Reddit Reddit reviews The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics & Finance)

We found 35 Reddit comments about The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics & Finance). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Books
Economics
Economic History
The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics & Finance)
Used Book in Good Condition
Check price on Amazon

35 Reddit comments about The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics & Finance):

u/[deleted] · 28 pointsr/politics

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but there is a book out called "the not so wild wild west". It points out that inspite of the movies, the wild west had extremely low crime rates. Better than in statist areas, better than what we have now.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

u/ChristopherBurg · 9 pointsr/Libertarian

There's actually a very interesting book titled The Not So Wild, Wild West that discusses this very topic. The Native Americans developed property rights for resources that were scarce. Fishing equipment, for example, was generally owned by a single person. Before the introduction of horses the Native Americans didn't divide hunting land because it wasn't feasible for them to destroy entire herds of buffalo. After the introduction of horses their hunting strategies changed and their ability to wipe out entire herds was realized. Tribes began marking out hunting territories using rocks with pained icons on them and defended the marked territories against other tribes.

In general property rights are nonexistent for super abundant resources. It isn't worth the time and effort to defend something that can be easily obtained anywhere. Property rights generally come in when a resource is scarce, at what point it is worthwhile to defend any claims to that resource.

u/xudoxis · 8 pointsr/bestof

And with the glut of pop-econ books on the market lately, now has never been a better time to start studying.

I recently met Peter Leeson at a talk about his book The Invisible Hook:The Hidden Economics of Pirates who gives a fascinating(and accessible) study of what piracy actually was and the incentives behind it(for example they weren't racist, they were remarkably democratic, and there was a reason they fostered that rough and tumble reputation).

If that isn't your cup of tea there is also The Not So Wild Wild West(whose authors I've also met) about how the Wild West reimagined on the silver screen is hardly more than just imagination(during a 50 year period associated with the "Wild West" you could count the number of bank robberies on your fingers[no toes]).

If you are looking for something a little more general you can pick up any number of History of Economic Thought books. My personal favorites are The Worldly Philosophers and Teachings of the Worldly Philosophers. The former of which gives an overview of the works of economists from Smith to Keynes(you'll have to pick up another book for history after 1950) with quotations from the original works. The latter switches the ratios of summary and quotations(its practically an anthology of greatest hits of economists with brief introductions).

I didn't get to meet Heilbroner, but he has spoken at the same economics club I met the others through(though long before my time).

u/UnfrozenCavemanLaw · 6 pointsr/Objectivism

>Look at the homicide rates in the old west of America, where there was little to no government intervention.

About that, the rate of murders in western towns was quite low according to records. For instance, the real town of Deadwood had fewer recorded murders in it's whole history than what they depicted in the first episode of the HBO show. Further reading I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

u/esdraelon · 6 pointsr/Libertarian

I think most modern anarchist thought regarding non-state security production does not formally rely on vigilantism (although this is a component).

Instead, there is a concentration on risk management via insurance and co-insurance. When you are robbed, there are two components:

  1. Psychological
  2. Fiduciary

    No one can make you whole on #1. No state, certainly.

    2 is a different story entirely. If someone steals your money or jacket, are you satisfied with only receiving your money and jacket, or equivalents? The insurance market is constructed to replace you, to indemnify you against loss. The concept from here is that competing insurers and co-insurers then make decisions regarding how much they will indemnify via cash, and how much via other loss-prevention mechanisms. These mechanisms may include private security, mobile panic buttons, neighborhood watch programs (join a program, get a discount on your premium), or any other of a number of solutions.


    Because we know that a private insurer has to remain profitable while satisfying customers, we know that the production and types of security provided will be appropriate to the market. That is, you will get the right kind of security at the right price. You won't get 10 cops in a town of 200 (mainly issuing traffic citations), while there are 100 for a town of 100,000 down the street (dealing with robberies).

    Additionally, you won't pay security companies to take unnecessary risks, since the security companies are liable for their employees. You won't see SWAT-style raids of weed dealers, or officers hanging around on highways looking to generate revenue. Only a state would offer services this inefficient.

    Really, there are whole books on this subject, including historical analysis such as the "Not So Wild West" (http://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543)

    A synopsis of the former here: http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

u/tableman · 5 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism
u/Washbag · 5 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism
u/fieryseraph · 5 pointsr/Libertarian

>Show me an example of a system like this working. I dare you.

https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Unbound-Self-Governance-Cambridge-Economics/dp/1107629705

https://www.amazon.com/Private-Governance-Creating-Economic-Social/dp/0199365164

https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hook-Hidden-Economics-Pirates/dp/0691150095

https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

https://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Not-Being-Governed-Anarchist/dp/0300169175

There is also a whole ton of economic literature out there about groups who resolve disputes using game theory, or long term contracts, things like that, instead of relying on a central governing body with a strong threat of violence.

u/beyond_hate · 4 pointsr/Libertarian

(funny I am having this exact conversation in another thread)

We are operating anarchistically every day. In many ways, we succeed in SPITE OF the state, rather than because of it. The vast majority of our choices are just made with voluntary, organic interaction. Organic is the keyword here because complex systems work best when allowed to find the best-path via "bottom-up" organization (for example, skin cells forming Voronoi patterns).

Economics, as the observation of human action, "maximizes value" because of these really fundamental mathematical truths. Even services like security and rights claims are better served by a system that can adapt both in context and efficiency like this.

EDIT:

For a good discussion of this, see Everyday Anarchy by Stephan Molyneux (written well before he became a weird race-realist nut and abandoned his own principles for some reason I dunno maybe just that he's getting old).

For a good discussion of how such a society has worked in the past, check out the not so wild wild west paper.

u/boona · 4 pointsr/Libertarian

Well there are instances where we had near anarchy such as the so called "wild west" which was one of the most peaceful times in human history.

Even the gold rush where many people (white, black, asian etc.) got together in a fiercely competitive and temporary environment, there were very few instances of recorded violence. Considering the circumstances and the fact that they were armed, it's quite astonishing to most people.

For more info you can read An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill the authors also have a book The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier.

u/scarthearmada · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

>and they tend to forgot about things like roads, street lights, stop signs, school zones, police, fire departments, etc.

Do you know there are places where these things are already provided by the private sector? There already are private police and security forces, private and volunteer fire departments, privately maintained roads, private courts of arbitration and so on... and I'm not referring to Somalia. I'm referring to places in the western world, here in the United States.

>just that I thought this was already tried and what ended up was the wild wild west and robber barons.

Give this and this a read some time. "I thoughts" don't mean much if you've only approached the issue from one perspective.

u/E7ernal · 3 pointsr/intj

I'd say that the closest thing to anarchism is probably ancient iceland, where you could pick your chieftain, who would serve as your arbiter and would enforce law on you, and you could switch at any time. Crime rates were extremely low.

However, it was not anarchist. It did have some elements of polycentric law, and that's about as close as we can get in that regard.

I think the "not so wild wild west" was as close as you can get in the modern age. There is a book called The Not So Wild Wild West (http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543) which is a fantastic read about the myths of the frontier west.

u/tom_buzz · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Homeless people do not automatically go to jail.

I really am not following the idea that capital requires tax, it makes no sense whatsoever. Just because so far everything approaching modern capitalism has occurred since the 1700s (in which time the state was already established) then you can't say that therefore since capitalism is younger than the state and always coexisted with it, therefore it requires it, it doesn't necessarily follow. It's a classic case of "correlation is not necessarily causation."

There were actually parts of the american west where capitalism actually existed for a period of decades without there being any state representatives or presence in those unincorporated areas. The settlers expanded quicker than the state was able.

So in actual fact you're incorrect in that assertion that it's "never happened before."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

I won't be replying any more because I have things I need to finish before bed.

u/Unwanted_Commentary · 3 pointsr/GoldandBlack

The realistic answer is that private property is defined as "that which you can defend." If you have an apple tree in your front yard, the assumption is that a small percentage of that fruit will be taken by sojourners since guarding it 24/7 would be impractical and would not be cost effective. Likewise if you claim to own 10,000 acres of land but squatters occupy 1,000 acres, realistically only 9,000 of those acres are your property. Socialists would be totally okay with this if they had any semblance of ideological consistency or pragmatism.

But obviously private property as a construct is necessary for society. So in an anarcho-capitalist society people would take measures to secure their property in a communal fashion, i.e. arbitration and hired security guards. It would be similar to the system that early settlers had in Texas where the "homeowners association" you would willingly join would essentially fulfill all purposes that the government does. And it was very effective by the way.

u/aduketsavar · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Anthony De Jasay is one the most smartest yet underappreciated libertarians I guess. Just look up on his books. Besides that Edward Stringham and Peter Leeson are important figures. I always liked Bruce Benson's works. You should also read his article enforcement of property rights in primitive societies

This article on wild west is excellent. It's based on their book Not So Wild, Wild West

I mentioned Peter Leeson, his article on pirates An-Arrgh-Chy is a different perspective on organization outside the state, his book on same subject, The Invisible Hook is a must read. Also his article on Somalia, Better off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse is perfect.

And this is another article on law and justice by Bruce Benson.



u/Independent · 2 pointsr/answers

Thankyou for the link. I appreciate it. I don't know about Medievil Iceland, but to use the American Old West a bastion of free market trade is beyond absurd. If you're interested, I can explain that comment in detail. For now, suffice it to say that the person most responsible for starting that myth is one Terry L. Anderson who is a tool of the ultra rightwing Hoover Institute that has argued for privatization of all federal lands and privatization of Indian lands as well. Nevermind the fact that he completely ignores the genocide of the Native Americans in his paper that led to his book on how tame the Old West was (for rich white people). That wiki should probably be edited for clarity.

u/panick90 · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

Since I don't know exactly what aspect of movies you are talking about, I will just give a general answer.

Movies and popular conception is mostly wrong, the wild west was not so wild. Just because there was no government, did not mean there where no laws. Different groups organised them-self in different way in order to solve the problems that normally a policy or a government would solve.

The wild west is one of the primary things studied when economics, or political scientists study what is called self enforcing contracts and anarchy. I'm not really a expert on the wild west but I have studied the topic of anarchy a bit. My main source for the wild west is this book:

u/nickik · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

You can not look at things like that in a vacume. The rules of the game very much depend on local situation. If you want to see how this can work, the american west has many good examples. The devopment of mining right for example were very complicated and specific to that situation. The cattle farmers handle there property rights in a diffrent way.

There is not one way of doing everything, the hole point of anarcho capitalism is that you allow a broad range of possible solution and people wo can come up with workable solutions.

Check out the book: The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (http://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543/ref=sr_1_1)

u/djrocksteady · 1 pointr/Libertarian

I only made a bad joke because your last comment seemed like it was supposed to be funny but came off as stupid.

Anarcho-capitalism is not based on a rational choice theory or market equilibrium theory or any of that nonsense.

Examples of voluntary governance are terms of service agreements, break the terms and lose the service.

Decentralized justice has happened in history, if you look up the history of the American west you might have a little better imagination regarding these scenarios. This is a good start
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0804748543

Anarcho-capitalism depends on nothing more than the non-aggression principle and free trade.


> what happens when I break the rules but choose not to be governed. Or shoot someone and then ride to the next town..

That would only be possible in some sort of lawless zone, if you break the rules in one zone, you will be prosecuted no matter where you hide I would imagine, just like it is done today.

u/Patrick5555 · 1 pointr/TrueReddit

>wild west anarchism


Not lawless

u/australianaustrian · 1 pointr/SubredditDrama
u/DVHeld · 1 pointr/AskLibertarians
  • Property rights enforcement: Americans have examples of this. Read The Not So Wild Wild West for a bunch of examples (cattleman's associations, miner claims, etc.). Basically a mix of self-defense, private/communal Sheriffs and Marshalls, private courts (like medieval English tort law), private insurance agencies, private guards, and some other stuff. In many cases there might not even be a need for this because of extremely low crime, but the exact mix of means would vary dependent on context, culture and preferences.

  • Private courts. There are plenty of current and historical examples of this, including the aforementioned medieval English private courts that handled torts.

  • "National" Defense: First, there is no "preventing". Crime can't be perfectly prevented, and the same goes for an invasion. Prevention has a cost and there is such a thing as "too much resources devoted to prevention". What exactly that means can only be decided in the market, the same as with production of any other good and service.
    Second, it's extremely rare for a State to invade a territory that has no State. Almost always an invasion occurs in order to attack another State. But it can happen, so it's perfectly reasonable to ask what would happen in that case. As there is no "country" to be defended, with a defined territory, one has to think a bit differently about this. To me, it's basically the same as dealing with regular crime, but on a bigger scale, so basically one could extrapolate from there and imagine associations between security firms, insurance companies, etc., more or less similar to a joint venture, but with the purpose of pooling resources and expertise in order to deal with a bigger aggressor instead of for dealing with a bigger investment project. For this kind of businesses (and property owners, etc.) defense against an invading army would basically be very similar to a business investment, maybe seeing it in that way helps you to think about this problem.
u/tenthirtyone1031 · 1 pointr/Documentaries

Check out:

The Not So Wild West

The Invisible Hook

The Private Production of Defense

The Myth of the Rational Voter

I would also recommend Robert Nozick's "Tale of the Slave" since it can be youtube'd and is only about 2 minutes long.

If you like long, heavy reading with huge citations Hoppe is great for that. I'm a lighter reader and I prefer the younger authors, hence pirates. Bryan Caplan is a nice in between author. He's deep but can take you down that rabbit hole with him.

RE: Pirates killing and plundering. A standard deal on the high seas was surrender and you'll be spared, dropped off at the next port. Forced conscription happens now. "Shanghai'ing" is alive an well. I agree, it's wrong. Obviously it's not a tenant of anarcho capitalism but that's why the civic appeals to me. It isn't selling utopia.

u/TrustThyself · 1 pointr/history

Not too likely. This well-researched book addresses your question in detail:

https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

If you don't want to drop the coin for it at least read the description to be exposed to a different perspective than is often parroted in mainstream culture (as visible on this thread).

Also, you can find reviews of the book and other content by the authors on the subject via your favorite search engine.

u/panick21 · 1 pointr/AskEconomics

If you are interested in resources I would highly recommend the PERC (Property and Environment Research Center). They try to take these ideas from Coase, Ostrom and others and try to apply them to real live environment situations.

> https://www.perc.org/about-us
> here a video with one of the main guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBcpal2le2Y

I would also recommend 'The Wild Wild West' a book about resource management in the West of the US before the government arrived. It is exactly what you are looking for.

> https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

I'm reading 'Elinor Ostrom: An Intellectual Biography' right now, that might interest you as well, but its more a overview over here hole research program. A bit more depth would be 'Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development: The Bloomington School'.

If you are more interested in case studies I would look at the individual papers by her and her students. Many of them are comparison between different resource management systems.

You might be also interested in something like 'The Parable of the Bees: Beyond Proximate Causes in Ecosystem Service Valuation'.

I would invite you to extend your research a bit. Collectively shared resources are only part of broader research on stateless interactions. You can also look at the law, law enforcement, court systems, defence and others.

> I'm interested in reading about how different groups have collectively shared resources without the state or market.

I would suggest to that what free market people talk about when they they say 'market' they include these kinds of common property systems. When they talk about a market solutions that includes thinks of that nature.



u/superportal · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

This is pretty good...

The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics & Finance)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

u/jscoppe · 1 pointr/funny

>devolve back to the old west

The "Wild West" is a myth propagated by historically inaccurate John Wayne movies. The real old west was painfully boring and quiet (though difficult), which doesn't make for good cinema.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

>a few arbitrary laws that we can agree upon.

What if we can't agree upon them?

u/YesYesLibertarians · 1 pointr/reactiongifs

Hmm, this answer doesn't address the conflict of interest the state has in being both the adjudicator and the prosecutor in matters between itself and others. Maybe the undefined ordering principle takes care of it and there's nothing to worry about. Still sounds like a superstition to me, but what do I know coming from the wild west where everybody is literally shooting everyone else all the time? We've gotten really good at treating bullet wounds but it's an exhausting way to live.

I wonder why we don't use this monopoly-taming ordering principle for other things we rely on, like communications systems, airlines, automobile manufacturing, or pet food. Seems like it could eliminate overproduction, get rid of unnecessary competition and bring order to a chaotic market.

u/Chris_Pacia · 1 pointr/btc

So I recently read this book https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

Which provides a pretty good case study of anarchism in practice. People moved out west in the United States before governments and despite Hollywood portrayals of the West as a lawless place, people were able to create a number of informal institutions that keep the peace and allowed people to thrive and flourish.

u/wordboyhere · 0 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

I took APUSH and did well. It's come and go. If you have a good teacher and a good textbook, it can be a great course. Unfortunately, that almost always does not happen (IMO High school history departments are terrible and completely watered down).

Personally, my APUSH experience consisted of A LOT of bad economics. I mean crazy things like free trade leading to the recession of 1819, child labor laws ending child labor, unions solely reducing work weeks, a free banking era that glossed over state charters, the evil nature of robber barrons and union-crushers, and the fiscal conservativsm of Hoover (hint: He started the stimulus, used the RFC to give loans to farmers and businesses, started the Hoover Dam, and had regulations like the glass steagal act passed under his term). There was essentially no mention of monetary policy, what I perceive as one of the biggest drivers of financial and economy history in general(See: A Monetary History of the United States).

I don't remember, but sometimes people see the wild west as wild. That's just not true.