Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hasn't the free market failed

Rate this topic


Akosiwa

Recommended Posts

That's not true. Of course "damage" does not equate to "having an effect". Also, strictly, it is not damage to the environment but consequent damage to real people that ought to be actionable under law.

And how should that work in reality?

It is more or less proven that a coal fired powerplant (especially one without filters) increases the cancer risk for the nearby population because of the polluted air. (china has problems because of that)

Should the operator of the plant now pay for every cancer patient in the area? Should the patient have to prove that it was a particle from that powerplant that caused his cancer? How should one determine the area of effect?

It is _impossible_ to exactly link damage to environment to damage to individuals.

Who should the fishermen sue who can't catch anything anymore because companies that got bankrupt 80 years ago overfished and the consequences are hitting him now?

If global warming hit's us in the worst case scenaria and in 200 years parts of the equator-areas are not longer habitable, should those states sue the US for compenation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And how should that work in reality?
In reality, we observe a constant improvement in our overall "environment" (i.e. natural and man-made) over the last few centuries. This is best reflected in ever increasing life-spans.

One of the biggest problems is not enforcement, but the danger of fighting fictions and things that actually increase life-spans in their fuller context.

Otherwise, solutions are best found by looking for ways to establish rights in various spheres. Not saying it is easy, but frankly there's no time to do that if one has to fight windmills instead. As for global warming; it would not be an issue in a free-market, because weather scientists would not be looking for reasons to get government funding, and other lobbies would not be able to enact their agendas politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's certainly common now to hear claims that the free market has failed, or questions as to whether or not the free market works.

Works for what purpose, to what end?

The purpose, and therefore the standard of the success or failure, of the free market is freedom -- the state of living in a social system in which the government recognizes and protects individual rights on principle. The standard of success or failure for a free market is not measured in wealth, nor happiness, nor even in the quality of the environment.

To claim that the free market is flawed is to claim that freedom is flawed, that the principle of individual rights is flawed.

For those who reject the free market, the question is, why is it that you want to throw away your own rights? Why do you want to be a slave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality, we observe a constant improvement in our overall "environment" (i.e. natural and man-made) over the last few centuries. This is best reflected in ever increasing life-spans.

Yes we did see an increase in life-spans, but we didn't have a free market in the last few centuries.

One of the biggest problems is not enforcement, but the danger of fighting fictions and things that actually increase life-spans in their fuller context.

what do you mean by that?

Otherwise, solutions are best found by looking for ways to establish rights in various spheres.

Sorry, but i think you're avoiding the question i asked in my last posts. How can one apply rights to a environment that keeps you healthy (see the questions in my last post).

Not saying it is easy, but frankly there's no time to do that if one has to fight windmills instead. As for global warming; it would not be an issue in a free-market, because weather scientists would not be looking for reasons to get government funding, and other lobbies would not be able to enact their agendas politically.

Um, what do windmills have anything to do with that? ^^

I'm not an climatologist and i doubt you are one; so i assume we can not discuss whether globale warming is a giant lie brought up by the almighty, um, weather scientists lobby (?) on a scientific level.

I can only see that the scientific community is split in this matter (actually they majority supports the theory of global warming) and i doubt that it is constructive to simply deny this fact by questioning the motives of the biggest part of scientists working in that field... on the contrary. I could simply say that scientists that deny global warming are looking for funding from the oil industry. THis doesn't get us anywhere.

This leaves me with the conclusion that it is reasonable to believe that there is a more or less high enough chance that global warming is true to think about it's implications.

It's certainly common now to hear claims that the free market has failed, or questions as to whether or not the free market works.

Works for what purpose, to what end?

The purpose, and therefore the standard of the success or failure, of the free market is freedom -- the state of living in a social system in which the government recognizes and protects individual rights on principle. The standard of success or failure for a free market is not measured in wealth, nor happiness, nor even in the quality of the environment.

To claim that the free market is flawed is to claim that freedom is flawed, that the principle of individual rights is flawed.

For those who reject the free market, the question is, why is it that you want to throw away your own rights? Why do you want to be a slave?

So you're saying that a free market provides the most individual rights (i agree) and that the only purpose and judgement for a system are the maximum individual rights?

That is a circle that leaves no room for argument and i think you failed to think about the fact that individual rights are implemented for a purpose.

I don't feel like a slave, where i live and so do, i think, the majority of people here.

I am willing to give up individual rights, when a feel that the negative effects outweigh the positive ones. You also seem to be willing to give up certain rights, precisely those that are specified by the current set of laws.

I would be happy if someone could respond to the questions i asked in my last post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Markets have less to do with environment than the idea of private property does. An example would be if a factory was polluting a river that ran through your city, the city would act through the court system. The pollution is harming private property. This could also apply through international trials if one nation is polluting another.

In the end it really comes down to ones private property. If a company buys a few acres of land and destroys it, thats completely fine. If they somehow destroy land outside their property the land owners must fight back using the courts. If people understood this than it wouldn't be a big issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not a rational argument, but there is a practical argument. That is, one can argue that the continuity of a stable and prosperous society that is predominantly free is preferable to a completely free society riven by internal strife.

Why on earth would an argument that is by your own admission NOT rational ever be considered to be "practical" Practical for what? In what sense? To whom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does a free market destroy the environment or major cause damage to it?

If so, does the damage exceed the damage that is caused to the economy by introducing environmental regulations?

No and no.

You are looking for an excuse to give government the right to initiate force against the citizens, something for which there simply is no justification.

The examples you cite in your posts in this thread demonstrate your overly narrow focus on particular issues, complete with wild assumptions such as over-fishing causing terrible damage to the entire planet, or cutting down some trees in a rainforest leading to the complete destruction of our planet, all designed to bolster your assertion that government must force citizens to act a certain way allegedly for the benefit of all. Given government's track record, I would think if you're seriously concerned about the environment you would advocate anything but government interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...