3 ms·

>I would say that trade and enforcement of contracts are what make our society civilized. That's a businessman's perspective; there are a lot of other players

by forinti 16y ago

>I would say that trade and enforcement of contracts are what make our society civilized. That's a businessman's perspective; there are a lot of other players and concerns in society. What about caring for the environment, enforcing better safety regulations, enforcing better work conditions, etc?

drcode 16y ago
> What about caring for the environment... I'm familiar with the "tragedy of the commons" issue but there just isn't any clear evidence that: More government spending -> better environment What do you think all this government money is going towards? A lot of it is used to run cars and do other things that hurt the environment. Do you think this whole "government stimulus" stuff made the environment better off? > ...enforcing better safety regulations... I won't argue with you that the government does a fantastic job creating more regulations of all kinds :) > ...enforcing better work conditions, etc? Again, the benefit of government here is tenuous. Sure, some things they do might help, but these benefits need to be weighed against the "opportunity costs" of what else could have been done with that tax money.
dpatru 16y ago
The environment is taken care of when it's privately owned. People take care of their own properties. Safety regulations and working conditions are improved via the free market and productivity increases and, to a much lesser extent, by the tort system which punishes unreasonable behavior.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  Someone modded you down and ran off, but I wish they'd stuck around to talk about whether the worst safety/environmental hazards have been traditionally associated with governments or corporations.
  - dualogy 16y ago
    Those who'd argue "corporations", usually mean big businesses operating in corrupt countries. They are right with their examples, say Shell in Nigeria or where was it -- but Government is usually involved too in these cases. From a pure capitalist point of view, there will always be isolated instances of short-term enterprises destroying the source of their wealth --- their river, land, fishing or hunting grounds --- but the ones that will logically prevail are those that protect and future-proof their resources for long-term wealth gains, especially when the investment is very high (talk about oil, mining etc.) so that the return on investment will need to be earned over decades. It is not in the interest of the farmer to devalue his land. It is not in the interest of the fisher to exterminate all fish. It may well be in the interest of global corporations to drain the natural resources of poor countries where the land is granted by the government rather than privately owned and only the short-term monetary gain matters to both parties. But libertarians also make a credible case that Big Corporations would have a much tougher time, and would be a lot smaller, in government-free or minimal-government environments.

by forinti 16y ago

drcode 16y ago

> What about caring for the environment... I'm familiar with the "tragedy of the commons" issue but there just isn't any clear evidence that: More government spending -> better environment What do you think all this government money is going towards? A lot of it is used to run cars and do other things that hurt the environment. Do you think this whole "government stimulus" stuff made the environment better off? > ...enforcing better safety regulations... I won't argue with you that the government does a fantastic job creating more regulations of all kinds :) > ...enforcing better work conditions, etc? Again, the benefit of government here is tenuous. Sure, some things they do might help, but these benefits need to be weighed against the "opportunity costs" of what else could have been done with that tax money.

dpatru 16y ago

The environment is taken care of when it's privately owned. People take care of their own properties. Safety regulations and working conditions are improved via the free market and productivity increases and, to a much lesser extent, by the tort system which punishes unreasonable behavior.

CamperBob 16y ago
Someone modded you down and ran off, but I wish they'd stuck around to talk about whether the worst safety/environmental hazards have been traditionally associated with governments or corporations.
- dualogy 16y ago
  Those who'd argue "corporations", usually mean big businesses operating in corrupt countries. They are right with their examples, say Shell in Nigeria or where was it -- but Government is usually involved too in these cases. From a pure capitalist point of view, there will always be isolated instances of short-term enterprises destroying the source of their wealth --- their river, land, fishing or hunting grounds --- but the ones that will logically prevail are those that protect and future-proof their resources for long-term wealth gains, especially when the investment is very high (talk about oil, mining etc.) so that the return on investment will need to be earned over decades. It is not in the interest of the farmer to devalue his land. It is not in the interest of the fisher to exterminate all fish. It may well be in the interest of global corporations to drain the natural resources of poor countries where the land is granted by the government rather than privately owned and only the short-term monetary gain matters to both parties. But libertarians also make a credible case that Big Corporations would have a much tougher time, and would be a lot smaller, in government-free or minimal-government environments.