3 ms·

Negative externalities should be regulated to some degree. Otherwise we could have a tragedy of the commons situation. I'm usually in favor of free market-infl

Negative externalities should be regulated to some degree. Otherwise we could have a tragedy of the commons situation. I'm usually in favor of free market-influenced methods such as taxing negative externalities and subsidizing positive ones. So instead of forcing a company to install solar panels, the city could provide a tax incentive for everyone in the city to do so. The overhead of managing that could become large though, so I understand why sometimes more small scale and direct individual negotiations can be good. >No, it's not a negotiation. Negotiation can occur between similarly empowered entities. There is no negotiation when one side has the power to lock the other up at gunpoint. They wouldn't say do this or you'll go to jail. They would say do this or we won't give you a giant tax cut. It would be unconstitutional to throw people in one company in jail for something that's fine for others to do.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#Constitutional_bans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#Constitution...

perryizgr8 6y ago
> They wouldn't say do this or you'll go to jail. They would say do this or we won't give you a giant tax cut. "Won't give you a tax cut" translates to "pay us a percentage of your earnings, otherwise we will throw you in jail." So, I'd like to disagree here and say my original assertion was accurate. > Negative externalities should be regulated to some degree. Otherwise we could have a tragedy of the commons situation. I am not convinced this applies here. Solar panels over the parking lot sounds like a solution to an invented problem. Parking lots are not harming the environment. If Samsung is paying for the land, they should be able to do whatever they like on that land as long as it doesn't harm someone else. This sounds like the typical anti-car communist mindset that I've seen many times over here on hn, which I find highly weird. Cars are probably the best innovation humanity has done in the entire history of the species, and I guess people are triggered by that fact?
- Thorrez 6y ago
  >"Won't give you a tax cut" translates to "pay us a percentage of your earnings, otherwise we will throw you in jail." So, I'd like to disagree here and say my original assertion was accurate. Your worst case scenario happens to all companies in the absence of the deal. So your argument seems to be more that taxes themselves are bad rather than the deal is bad. >I am not convinced this applies here. Sure, I might agree with you there. I was more replying to the part of your comment about removing all requirements that force companies to do things they wouldn't do themselves.

perryizgr8 6y ago

> They wouldn't say do this or you'll go to jail. They would say do this or we won't give you a giant tax cut. "Won't give you a tax cut" translates to "pay us a percentage of your earnings, otherwise we will throw you in jail." So, I'd like to disagree here and say my original assertion was accurate. > Negative externalities should be regulated to some degree. Otherwise we could have a tragedy of the commons situation. I am not convinced this applies here. Solar panels over the parking lot sounds like a solution to an invented problem. Parking lots are not harming the environment. If Samsung is paying for the land, they should be able to do whatever they like on that land as long as it doesn't harm someone else. This sounds like the typical anti-car communist mindset that I've seen many times over here on hn, which I find highly weird. Cars are probably the best innovation humanity has done in the entire history of the species, and I guess people are triggered by that fact?

Thorrez 6y ago
>"Won't give you a tax cut" translates to "pay us a percentage of your earnings, otherwise we will throw you in jail." So, I'd like to disagree here and say my original assertion was accurate. Your worst case scenario happens to all companies in the absence of the deal. So your argument seems to be more that taxes themselves are bad rather than the deal is bad. >I am not convinced this applies here. Sure, I might agree with you there. I was more replying to the part of your comment about removing all requirements that force companies to do things they wouldn't do themselves.