Certainly the regulation could be developed contractually by voluntary enforcement agencies in an anarcho-capitalist setting. And its in thinking about this sort of setting, that would help us formulate the better sort of rules. The rules can be made on the local level. But they must add clarity and be readily understandable in principle after the watching of a single DVD or the attendance of a single local seminar.
At all stages of intellectual thought it must be understood that the cronyists the house-trained neoclassicals, and other sly thieves ….. like the mutualists …. it is these people who are far more the enemy of reform then your normal Joe Punter who is rightly upset and suspicious about privatisation at the moment. In some areas a free society requires almost no regulation. But in other areas, particularly where infrastructure is concerned, a free society must have a great deal of regulation to protect all parties in advance. Here is why:
Right. But the worst enemy for this in my view is the neoclassical economic consultants. You try and talk to them and they have no sense of what you are talking about. They seem to be house-trained to gather all the assets together to have one deep-pocket auction that only the bigshots can involve themselves with. Then they want the communists to take a controlling interest in it. So its faux-Right triangulaters selling us out. They end up arguing that nationalisation by the communists is freedom.
To me publicly owned goods are un-owned goods and subject to homesteading principles. Not auction. But because there is some complexity involved with this idea in the modern era the conversation is terminated with ….. “homesteading doesn’t apply” and thats the end of the matter. Well its true that it doesn’t apply in the literal sense. But we expect people on the libertarian side to be more philosophical then that. Its my fellow economics graduates letting us down bigtime.
Its better to call a halt to privatisation right now since that forces a reassessment. See even Costa is a good guy. But he’s mired in free-to-choose economics. And his energy privatisation scheme was a pretty good one. But even letting that go ahead means we don’t get to tackle the problems that stop me from buying a chunk of land and building a small coal-electricity plant without having to argue about it. You must know in advance what you can and cannot do without any taxeater voicing his stupid opinion on the matter.
You see infrastructural goods are trans-spatial goods. Property titles for trans-spatial goods…. for ownership, sale, construction and investment in trans-spatial goods….. well its much more complicated then under freehold.
Now we have to solve all these problems so that one day, and as quickly as possible, that all these goods will be private. That way they represent REPRODUCING CAPITAL. Capital that creates revenue that leads to more capital that leads to falling prices.
As opposed to government capital that drains more from the system. Or crony capital where prices fall far slower than they ought and people pay themselves the big salaries and then go on to political power.
What this requires is that libertarians get happy with quite extensive regulation in one or two fields. Thats a big gear change.
There are two types of regulation. One that represents an initiation of force. But the other represents a clarification of property titles so that everyone knows where they stand and that there is no chance of having to settle it through the courts.
These regulations could be different for every State. Even different for each council. But they have to be of that nature of clarification, providing knowledge in advance.
For example. Imagine you have congestion charging. And imagine I want to dig up the pavement in front of your shop in order to put in optic fibres. Everyone needs to know in advance where they stand so that no schmoozing is involved at all. Just a notification to the council and to the congestion tax chargers and to your shop.
And it might be that If I close off the road I have to pay the lost congestion tax, and double the lost tax to the shop-owners. But this has to be clarified in advance and not a thing to do with schmoozing levels of government. The formula that I have to use to calculate compensation has to be there to protect me, and allow me to sum up costs in advance, no matter how unpopular I am.
So we’ve been going one way with wanting to get rid of the initiation of force. Now we’ve got to realise that while we must get regulations down to less than 1% the total number that are there now some matters need quite a handy amount of regulation. Freehold maybe one page of regulation. Pollution maybe a page and a small booklet of specs showing maximum levels. Banking half a page of principles. Maybe 18 pages of regulations, since these guys are going to try and cheat early on. Later we can cut that down still. But infrastructrue will require a book of regulations. Because you need to know in advance when you can tunnel under a road. Under freehold property. When you can build a bridge with a road over people. All that stuff and what the compensation will be. What circumstances can you exercise eminent domain. The idea is to set it up that eminent domain COULD BE exercised at a massive premium if the developer really really had to do it…… but that in practice it was almost never exercised. It might be a 500% premium. And only when he’s bought out most everyone else by exercising options at about 150%. But with these projects you need to know exactly in advance where it is you stand.