Napoleon Ier wrote:Which is why any reasonable proponent of free markets will also advocate compensation for negative externalities, (for Player's benefit, that means when evil nasty capitalist entrepreneurs ravage a forest or dump pollution...)
As opposed to, say, those plain crazy, weaping Liberals?
Names, stupidity, out of the way ... now for the issues:
For the record, I have never used the word "evil" except in very specific and intentional situations (the Lehman brothers executives who took their own bonuses and refused to pay the UK secretaries and janitors their earned wages, for example).
Napoleon Ier wrote:since the external damage represents a violation of the property rights at the heart of the system of free enterprise. Continue using google to research the Soviet Union, as I suggested to you earlier: you'll see how well their system of the State owning and using blunt legislative tools for protection of the environment turned out.
Big jump here! Since when did you decide that my property rights supercede the right of the company next door to operate and make money? (you argued the reverse pretty strongly before). Besides, your claim that "any free market advocate" supports limits of externalities is just plain silly. They may on paper, but only until you tell them that THEY have to cut emissions from THEIR stacks because the scientific evidence shows the chemicals cause harm to neighborhood kids. Then its "what research? ... faulty data .. funded by liberal patsies with agendas"... etc. ("greenhouse gases.. poppycock theory!). The truth is that scientific evidence, particular environmental and health effects is difficult and takes a very long time to assess definitively. A business man says "I won't change until I get ABSOLUTE proof". A mom is more likely to say "if there is a
chance it will harm my kid ... get rid of it!". As a scientist, I fall a bit in between. However, when it comes to the irreplaceable, such as much of our environement truly is, I do believe in erring on the side of caution. It is far less COSTLY to everyone to stop damage than it is to correct damage that has already occured ...even if it does mean temporarily putting limits on certain types of business and production as precaution, without fully firm evidence.
(in other words, if I told you that one of the 1000 seats in an auditorium has a tack you cannot see, but will feel when you sit .. you will likely risk it. But, if I told you there was a trigger to a shotgun that would be aimed at your head, would that 1 in 1000 chance seem such a slim chance? In this case, I know enough to
see the gun ... many others do not.)
As for the Soviet Union ... Communism is a big leap from basic socialism. I know you are fully aware of the differance. The Soviet union was (and is moving back toward) a fully controlled economy. Why try to pretend they are the same?
Anyway, I specifically said in my earlier post that free market works well for some things. It just happens that my field of expertise is not an area where the free market readily applies.
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
