Punishment. It's something the internet has trouble dolling out. It relies heavily on outside world for that, which let's the outside world in, inviting control.

For example. A site like ebay, can do nothing but ban someone who consistenly fails to deliver goods people have paid for. Theft. Once someone is banned, a new identity is established and they are doing it again. ebay can do nothing to stop them. What they can do is attempt to turn this person over to real world authorities and have them charged with fraud or theft.

The people that have lost their money have very little recourse given geographic restrictions and due to the creation of different identities, actually tracking the theif down. Which is much different than say, you who is a non-aggressor, defending your property against someone stealing from you in the real world.

The internet still relies heavily on the outside world to be its aggressor, so it hasn't been able to achieve complete disassociation from the real world to be considered as anarchaic as you suggest.

[Robespierre]

Dman isn't going to be able to touch on this one, monopoly wise.

I think you have another achilles heel though (provided you aren't one legged). Punishment. It's something the internet has trouble dolling out. It relies heavily on outside world for that, which let's the outside world in, inviting control.

I don't see it. You are first off, assuming that punishment can only take on physical forms, like imprisonment. We can take this forum as an example. Who owns it? I honestly don't know, but whoever is administrating the board, can operate it at his own pleasure. If someone violates his wishes, he has the power to suggest the individual not take that action again, or if that fails, to remove the individual from the community entirely. Just like in your own home, if someone violates your rules, you can send them away. It seems to me that it is actually easier on the net.


For example. A site like ebay, can do nothing but ban someone who consistenly fails to deliver goods people have paid for.

Nothing but? Isn't that good enough? They provide a brilliant service in tracking comments about the service provided. This is a great example of spontaneous order in the market.


Theft. Once someone is banned, a new identity is established and they are doing it again.

And yet, the problem is handled, and business continues at an amazing pace.


ebay can do nothing to stop them. What they can do is attempt to turn this person over to real world authorities and have them charged with fraud or theft.

They can do plenty to stop them. They can refuse to allow users to specify PO boxes as their address, they can require some form of positive identification, etc etc. If the problem is big enough, solutions will be found. Also, if you find the risks to be too high, you are perfectly free to avoid using their service.


The people that have lost their money have very little recourse given geographic restrictions and due to the creation of different identities, actually tracking the theif down.

People that lose money in this manner are lazy. Use an escrow service, or some other third party system that insures both sides get what they were promised. The demand for these services is what has created them.


Which is much different than say, you who is a non-aggressor, defending your property against someone stealing from you in the real world.

Not much. I can't keep a constant watch over my property. If someone chose to, they could easily enter it when I am not there. Nothing is stopping them.


The internet still relies heavily on the outside world to be its aggressor, so it hasn't been able to achieve complete disassociation from the real world to be considered as anarchaic as you suggest.

I don't see how the internet relies upon the "outside world" to agress so much. The various governments are inserting their noses into the net in an attempt to consolidate their control over society, but the various users of the net are resisting them.

[Architectonic]

Like creationists, the basis of these arguments lies in "revealed truth" and a blind hope for some higher meaning.

This is totally ironic coming from you.


Many of the questions you ask can be asked about your own values and beliefs. If anything, you are simply proving the fallability of all human systems, whether it involves a centralized government, a church or simply a free market capitalist system.



But I kind of like blind hope for some higher meaning. :ph34r:

[Robespierre]

This is totally ironic coming from you.

I don't see how.


Many of the questions you ask can be asked about your own values and beliefs.

Indeed they can, but I am not the one attempting to force others to fund my own values. That is specifically what coercive government does, it takes the values of some, and imposes them upon another, at their own cost.


If anything, you are simply proving the fallability of all human systems, whether it involves a centralized government, a church or simply a free market capitalist system.

How does my rejection of creationist though demonstrate a failure of individual liberty?


But I kind of like blind hope for some higher meaning.

Obviously.

[Dman]

Society can now and has in the past existed without coercive centralized domination. The question is, what do you value, and how do you fit into your own model of social interaction? If you value "collective" decision making, as in voting, what will you do when the collective makes a decision that you find utterly objectionable? Many american democrats must be asking themselves this very question. Is the will of the hive always right? Even if the hive prefers to enslave some minority portion of itself?

What’s important to understand here is WHY these societies were not sustainable and/or why they eventually came to represent what we see today. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I’m curious as to what your beliefs are about this.

Do you think it was simply due to some evil agenda that a group of people decided they wanted to become government officials and rule the world? Or was it a much more rational, natural progression simply reflective of human nature? Not every human being wants to be individualistic in every sense of the word, so in a way, the only way to go back to a purely individualist society that was sustainable would be to eliminate those who do not believe in pure individualism, no?

Furthermore, if more people are willing to live with a central gov rather than a purely individualist society, and the central gov ultimately holds more power, we’re kinda forced (by definition) to live this way, eh? And if that central gov provides a satisfying enough way of life to the majority, what hope is there to change that for something perceived as unpredictable? In other words if life is not miserable, and people actually enjoy their lives, why would they want to change that? If I feel I have enough opportunity to do/become whatever I would like that would cause me to enjoy my life, who cares about some idealistic way of life.

Does this leave the people who don’t believe that to be the case out in the cold? Sure. But so would the society that you propose. Those who did not like living that way would not have a choice. The only difference is that there just wouldn’t be one big institution to blame for all their problems.

True the will of the hive is not always right, but if it is wrong, like the market, it eventually corrects itself. Unlike the market, the ability exists to correct it at any time if the “hive” so chooses. And like the market, the “free hand” does not always treat people fairly either. The market is driven by human beings behavior, just like a democracy is.

[Hypnos]

The main problem I see with an anarchic gov't system is in dealing with externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality). In particular, a free market is predicated on surety of transactions, which requires the public good of law and order.

Also, how is a "spontaneous order" much different from a gov't cropping up? In the parliamentary system, the "system" is just the peaceful dissolution/installation of gov'ts.

[coffeezombie]

The main problem with anarchic governments is that cults of personality will always form eventually. Humanity is hardwired to have leaders and followers.

[Hypnos]

Ay, CZ -- it's about "legitimacy," isn't it? :mellow:

[coffeezombie]

Ay, CZ -- it's about "legitimacy," isn't it? :mellow:

Not sure what you mean. But removal of said "cults of personality" when they become intolerable to the general populace will always be needlessly violent without a legitimized form of democratic government.

[Hypnos]

I was thinking along the lines of why a controlling body popping out of anarchy on a regular basis wouldn't work -- they would be "illegitimate" in the sense that they would not be leaders of followers. Contrast with established parties in a democratic system.

[coffeezombie]

I was thinking along the lines of why a controlling body popping out of anarchy on a regular basis wouldn't work -- they would be "illegitimate" in the sense that they would not be leaders of followers. Contrast with established parties in a democratic system.

The problem is that people who believe in different leaders would be living in the same geographic areas, causing all kinds of chaos. Just imagine if all the different churches that exist in the United States were actual theocratic governments, for instance, to get an idea of what kind of chaos I am talking about.

[jetboots]

That article has many words and no pictures. pictures always make me want to read on. the title is interesting however. maybe in a few days ill get a chance to actually take a good glance

[Robespierre]

What’s important to understand here is WHY these societies were not sustainable and/or why they eventually came to represent what we see today. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I’m curious as to what your beliefs are about this.

Do you think it was simply due to some evil agenda that a group of people decided they wanted to become government officials and rule the world?

No. I am not a conspiracy theorist.


Or was it a much more rational, natural progression simply reflective of human nature?

All actions of humans are reflective of human nature.


Not every human being wants to be individualistic in every sense of the word,

Of course. So why should anyone force them to be individualistic?


so in a way, the only way to go back to a purely individualist society that was sustainable would be to eliminate those who do not believe in pure individualism, no?

Why? What do you refer to as individualism? I don't want to live in a uni-bomber shack. Is that what you guys think individualism is?


Furthermore, if more people are willing to live with a central gov rather than a purely individualist society, and the central gov ultimately holds more power, we’re kinda forced (by definition) to live this way, eh?

My point all along. Force. Politics is like a student council meeting, with guns.


And if that central gov provides a satisfying enough way of life to the majority, what hope is there to change that for something perceived as unpredictable?

Not much hope. The only route is through rational discussion. If I want an individualist society, my goal should be to convince as many people as possible that such a society would be superiour to our current one.


In other words if life is not miserable, and people actually enjoy their lives, why would they want to change that? If I feel I have enough opportunity to do/become whatever I would like that would cause me to enjoy my life, who cares about some idealistic way of life.

Idealists care.


Does this leave the people who don’t believe that to be the case out in the cold? Sure. But so would the society that you propose. Those who did not like living that way would not have a choice.

What choice would be eliminated? I diagree with you here. Any sort of social arrangement that doesn't involve coercion is possible. Unless you were asking if I was worried about upsetting murderers and theives..


The only difference is that there just wouldn’t be one big institution to blame for all their problems.

If that's the only difference, what do you have against it? Note: this is not the only difference.


True the will of the hive is not always right, but if it is wrong, like the market, it eventually corrects itself.

The most important point to get out of this, is that on the level you refer to, typical political issues, the hive can neither be right nor wrong. Only individuals can be right or wrong, as only individuals have values and take actions. It is not possible for the "hive" to make the right decision.


Unlike the market, the ability exists to correct it at any time if the “hive” so chooses.

What is the correct path for the hive to take?


And like the market, the “free hand” does not always treat people fairly either. The market is driven by human beings behavior, just like a democracy is.


Do the ends every justify the means?

[Robespierre]

The main problem I see with an anarchic gov't system is in dealing with externalities.

If property rights are recognized in all things where property is possible, the problem does not exist. The externalities argument was created to justify the further socialization of the US through massive regulation of private property.


In particular, a free market is predicated on surety of transactions, which requires the public good of law and order.

The market is ultimately capable of providing that surety, to a vastly greater degree than any government. Governments are tempted to, and often do, change the rules on the fly to suit their own interests. Lowering interest rates to speed up consumption, altering labor regulations to punish the competitors of well connected businessmen, etc etc.


Also, how is a "spontaneous order" much different from a gov't cropping up? In the parliamentary system, the "system" is just the peaceful dissolution/installation of gov'ts.

In a parliamentary system, the "system" is an auction of stolen goods in advance of parliamentary elections. The politicians make offers of goods stolen from a sizable minority, to the majority.

[Hypnos]

If property rights are recognized in all things where property is possible, the problem does not exist. [...]
Umm yeah -- not all entities (e.g., air quality) can be demarcated as property, even employing the Coase theorem.


[...]The externalities argument was created to justify the further socialization of the US through massive regulation of private property.
Arguing from adverse consequences doesn't make the original problem go away.


The market is ultimately capable of providing that surety, to a vastly greater degree than any government. Governments are tempted to, and often do, change the rules on the fly to suit their own interests. Lowering interest rates to speed up consumption, altering labor regulations to punish the competitors of well connected businessmen, etc etc.
None of the examples you give have anything to do with enforcing contracts, which is what I was referring to. The market can provide enforcement solutions, but without an ultimate authority the transaction cost goes up through risk of force or fraud.


In a parliamentary system, the "system" is an auction of stolen goods in advance of parliamentary elections. The politicians make offers of goods stolen from a sizable minority, to the majority.
This could occur under a nominal anarchy as well.

The real difference between anarchy (which is potentially fluid in its evolution) and some arbitrary state is that the latter presumes some moral authority or universal superiority on some other principle.

[Dman]

Why? What do you refer to as individualism? I don't want to live in a uni-bomber shack. Is that what you guys think individualism is?

Individualism as I was referring to it:


I consider both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists to be individualists, as they ultimately reject centralized coercive government in favor of self-rule.

Many people do not reject centralized coercive gov in favor of self-rule. They do not believe all people to be possible of abiding to the necessary standards required in a social system represented entirely by self-rule. For instance the belief that too many will lie, cheat, steal, and murder under a system of self-rule. Therefore, a society where many people desired a centralized coercive government to handle such things, and thus established such an authority, would not be able to exist in a purely individualist society because by nature they would eliminate it. Hence why I said the only way to go back to a purely individualist society that was sustainable would be to eliminate those who do not believe in pure individualism, no?


Not much hope. The only route is through rational discussion. If I want an individualist society, my goal should be to convince as many people as possible that such a society would be superiour to our current one.

Ok, I'm convinced it's superior. Now what?

FWIW I would take it one step further and make a reconciliation as to HOW it could become a reality rather than simply shaking up the establishment. People get jazzed up by cool ideas, but over time it fades as reality is pounded in day after day, and instead you end up with a bunch of jaded cynics.

I imagine you expect to get a bunch of flak from people simply rejecting your beliefs because they seem contrary to what most of us have had drilled into us from day one, but even so, there appear to be areas where it's quite a stretch to envision these ideas from ever happening in our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes, or even beyond. In order to convince people of ideals and systems that are quite extreme from what they are used to, there needs to be a firm foundation of reality built in. I suspect that is where most of the flak from the people who can see past the flaws of the existing systems is coming from. If I told everyone they could be financially independent without hurting anyone or doing any work, and had some good convincing arguments about it, I had better cough up a realistic, believable, actionable scenario or my audience will soon tune out and go back to watching Oprah. But - that's just my opinion.



What choice would be eliminated? I diagree with you here. Any sort of social arrangement that doesn't involve coercion is possible. Unless you were asking if I was worried about upsetting murderers and theives..

No bleeding heart here. I was referring to people who did not believe self-rule was the more favorable form, and wanted to form groups and establish a governing authority. Who would stop them? Would that choice be eliminated? It would start small, locally, and only deal with those who engaged in agreed upon unjust behaviors...

[Robespierre]

Umm yeah -- not all entities (e.g., air quality) can be demarcated as property, even employing the Coase theorem.

I didn't say that all entities can be demarcated as property. Ideas are a good example. However, air-space and air quality are physical things which can clearly be property. Only those things which are not scarce are not property. In most circumstances, breathable air is not scarce, and is not property. One's breathing of the air doesn't deprive another of breathing, and the act of drawing a breath is something that we do not do consciously. The need to breath does not take up our time as does our need to eat and drink, etc. Obviously, circumstances can change, and air can become scarce, like when someone wishes to change it in such a way as to make the previous uses impossible, ie polluting it. Then there is a need to delineate ownership.


Arguing from adverse consequences doesn't make the original problem go away.

Perhaps you should restate the original problem.


None of the examples you give have anything to do with enforcing contracts, which is what I was referring to. The market can provide enforcement solutions, but without an ultimate authority the transaction cost goes up through risk of force or fraud.

Incorrect. All examples I stated relate directly to the enforcement or nullification of contracts. Minimum wages are a perfect example. The minimum wage can be changed at any time, based upon the whims of lawmakers, which effectively eliminate any contract, implied or otherwise, between all employed at wages lower than the new minimum. The government chooses which contracts to enforce, and which to ignore or actively destroy. If the government is at least consistent in this, businesses can adjust and try to avoid damage, but they are not consistent. As I stated, the lawmakers use their power to benefit their contributors and friends by altering the status of contracts, making enforcement arbitrary.

[Robespierre]

Many people do not reject centralized coercive gov in favor of self-rule. They do not believe all people to be possible of abiding to the necessary standards required in a social system represented entirely by self-rule.

Bully for them. And?


For instance the belief that too many will lie, cheat, steal, and murder under a system of self-rule. Therefore, a society where many people desired a centralized coercive government to handle such things, and thus established such an authority, would not be able to exist in a purely individualist society because by nature they would eliminate it.

Well, I happen to believe that you cannot be trusted to use a computer. I believe that with my personal supervision, you will commit crimes and harm society. Am I now justified in breaking into your house with a gun and forcing you to accept my monitoring of all your computer related activities?


Hence why I said the only way to go back to a purely individualist society that was sustainable would be to eliminate those who do not believe in pure individualism, no?

By your standard, would we also have to accept murder and theft, as some people wish to committ those acts?


Ok, I'm convinced it's superior. Now what?

Now go forth and spread the good news.


FWIW I would take it one step further and make a reconciliation as to HOW it could become a reality rather than simply shaking up the establishment. People get jazzed up by cool ideas, but over time it fades as reality is pounded in day after day, and instead you end up with a bunch of jaded cynics.

Do you not see me as cynical?


No bleeding heart here. I was referring to people who did not believe self-rule was the more favorable form, and wanted to form groups and establish a governing authority. Who would stop them?

No one, unless they attempted to rule over someone who didn't wish to be ruled, in which case, that person would attempt to stop them.


Would that choice be eliminated? It would start small, locally, and only deal with those who engaged in agreed upon unjust behaviors...

I am not against cooperation! I fully understand that people will work together to reach goals, that is the whole basis of what I am saying. I believe there is a proper way for people to interact, a superiour way than what most people understand. When some small group gets together, and agrees to rule over their own property according to some set of rules they decide upon, that is their business, as property rights are absolute. If, however, they decide to rule over someone's property that they do not own, that person will likely resist them.

[Hypnos]

[...] Obviously, circumstances can change, and air can become scarce, like when someone wishes to change it in such a way as to make the previous uses impossible, ie polluting it. Then there is a need to delineate ownership.

Perhaps you should restate the original problem.
Ok, my challenge to you: devise a system of property for air quality that deters pollution (through torts or some other penalty). If you succeed, attempt to apply the system to water quality.


Incorrect. All examples I stated relate directly to the enforcement or nullification of contracts. Minimum wages are a perfect example. The minimum wage can be changed at any time, based upon the whims of lawmakers, which effectively eliminate any contract, implied or otherwise, between all employed at wages lower than the new minimum. The government chooses which contracts to enforce, and which to ignore or actively destroy. If the government is at least consistent in this, businesses can adjust and try to avoid damage, but they are not consistent. As I stated, the lawmakers use their power to benefit their contributors and friends by altering the status of contracts, making enforcement arbitrary.

a) The process is not entirely corruptible -- those wishing contracts to be enforced would pay a fee to the gov't, and so the gov't would have an incentive to "accept business." This is not the case currently, with income taxes, etc.

b) One can clearly delineate acceptable conditions under which the gov't can nullify contracts, e.g. in a state constitution, so as to minimize the purview of influence pedding. With a sufficiently tortuous path to change enforcement rules, businesses can enjoy stability. This is a far superior solution to attempting to enforce one's own contracts -- only the strongest groups would have effective contract authority, and their whims would vary far more wildly than that of a transparent, recognized state bound to a constitution.

[Robespierre]

a) The process is not entirely corruptible -- those wishing contracts to be enforced would pay a fee to the gov't, and so the gov't would have an incentive to "accept business." This is not the case currently, with income taxes, etc.

Pay a fee to what government?


b) One can clearly delineate acceptable conditions under which the gov't can nullify contracts, e.g. in a state constitution, so as to minimize the purview of influence pedding.

However, since only the state itself can interpret its own constitution, it will invariable decide in its own favor.


With a sufficiently tortuous path to change enforcement rules, businesses can enjoy stability.

Medical lisences, beauty lisences, building codes, etc etc etc all represent some form of market influence, which is almost always motivated by an industry insider, and which can be instituted and altered on the fly by the legislature or even appointed officials with little or no warning.


This is a far superior solution to attempting to enforce one's own contracts -- only the strongest groups would have effective contract authority, and their whims would vary far more wildly than that of a transparent, recognized state bound to a constitution.

Would you do business with a group, strong though they may be, who had a history of ignoring their contractual obligations?

Also, what binds a state to honor its contract with society, its constitution? Some forces like popular unrest perhaps, but in the end, they can do what they please.

[Hypnos]

Pay a fee to what government?
People providing order will have either something to gain by doing so (e.g., warlords) or will be paid professionals.


However, since only the state itself can interpret its own constitution, it will invariable decide in its own favor.
This assumes that the state is monolithic -- hence separation of powers in the US, which works fairly well.


Medical lisences, beauty lisences, building codes, etc etc etc all represent some form of market influence, which is almost always motivated by an industry insider, and which can be instituted and altered on the fly by the legislature or even appointed officials with little or no warning.
You don't need anarchy to eliminate these market intrusions.


Would you do business with a group, strong though they may be, who had a history of ignoring their contractual obligations?
I might not have a choice.


Also, what binds a state to honor its contract with society, its constitution? Some forces like popular unrest perhaps, but in the end, they can do what they please.
You forget that in a constitutional gov't, the gov't is composed primarily of the people -- the gov't would dissolve before popular unrest grew into revolution.

Two things:

* Gov't is not so much a cadre, but an organ. It can grow cancerous without the right corrections from the electorate.

* Have you been following the developments in Somalia? Anarchy seems to be "working" through the relatively peaceful cooperation of various warlords, who exact duties on inter-territory trade. There are skirmishes related to territorial disputes. Cell phone service is splendid, but clean water is spotty.

[Robespierre]

People providing order will have either something to gain by doing so (e.g., warlords) or will be paid professionals.

Always. People cannot be altruistic. Everyone acts to futher his own interests. However, more often than not, it is in the best interest of the individual providing the service to please the person paying for the service. This is the market force that allows free markets to succeed.


This assumes that the state is monolithic -- hence separation of powers in the US, which works fairly well.

I completely disagree. It clearly doesn't work, even judging by its own contract with the people, the constitution. Most of the expenditures of fedgov are on projects and adventures which are clearly not authorized by the constitution.


You don't need anarchy to eliminate these market intrusions.

How so? What else would you call a system in which the individual was sovreign over his own property?


I might not have a choice.

Why not?


You forget that in a constitutional gov't, the gov't is composed primarily of the people -- the gov't would dissolve before popular unrest grew into revolution.

Government is composed of people, not THE people, but some people, always. And it should be clear by now that the constitution doesn't mean shit to them.


Two things:

* Gov't is not so much a cadre, but an organ. It can grow cancerous without the right corrections from the electorate.

My argument is that no matter how healthy the organ originally, it will always develop cancer, always. Also, the service it provides is not needed.



* Have you been following the developments in Somalia? Anarchy seems to be "working" through the relatively peaceful cooperation of various warlords, who exact duties on inter-territory trade. There are skirmishes related to territorial disputes. Cell phone service is splendid, but clean water is spotty.

Not anarchy, chaos. They simply have smaller governments, gangs, roaming around causing havok. Post colonial societies are always basket-cases.

[Hypnos]

Robbespierre,

How would you distinguish anarchy from the chaos in Somalia?

You still propose a "system." Individuals banding together in fluid arrangements to defend the sovereignty of other individuals. This is awfully inefficient for two reasons:

* Externalities (a question I posited earlier, which you failed to address)

* Division of labor. Different defense propositions scale differently. In particular, it's very efficient to protect one's person or home with small arms, esp. considering the value of privacy. However, organized crime requires an organized response.

I would like to try Hong Kong's former gov't here in the US. What do you find flawed in this model?

[indie]

Indeed, s more and more uses of this resources are discovered, and more and more people enter the commons,

Isn't the concept of "the commons" a governmental concept? Don't governments determine what is "public property" and what is "private property"?


. . . it is not at all surprising to find increasingly costly externality problems arising. People want to use this resource to lower their costs of buying and/or selling goods and services, to transmit and store data, to communicate with friends and colleagues, and for entertainment, but some people also get pleasure from causing harm to others. The net is sufficiently large to support tremendous numbers of activities, but crowding (i.e., conflicting uses) is becoming an increasingly significant problem.

So scarcity *is* an issue. And how do governments deal with scarcity? How do anarchic people deal with scarcity?


An obvious example is spam. The "bulk-mailing" of large numbers of e-mails advertising viagra and other prescription drugs, pornography sites, and the huge array of other goods and services, crowd the internet, slowing traffic, and more importantly at this point, they crowd e-mail inboxes, raising the cost to recipients who do not want to deal with such "junk mail." As Stross (2005: 1) puts it, recipients of e-mail bear the costs: “It is nominally free, of course but it arrives in polluted form. Cleaning out the stuff once it reaches our in-box, or our Internet service provider’s, is irritating beyond words. This muck … is a bane of modern life.” A December 2004 survey suggested that internet users were spending an average of 10 working days per year dealing with spam, and at least some industry analysts estimate that the 2005 cost of spam to business due to lost productivity and additional network maintenance costs will be around $50 billion for the year (Zeller 2005:3). '"

So spam can be likened to the NIMBY [Not In My Back Yard] principle. Isn't it interesting that the "pollution" of spam created by the non-governed entities (corporations wishing to sell products who can do so with unregulated online advertising) seem to be a major source of cost to the consumers at the benefit of the businesses?

[joft]

I've found this post fascinating. I'll have to read the article.

I personally find the whole idea of people being ruled by a government so incredibly alien and insulting. The great presupposition behind it all is that people are incapable of maintaining order and making decisions without someone else telling them what to do (and enforcing it with power and threats)

[Hypnos]

I've found this post fascinating. I'll have to read the article.

I personally find the whole idea of people being ruled by a government so incredibly alien and insulting. The great presupposition behind it all is that people are incapable of maintaining order and making decisions without someone else telling them what to do (and enforcing it with power and threats)
Many individuals are capable of this; the point of libertarianism is simply to ensure that those who aren't pay for their own mistakes.

However, it's rare that groups can act in rational self-interest -- solidarity always succumbs to differing values and material interests. Hayek argued, successfully, that when too high a value is placed on solidarity, the worst kind of people rise to power.