You do realize that your "Anarcho-capitalist" solution describes the EPA's history. Precisely the moment when the US Government declared ownership of the Mississippi River, and all federal lands under its protection.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/652

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_National_River_and_...

Your solution is really called "internalizing the externality", and a near hundred-year-old analysis can be found in Coase's Theorem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

Your solution requires "some entity" to create the concept of ownership, and then sell pieces of the shared resource to other people. You ensure that an owner exists for every part of the river, and then you get an economically optimal solution.

But WHO declares ownership? WHO enforces this ownership? If you believe in "private protection agencies" and "private courts", it is obvious that ownership of "The River" should be settled in the "private courts".

Eventually, you start building an entity functions exactly like the current US Government (except you use Libertarian friendly words to describe it). So please, describe to me a technique that isn't currently being used by the US Government to solve the problem of Externalities. Otherwise, you end up just describing our current Governing philosophy.

That's fine. I don't care about convincing you. I care about convincing people who have the same perspective on individual freedom that I do that are reading this thread.

I guess if there's no convincing you, then your open-mindedness claim dies with this discussion.

Toodle-oo.

Your solution was valid. The problem is, you didn't realize that the US Government already is doing what you're describing.

You're calling me close minded, when YOU are the one walking away from this conversation. As I said, you gave a valid solution, but this solution you're talking about requires a Government.

But if you don't feel like discussing it... sure, c ya later. I will say that this is the first time someone has called me "close minded" for calling their solution analogous to one of the most economically stable solutions known.

I appreciate you haggling over the definition of government. The difference between a government and a private entity in this situation is that the government can force you to pay taxes to pay for this river management whether you interact with the river or not, or else you get imprisoned. On the other hand, if you don't want to interact with the private owner of the river, then you don't have to. The world is round; go the other way. The river is only so long; go around it. The river is on the surface of the planet; fly above it.

Now, I have NOT said that I subscribe to a full-on anarcho-capitalist system; I mainly understand the theory behind it, and think that it makes the best theory ON WHICH TO BASE A PRACTICAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. I do think government is needed for some things. I'm a huge fan of our original form of government in the US, namely federalism — though I'd have some cuts I'd make there too.

And I mainly felt like leaving this conversation because you seemingly try to insist that I don't know what I'm talking about. I do know what I'm talking about. Just because you don't agree with me, or you feel you've thought about this more than me doesn't make it so.

Did you even watch the video of Milton Friedman on market failures? He left it open at the end to say there are times where government might be best, but you cannot immediately and automatically say that government is better — which is exactly what the progressive movement in this country tends to claim.

If you and I agree that pure theoretical forms of government have flaws, then we are in agreement.

This subthread started because someone disagreed with the following words: "Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect."

I hold no qualms against Anarcho-capitalism, especially today as deregulation laws are beginning to show promise (New Jersey has some deregulation laws that seem to improve upon utilities like power and gas). It is when a purist comes up, and claims that it is the solution to all problems that I become a bit antsy.

Sometimes, Deregualtion is the key to solving problems. Other times, we need regulation. Pick and choose the philosophy for the situation, there is no silver bullet.

Glad we could find common ground here.

What about my distinction in your definition of government? You seemed so adamant about the fact that a private owner and our current government are the same, effectively. I thought I gave a reasonable response to that claim. You didn't continue that line of debate in your response, though.

Remember your world history. The East India Company was a publicly held stock by merchants and aristocrats. They were completely unrelated to the crown. That didn't change the fact that they were the de facto rulers of India (complete with a standing army and navy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Companies can become Governments rather quickly. The difference between Companies and Governments is that there is none. The US Government is simply one of the largest companies created on this land.

The US Government has also claimed monopoly privileges on armies and police force. Within the lands that the US Government owns, no other groups of people can organize an army. Basically, Companies and Governments are all the same thing. They are a collection of people, attempting to work together for some abstract purpose.

Besides, the US Government has adopted anarcho-capitalism before. Calvin Coolidge's quote: "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business."

I'd say, Calvin Coolidge probably did more for the Anarcho-capitalist cause than any thought experiment revolving around an Anarcho-capitalist utopia. A heavy pusher of deregulation and a "Hands Off" approach to governing.

Certainly, Calvin Coolidge was less oppresive to the American population than the East India Trading Company was to the Indians.

I guess in practice I don't disagree with you, if your definition of government is "anything that can fully oppress you". Sure, our government is an organization that has the ability to take away our self-claimed rights. The whole point that our founding fathers set out to achieve was to give government so little power, and to check the power it did get, so as to allow people to live free of government coercion. But no, people decided along the way that we needed to make government bigger, and here we are.

I have yet to understand where you're going with this. If companies inevitably become so powerful that they become governments, then letting the sitting government regulate them is inconsequential; takeover is inevitable! Let's just all eat worms and die!

No. I think the original thinking during the age of reason makes more sense to me. I think that the people truly hold the power, and as long as we don't give up our inalienable rights to governments (in whatever form they exist), and be sure to always question and hold suspect the people we put into the collective positions of power, then we'll be ok.

Don't forget that the limited liability that we give corporations is a government-granted right. That's one of the major reasons we have issues with large companies.

(I'm not going to get into a debate about Coolidge. I think he was a great President, truly the last of his kind — though even he had his moments of growing government.)