Painboy wrote: ↑
12 Jan 2020, 19:02
Jennifer wrote: ↑
12 Jan 2020, 14:29
Warren wrote: ↑
12 Jan 2020, 10:31
I'm no anarchocapitalist, but my default is to let markets deal with shit. The State should exist solely to safeguard the rights of the people. So, a judicial system, and a defense, and that's about it. I'm not going to say the State has no role in regulation. But I will observe that over regulation is our current environment. And speaking of environment, I'd like to let markets deal with climate change another forty or fifty years before we decide the State needs to be involved.
Huh? How can "the markets" deal with climate change (or any other tragedy of the commons issue) on their own? Especially since the overwhelming majority of things individuals might do to combat climate change actually have higher upfront costs compared to the "polluting" option. If markets were left to their own devices, with no government regulation, we'd probably all still be driving cars with leaded gasoline.
There is an argument that air pollution is pretty much exactly where society wants it based on their choices.
Except ... who, exactly, IS "society" in such instances?
I remember touring Fallingwater -- the Frank Lloyd Wright house somewhere in western Pennsylvania -- IIRC, the tour guide mentioned that Wright designed it for its original owners, who were some business bigwigs in Pittsburgh, and one reason they wanted a house in that location was to escape the really nasty coal-smoke smog that blanketed Pittsburgh back then. Nobody actually "wants" to breathe coal smoke, though admittedly almost all of us want the advantages those coal-fired factories brought: jobs, affordable consumer goods, etc. The factory owners who actually get rich from their coal-fired factories used their money to escape town when they could.
With climate change people can make choices that reduce their carbon footprint obviously. If not enough people are making that choice to make a difference then you can start paying those who haven't changed or ostracizing the one's who don't. But it's usually much easier to push people around than get their consent so people default to that.
You could've said the same thing about leaded vs. unleaded gasoline -- if people really opposed lead contamination in their environment, they could CHOOSE to demand unleaded-gas cars -- but still, given how the automotive and gasoline industries actually reacted when they were first presented with evidence of lead problems, I continue to think it likely that without anti-lead mandates, we'd still be driving leaded-gas cars today.
Plus, of course, there's the commons issue: even if I personally choose to make great personal and financial sacrifices to decrease or eliminate my carbon footprint, that doesn't matter if everyone else is continuing to increase theirs. Even if I personally drive a car with unleaded gasoline, that won't help if every other car on the road is belching out leaded-gas exhaust. Etc.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b