Tweet
Okay, let's clarify a couple of things:
1) When I wrote "assuming there is no law against it" I meant that there are some things that a particular society might consider so detrimental overall that they collectively decide to outlaw it. An example might be someone trying to sell heroin or a bioweapon. Each country would have different laws. What might be okay in one country (e.g. marijuana) might be strictly prohibited in another. I've yet to meet a Libertarian who thinks there should be no laws.
2) Something that increases value to an individual also increases overall value to the country. Billions and billions of tiny, voluntary transactions will incrementally increase the overall value to the society.
No person or group of people are capable of determining on a case-by-case basis if any particular transaction is of value to the society as a whole. How would it be possible to determine this?
The only way we can know is by the revealed preference of people spending their money on goods and services at various price points. For example, if John Doe spends $500 on a widget it is reasonable to conclude that he values the widget more than the $500. If he didn't buy the widget yesterday at $600 it is also reasonable to conclude he values the widget less than $600. The value to Doe of the widget can only be determined by how he chooses to spend his money. There is no other way, is there?
And sure, there will be misjudgments as businesses misallocate capital. Even experts in their specific fields make errors. There is no system that can solve that problem, nor would we want to, imo. Without making these errors society also misses out when companies create things whose approximate net value isn't determined until decades later.
1) When I wrote "assuming there is no law against it" I meant that there are some things that a particular society might consider so detrimental overall that they collectively decide to outlaw it. An example might be someone trying to sell heroin or a bioweapon. Each country would have different laws. What might be okay in one country (e.g. marijuana) might be strictly prohibited in another. I've yet to meet a Libertarian who thinks there should be no laws.
2) Something that increases value to an individual also increases overall value to the country. Billions and billions of tiny, voluntary transactions will incrementally increase the overall value to the society.
No person or group of people are capable of determining on a case-by-case basis if any particular transaction is of value to the society as a whole. How would it be possible to determine this?
The only way we can know is by the revealed preference of people spending their money on goods and services at various price points. For example, if John Doe spends $500 on a widget it is reasonable to conclude that he values the widget more than the $500. If he didn't buy the widget yesterday at $600 it is also reasonable to conclude he values the widget less than $600. The value to Doe of the widget can only be determined by how he chooses to spend his money. There is no other way, is there?
And sure, there will be misjudgments as businesses misallocate capital. Even experts in their specific fields make errors. There is no system that can solve that problem, nor would we want to, imo. Without making these errors society also misses out when companies create things whose approximate net value isn't determined until decades later.
Comment