20 sats \ 5 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 13 Nov \ parent \ on: Wanted: Critics of Austrian Economics econ
They deny the state is needed to enforce property rights. They presuppose enforceable property rights but who does the enforcing may be where they differ. Externalities are not market failures according to the theory. Externalities are enforced on the market by the state’s interference. After all, a tort is a tort unless protected by the state.
I think this is where I would differ. Historically, I just don't see much precedence for functional markets that weren't in some way backed by state enforcement of property rights. It seems like a utopian vision to think otherwise.
And I don't think I understood your point about externalities. What is the Austrian solution to a factory that dumps pollutants into a river upstream of a village?
reply
Iceland had no state but had property for about 1,000 years. Property rights were enforced by society in general.
Sue the bastards!!! A tort is a tort is damage done to someone else. Lawfully you can recover damages done to you.
reply
Doesn't a lawsuit presuppose a court of justice which presupposes a state?
Maybe we are defining state differently. "Enforced by society in general" sounds a bit like a public entity of some kind
reply
No it doesn’t. Common Law courts are not state driven. Courts of justice came before the state.
Enforced by society in general means enforced by the individuals in that society. No public entity needs exist.
reply
Do you have some reading material about this?
To me it seems ahistorical to suggest that there were widespread courts and property rights systems that existed without either explicit or implicit (i.e. tribal chieftain; religious order; etc) frameworks of state power, but maybe I am just not well read enough on history.
reply