“your second point suffers from the free rider problem. why should i bother paying for something if someone else can do it for free? its a bit like the street light argument - who would provide street lights in a free market?”
Private road owners would provide them, more than likely.
The free rider problem really isn’t that big of a deal. There are almost always ways to get people to pay (bundling, appeals to morality, incentives through incusrance, etc.). Lighthouses for instance used to be provided privately and not just through donations (lighthouse construction and maintenance were bundled with port fees).
Yes, go through the links, and if you still have questions, I can help.
I find it interesting that you keep asking this question. Are you under the impression that anything the government doesn’t fund, doesn’t get funded? And where does the government get it’s money? It just takes it from everyone, right? I’m wondering why you think it’s more efficient and effective (and for that matter, desirable) to have a small class of individuals decide who to take money from, who to give it to, and to fund what projects…I’m wondering what leads you to believe they know the right answers to all that? (And why giving anyone that much power is a good idea).
How can we tell that the politicians in government don’t have an agenda? You know, you’re really taking a lot of things for granted. And just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?
Al Gore has increased his wealth to over 9 figures though his whole global warming campaign. Yet we all know about how much of a carbon footprint he has created with his houses and their energy use. He’s already admitted he misled everyone about global warming and CO2 (in not so many words, of course). And he downright admitted his support for corn-based ethanol subsidies had more to do with his desire to garner farm votes in the 2000 presidential election than with what was good for the environment.
I never understood why people were so adament that human beings are greedy and “have an agenda” except when they get into government. Then it’s all about everyone else. Politicians and people in government don’t have their own interests in mind. No, all they care about is what’s best for everyone. And not only do they know what’s best for everyone, they have the legitimate authority to force everyone to do what the politicians believe say is best. Business people care about profit. Of course they have an agenda. But politicians don’t profit from the power they wield. That’s just silly. They don’t have an agenda. They are not acting in their own self interest. They are only doing what is best for everyone.
This is an outcome of the so-called Progressive Era, at least in the US. I’m not sure if it’s called by the same name in other countries. Ultimately, though, what you describe above is a religious conviction.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that these solutions arent perfect. Surely that big old evil coercive government would be a better solution than the market in this case?
I would trust the government’s assessment of climate change over that of an oil company for the sole reason that the government would largely have no reason to distort its figures.
“I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that these solutions arent perfect. Surely that big old evil coercive government would be a better solution than the market in this case?”
What?! Debating about absolute perfection is pointless because there is no such thing. Are you going to say that you support a government system because it is perfect or its solutions are perfect?
“I would trust the government’s assessment of climate change over that of an oil company for the sole reason that the government would largely have no reason to distort its figures.”
Of course they do, government is not a single entity, it is a group of people, all of which pursue their self interests, just like those greedy company owners.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
What?! Debating about absolute perfection is pointless because there is no such thing. Are you going to say that you support a government system because it is perfect or its solutions are perfect?
[/quote]
No, the government is the worst possible solution, as I have illustrated. We all make each others pay for everything yet none of us get the services we want.
Governments are the ones who want carbon rationing on behalf of oil companies. They pay scientists to fake the data - to say that humans could even have an effect on the climate - precisely because they have an agenda. It’s all about carbon rationing, if you control carbon you control industrial production, and if you conrol industrial production you control everyone and everything in modern society. Global warming was invented precisely beause it allows the government to control everything, and scientists are bribed to come up with “data” that fits that story. Oil companies and wealthy elites are not against this, they are the main force behind this.
Homesteading. It works for land, it works for water, it works for everything.
Sounds like the problem of spending tax money, ironically enough.
The owner of the road would do that for safety so that they don’t get sued for negligence. And as for who would own the road? Either a company who gets people to pay for use or the nearby business owners.
Seriously? The government has no incentive? The politicians in government (and the scientists whose entire paycheck (and billions of dollars in funding) owe their entire existence to this global warming idea) have absolutely nothing to gain from it being believed to be true, and nothing to lose from it being proven not true?
Seriously you cannot be that naive. I mean, seriously. Please respond to this. I really want to know if you actually cannot think of anything anyone possibly has to gain from perpertuating the global warming idea and anything these same people have to lose if people stop listening to them. (And a response to my previous post addressing your comments would be appreciated as well.)
Indeed, why would a firm invest in something which produces few or no internal benefits? That is why the government has to subsidize “green” products, because from a business perspective, they’re losers. BTW, I’m not sure I understand your concept of “fuel efficient energies”… The reason we use gas and oil for energy is precisely because they are the most efficient forms of energy. We get more bang for the buck from gas and oil than we do from the next-best energy sources.
BTW, did you hear the story last week about the “green” company that went out of business because their energy taxes were so high they couldn’t afford to pay them and stay in business? Seems they forgot that all the electricity they use to produce “green” stuff is produced by coal and oil, and it takes more energy to produce their green technology than the energy savings you get in return for using it.
