>> This is true, but it also completely begs the question of how
>> _either_ of you come to own anything in the first place. No-one has
>> ever provided a satisfying explanation of how a person comes to
>> 'own' a given piece of land from a state of nature.
>
>Coase's work makes that completely irrelevant. In a sufficiently
>free market with sufficiently low tansaction costs, the optimal
>result will be found /regardless of initial distribution/. So why
>whine about how anyone came to own things originally? It doesn't
>matter; what matters is working on reducing transaction costs.
>
Yes, since past injustices are probably piled up pretty high in every
direction, the best thing to do to start off a libertarian society is
just START ENFORCING PROPERTY RIGHTS (equally for all) PROPERLY NOW, and
provided they are rigorously adhered to from this moment on, the (Pareto?)
optimal result will come about. (Meaning, basically, keep politics the
fuck out of economics, except for reasons with a *much* higher
"threshold" than are tolerated now.)
This is what's always struck me about Marx's conversion from classical
liberalism to socialism. The pro-propertied bias he experienced in the
legal system was an example not of liberalism working itself out but of
liberal principles not being adhered to. He must have already had an
*emotional* bee in his bonnet for such a weak reason to turn him.
Guru George