5 ms·
On a slightly meta note, things like this show how "letting the free market do its job" isn't really a great idea unless you explicitly also have a pollution (P
by user_7832 4y ago
On a slightly meta note, things like this show how "letting the free market do its job" isn't really a great idea unless you explicitly also have a pollution (Pigovian) tax/Coase's property rights to handle such externalities.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- spaetzleesser 4y agoThere is no “free market” unless you have no rules at all. Markets and capitalism can only work properly if they are regulated.
- junofan 4y agoGenerally a free market is one where the rules are arranged voluntarily by participants. Not sure what you mean by “work properly,” but there are plenty of examples of people successfully producing goods and trading them free of coercion.
- TimPC 4y agoI’d argue working properly includes appropriate consequences for negative externalities which by definition is impossible in an unregulated market. If you make it free to pollute you get a lot of pollution and that’s much worse for people than a $1/unit increase in the cost of some things.
- jokethrowaway 4y agoThat's just because the market is not encompassing everything. A free market is inconsistent with a government and publicly owned resources. Governments don't care if rich companies bribe them and will happily let them pollute until people are pissed enough. Look at plastic and that recycling government propaganda bullshit. They sold us to the oil companies and now we literally eat and breath microplastic. If a polluter is polluting on your share of the shared sky you'll sue them into oblivion.
- modo_mario 4y ago>If a polluter is polluting on your share of the shared sky you'll sue them into oblivion. In what court?
- TimPC 4y agoIf you actually implement being able to sue polluters into oblivion for polluting you don’t get checks and balances on pollution leading to less pollution you get Rothbard-style deindustrialization libertarianism. You reduce things to the point where people can’t drive a car or produce electricity without being sued to oblivion.
- spaetzleesser 4y agoIsn’t that the libertarian dream? You can whatever you want if somebody doesn’t like it they can sue you. We also need way more judges and courts in a libertarian society. After a while they will realize that all the suing is not efficient and invent the EPA to set some global rules
- belorn 4y agoParticipants include in this case those that breathe in the polluted air. When it comes to the environment everyone in it participates.
- goodpoint 4y agoIndeed, and millions of people face the choice between working in a polluted city or being unemployed in the countryside. Far from being "free of coercion".
- spaetzleesser 4y agoI never agreed with my neighbor that I can’t live in his house or eat his food. I am being coerced into not using his car.
- theropost 4y agoVery true, I think that since Industry/Free-market enterprises don't tend to specialize into certain domains, from a profiteering stand-point, the efficiencies do not take into account other external factors, unless they impact the enterprise itself. Therefore, that is out of scope for that particular "Free market". We complain about Government inefficiencies, and that is certainly an area that can be enhanced, however since the Government's enterprise is the entire Nation-state itself, they are better situated to determine the solution. In order to solve these macro issues, I believe we need a better resourced, accountable, efficient and competent government. At this point that would require a fundamental change at all levels though.
- anonuser123456 4y agoExternalities and market freedom are completely different concepts. A free market does not allow you to dump your garbage on public property, and no economist has ever argued that.
- felipemnoa 4y agoAnd yet that is kind of what has happened for centuries. The most obvious example is the pollution of the rivers.
- refurb 4y agoIncredibly non-capitalist systems also have people dumping garbage in public places and it’s against the law too.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ip26 4y agoSpend a few minutes on mises.org and you can probably find one.
- corrral 4y agoOfftopic, but is mises.org considered a "smart" site, by libertarians? Like, I can tell that they think they're smart, or at least present themselves as if they think that, but is that considered true by lots of libertarians?
- olalonde 4y agoAFAIK, Mises.org is generally well regarded among libertarians. Libertarians generally argue that externalities should either be illegal or taxed, when there are no other practical solutions. Here's a video of Milton Friedman on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YGfwSvLkC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YGfwSvLkC0
- 4y ago
- jokethrowaway 4y agoIncorrect. A baseless conjecture. If there was only free market, no government and public property was private and owned by everyone living in a radius - then people would just bring a lawsuit in an independent court to the polluters and either veto (pollution slowly killing you) or get financial compensation (think for things like a noisy airport next to your house). As it is the polluters just need to bribe the correct government official and it's all kosher.
- WalterGR 4y ago> As it is the polluters just need to bribe the correct government official and it's all kosher. Citation?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- londons_explore 4y agoGovernments have been pretty good about regulating local pollution. If you try to dump cyanide into a river, the government will come stop you pretty quick. However, no government really cares about global pollution. Ie. greenhouse gasses... Or mercury in the ocean. The benefits of the polluting activity are local while the downsides are global. For that you really need some global government which is going to take a worldwide view when deciding what is illegal/taxed. Unfortunately there are big downsides to worldwide governance too.