The problem, in my opinion, is that this is only Economics 101. During the last 50 years or so, economists found quite a lot of exceptions from the rules taught in this class.
What I find puzzling is that many American libertarians seem to be so intellectually lazy when it comes to Economics 102 if you can call it so. You may want to read "How markets fail" by John Cassidy to get an overview over the topic.
You may want to read Hume, again. "Is" cannot justify "ought". Given an "ought", though, economic theory tells us that we (as a society) will be willing to bear the economic costs for a particular policy based on ethical considerations.
Material wealth is not the only thing worth having.
> They turn the world into an "us" vs "them" environment, where it would be more optimal to have a "me" and "you" environment.
Yes, it would be nice to have an 'me' vs. 'you' environment, but that's not going to happen under any law. Read up on a good book on social psychology: It will always be 'us' vs. 'them'. Men and women, for instance, have opposite preferences when it comes to mating. Young women will always have different preference to old women when it comes to finding a mate. Young men will always have different preference to old men when it comes to distribution of wealth. And these are just the preferences inspired by sex.
What would you do when all the roads around your house are owned by old men who double the prices for usage because they can?
The problem, in my opinion, is that this is only Economics 101. During the last 50 years or so, economists found quite a lot of exceptions from the rules taught in this class.
What I find puzzling is that many American libertarians seem to be so intellectually lazy when it comes to Economics 102 if you can call it so. You may want to read "How markets fail" by John Cassidy to get an overview over the topic.
Here's a review by Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_47/b41560797...
> This isn't about right or wrong, it's math.
You may want to read Hume, again. "Is" cannot justify "ought". Given an "ought", though, economic theory tells us that we (as a society) will be willing to bear the economic costs for a particular policy based on ethical considerations.
Material wealth is not the only thing worth having.
> They turn the world into an "us" vs "them" environment, where it would be more optimal to have a "me" and "you" environment.
Yes, it would be nice to have an 'me' vs. 'you' environment, but that's not going to happen under any law. Read up on a good book on social psychology: It will always be 'us' vs. 'them'. Men and women, for instance, have opposite preferences when it comes to mating. Young women will always have different preference to old women when it comes to finding a mate. Young men will always have different preference to old men when it comes to distribution of wealth. And these are just the preferences inspired by sex.
What would you do when all the roads around your house are owned by old men who double the prices for usage because they can?
How much liberty will you have, then?