> access to the market must dominate The market itself is dependent on certain conditions for it to function. As a good example, take environmental efforts: so

> access to the market must dominate The market itself is dependent on certain conditions for it to function. As a good example, take environmental efforts: solutions "price in" the externalities of pollution and "close off" the loopholes that were previously used to skirt around the pollution cleanup. On the other hand, wind power is resisted by property owners who insist the energy company "price in" the intangible loss to their view, their property value, and they try to "close off" the loopholes the energy companies would use to skirt around a debate such as eminent domain or state mandates. The entire conversation gets ratcheted up to 11 because neither side listens very much to the other. Small neighborhoods listen to each other -- it's easy to become acquainted with a few people -- but big cities are blind to those around them because we get overwhelmed by the number of people. All I wanted to point out was that: Markets rely on good communication to find an agreement everyone can be happy with. Save the environment? Build wind power? More people moving to Austin? These are more indications of miscommunication and misunderstanding than anything else (in my opinion). This has further application to a lot of the news that appears on HN's front page each day. I'm not naive: full rapport of all parties is unlikely. But I find this paradigm often can explain what would otherwise appear to be senseless destruction by well-meaning people.