4 ms·
I’d argue working properly includes appropriate consequences for negative externalities which by definition is impossible in an unregulated market. If you make
by TimPC 4y ago
I’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