One thing I’d like to point out though is that technology is going to bring us closer and closer to the point where any one person has the potential to cause cataclysmic effects. You cite the example of one suicide bomber killing hundreds of people… but what if it gets easier, and easier, and easier to kill?

For example, consider what will happen when biotechnology reaches the point where we can manufacture our own germs from open-source DNA data transferred over the internet. What would you do if someone released a new germ, never before seen, that killed 1M people over a weekend? It’s not as far-fetched as it seems… we are on the verge of creating life from data as we speak. Or take nanotechnology… in 2 or 3 decades it will be possible, according to Ray Kurzweil, to create self-replicating robots smaller than the eye can see. Computer “viruses” will not have the same innocent meaning at that point. These nanobots could pose an existential threat to humanity, and potentially all of life.

Anyway, I’m not saying that I have an answer, but I’m throwing that out there to consider. I think freedom is wonderful, but it must always be linked with responsibility. And in society, that means regulation (e.g. you must get a driver’s license before you can drive; you have to get a pyrotechnic license before you can buy explosive chemicals; you have to have a pilot’s license before you can fly, etc.)

I’m totally with you on the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” and Habeas Corpus (fair trial w/ representation). The part I’m starting to wonder about is what kinds of measures we must take to prevent catastrophic events.

You could kind of look at it this way: because of technology, “freedom” means something different today than it did 100 years ago. A person was not free to develop chemical weapons 100 years ago—the possibility did not exist. A person was also not free to press the “intercontinental ballistic missile” button on the dashboard of a u-boat. So… I guess what I’m thinking is that with this new freedom it may be necessary to curb some freedoms that we have always thought of as inviolable.

I’m totally sounding like a fascist Cheney now. Dang. What do you think?

Also, I think it’s important to be careful with the idea of technology “changing” the assumptions of either one. Though I think technology facilitates VOLUNTARY cooperation in an unprecedented way, I don’t think it does anything to improve government-imposed socialism.

Much of our current foreign policy is based on assumption that technology now empowers the “bad guys” to attack us like never before (with nukes, anthrax, chemicals, airplanes, etc). It is also the justification for robbing us of Constitutional liberties through things like the Patriot Act. They argue that the bad guys are just to sophisticated for the government not to tap our phone lines. The Republicrats think that because the bad guys have the technology now to wipe out hundreds of people with one suicide bomber, we can no longer afford to take a chance with them hitting us first. We “have to” initiate a preemptive strike. However, I think technology does nothing to change the fact that preemptive war and invasion of privacy are always wrong.

As with all debates, both sides have valid points:
- Markets work EXTREMELY well in many situations and intervention usually results in waste, inefficiency, and rarely fixes inequalities (think of the current corn subsidies for ethanol).
- On the other hand, markets do fail in many situations (think of air-pollution that will kill us if it isn’t regulated). Markets can also cause inequalities.

To understand this better, it is helpful to remember that Adam Smith’s model of perfect competition hinges on a few key assumptions:
- Zero transaction costs.
- Zero externalities.
- No public goods.
- Perfect information (for everyone).
- People are rational (they maximize their own profit and utility).
- Property rights are well defined and enforced (at no cost).
- All goods are divisible, homogenous, and mobile.

I don’t know of a single good that fits all of these assumption perfectly (I doubt one exists). BUT, there are many that come close–think food, clothing, etc. These goods are best left to markets.

Other goods, however, don’t even come close to meeting Adam Smith’s assumptions–think coal powered electricity (huge externalities), scenic vistas (public good), and countless other things. If Smith’s model of perfect competition were forced on these goods, it would certainly fail.

So when you talk about a balance between socialism and capitalism it seems that a recognition of which goods should be left to markets and which shouldn’t would be a big step in the right direction. Maybe your “capitalization on cooperation” will get us there.