> I think there is a natural system of balance found in a true free market. When thinking about longer term ideas such as climate change it is ultimately up to

> I think there is a natural system of balance found in a true free market. When thinking about longer term ideas such as climate change it is ultimately up to the average desire of the population of comsumers as a whole. Even though this has shortcomings I think it is a more "fair" system because it is just a reflection of the psyche and desire of the people and not a controlling party or politburo. Not when capital is not spread out evenly enough. And even then, larger capital will eventually eat smaller ones and then influence gov't and risk invoking a demagog like Trump (oh we already did huh). These mega corp that are controlled by groups of people called executives will do everything to influence the opinion and desire of the people into their favor. The people barely able to feed themselves will have no time to think about climate change. This is _practically_ the same as a controlling party. The idea of owning a piece of the earth to yourself (and inherited by your descendant) is ridiculous anyway. Resources of our planet is limited. Usable land is limited. Our population grow by the day exponentially. What happens to those who don't have access to these resources and barely have a livable life? Do you expect them to care about climate change? Now you might call me some labels since this idea is not compatible with capitalism and free market, but I would appreciate a thoughtful reply to my questions in this paragraph.