[eugenekop]

In an anarchical society, why should people devise ways to defend against a meteor hit? There are huge positive externalities in this case. If you developed a nuclear bomb that will strike a meteor and divert it from its orbit, everyone on earth will benefit. So there are extremely weak incentives to do this without taxes. It might cost 1 billion to develop such weapon. Why would anyone want to be the sucker who does it for the sake of everyone else?

[Melodramatic]

Well first thing first I assume a lot of people will pay in given case due to lack of other options. but lets assume people will prefer to drink to infinity than help save human society. Second, there is a natural reason to help the collective, both do to gratitude towards it (especially if its a socialist collective) and necessity of its existence (you want the civil world to exist, for your own sake). Buts lets assume total egotism.

As I see it, there is always the option making leeching a much worse option using communal means. Almost all humans are dependent on the collective to some level, from police to health-care to the very basic supply of food. This means that if the majority of people agree to a set of "laws" they can "force" them on the whole of society with a threat of excommunication, of alienating individuals who do not follow them (including breaking said laws by breaking the excommunication), without the use of violence.

It might cost 1 billion to develop such weapon.

So 1/6 dollars to help save the world? I would be in (even for much, much more)... but as said some people might prefer beer...

Why would anyone want to be the sucker who does it for the sake of everyone else?

Basic humanity?

[Zyx]

I do not think that this is a valid line of criticism; few governments, if any, have ever detonated a nuclear bomb on a meteor, yet no one criticizes them on these grounds. Silly question.

[Melodramatic]

^ how many nuke requiring meteors have we had lately?

[Zyx]

Since the age of nukes, to my knowledge, none. But why are you asking me this?

[Melodramatic]

So how is it relevant that no government has done such before? They can, theoretically, and there is little reason to think they won't... The question is whether anarchist non-state will be able to act similarly...

[eugenekop]

So how is it relevant that no government has done such before? They can, theoretically, and there is little reason to think they won't... The question is whether anarchist non-state will be able to act similarly...

I think the chances are a lot smaller. If the threat is real and eminent it might act, but I assume governments would have acted long before that. Governments can do things with significant positive externalities a lot faster and a lot better.

[Eran]

Governments can do things with significant positive externalities a lot faster and a lot better.

Governments can equally (or, much more than equally) do things with significant negative externalities a lot faster and a lot better. Wars come to mind.

In a free society, somebody will set up a fund towards the detection and elimination of meteors. Some people will contribute money to the fund. If enough people care sufficiently about the risk of meteors, enough of them will contribute for action to be taken. If not enough people care sufficiently about the risk of meteors, what makes you think democratic governments will do anything about them?

[Typhoon]

If not enough people care sufficiently about the risk of meteors, what makes you think democratic governments will do anything about them?

Very few people do which is why we have no realistic defence against such a thing, in all likelyhood we will never see it coming in time because we have not developed a system capable of continually monitoring and tracking such objects in space around us. That said the level of organisation required and costs (not just financial) to be adsorbed would make me skeptical that anarchical society would be better at dealing with the issue.

[U184]

Doing a big boom on a meteor is a BAD idea. Most meteors are smaller and larger pieces held together by their own gravity. Said detonation, would not evaporate the mass, just blow some bits out and other larger bits will recompile.

The above reasons is why NASA looked so closely at Eros and did the Deep Impact asteroid studies. The findings have been: Early detection of Near Earth Orbital bodies is key, then should any such obstacles become a threat, several probes with propulsion capabilities will be sent to "nudge" said obstacle off course.