3 ms·

I haven't put any blame, just curious how a libertarian solve the issue as a thought experiment. Maybe there's an angle I haven't thought of. The "make the wat

by mrtksn 3y ago

I haven't put any blame, just curious how a libertarian solve the issue as a thought experiment. Maybe there's an angle I haven't thought of. The "make the waters private" doesn't solve the problem of making the waters private if you haven't made the waters private before you want to swim. If you are going to purchase everything you need to live a life, this will quickly spiral into socialism with capitalist titles because you will need someone to manage all that so you can do stuff you actually care for. Someone will come up with a package that sorts things out for a subscription, you will just have your taxes called monthly subscription fees and the unelected officials will be called managers or CEO or something. Then they will reduce service quality since it would be very hard for you to simply switch to other providers if you are not happy(they will optimize for profit once the growth slows). Then the management will start selling access to you, for example if someone want to do taxi services to subscribers like you, they will have to pay a fee to the management. Honestly, IMHO this is not even socialism but just communism with different accounting formula and labels.

otherme123 3y ago
You were "curious" and not blaming but quick to downvote. Good way of showing curiosity. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the state allowed the pollution of a public owned area, and now you want a libertarian working solution after the fact. How does that make sense? The libertarian solution is, as I said, make the waters private. The owner will immediately sue the pollutant, to at least stop dumping waste. Reminder that the state is doing nothing at all. Is anyone dumping thrash in your privately owned house? Why is that? Please, point me a privately owned area were someone who is not the owner openly and freely thrash the place without consequences.
- defrost 3y ago
  New York City is privately owned. Before automobiles horse shit was everywhere. The horse shit issue went away thanks to a change in technology which replaced a visible issue with a less visible one. Today, as a consequence of industry, the air is polluted, perhaps if someone "owned" the atmosphere? Today, as a consequence fo fossil fuel usage, the mean tempreture is rising like a slow train wreck - with consequences beginning now and increasing with time. An efficient system would have addressed and averted these problems when first highlighted in the 1970s rather than allow Koch et al to hire tobacco apologist media companies and think tanks to spred climate FUD for decades. Early action, early pivoting to renewable development and small more efficient vehicles would have been magnitudes cheaper and more productive in the long term than kicking the can down through time for 50 years while the problem grew and spread to other economies.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  > You were "curious" and not blaming but quick to downvote. Good way of showing curiosity. I can’t downvote your direct replies to me, just as you can’t downvote mine. Anyway, since the government screwed up on this one they can be replaced on the next election. What would be the libertarian solution to shitty beaches? Move somewhere where the private owners offer clean beaches? What if they have clean beaches but no need for your services? Maybe they are bunch of hippies.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    > What if they have clean beaches but no need for your services? Dump on their beaches, offer cleanup services?
- luma 3y ago
  Nobody said this was the result of libertarianism, nor that libertarianism is bad. The poster you replied to cannot downvote you, but others here watching your behavior can. Dial back the accusations, you're being unnecessarily aggressive defending a point which didn't need defense because it wasn't being attacked.
hilux 3y ago
What are you on about? Clean swimming beaches are a public good. Libertarians don't believe in "public goods."

by mrtksn 3y ago

otherme123 3y ago

You were "curious" and not blaming but quick to downvote. Good way of showing curiosity. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the state allowed the pollution of a public owned area, and now you want a libertarian working solution after the fact. How does that make sense? The libertarian solution is, as I said, make the waters private. The owner will immediately sue the pollutant, to at least stop dumping waste. Reminder that the state is doing nothing at all. Is anyone dumping thrash in your privately owned house? Why is that? Please, point me a privately owned area were someone who is not the owner openly and freely thrash the place without consequences.

defrost 3y ago
New York City is privately owned. Before automobiles horse shit was everywhere. The horse shit issue went away thanks to a change in technology which replaced a visible issue with a less visible one. Today, as a consequence of industry, the air is polluted, perhaps if someone "owned" the atmosphere? Today, as a consequence fo fossil fuel usage, the mean tempreture is rising like a slow train wreck - with consequences beginning now and increasing with time. An efficient system would have addressed and averted these problems when first highlighted in the 1970s rather than allow Koch et al to hire tobacco apologist media companies and think tanks to spred climate FUD for decades. Early action, early pivoting to renewable development and small more efficient vehicles would have been magnitudes cheaper and more productive in the long term than kicking the can down through time for 50 years while the problem grew and spread to other economies.
mrtksn 3y ago
> You were "curious" and not blaming but quick to downvote. Good way of showing curiosity. I can’t downvote your direct replies to me, just as you can’t downvote mine. Anyway, since the government screwed up on this one they can be replaced on the next election. What would be the libertarian solution to shitty beaches? Move somewhere where the private owners offer clean beaches? What if they have clean beaches but no need for your services? Maybe they are bunch of hippies.
- klyrs 3y ago
  > What if they have clean beaches but no need for your services? Dump on their beaches, offer cleanup services?
luma 3y ago
Nobody said this was the result of libertarianism, nor that libertarianism is bad. The poster you replied to cannot downvote you, but others here watching your behavior can. Dial back the accusations, you're being unnecessarily aggressive defending a point which didn't need defense because it wasn't being attacked.

hilux 3y ago

What are you on about? Clean swimming beaches are a public good. Libertarians don't believe in "public goods."