It's very inefficient to deal with shared resources in this way. Not saying it's impossible. But, for example, roads existing on a house by house basis, each person independently managing their road and charging toll by market forces to those who pass. It's possible, but very inefficient.GPC100s wrote:But trade is the collective power without forcing anyone to actually be a part of a collective. I benefit from you while you benefit from me, but neither of us are forced.
Or having dozens of road companies buying up land, and multiple routes to the same destination from competing companies... Again, it's possible, but inefficient.
A jury of some kind can decide to tell people to shut up and let the next one talk, or even issue punishment to bad behavior as a judge would conventionally do.GPC100s wrote:If you never close the argument until there are no people left to talk, then they'll never stop talking like an endless debate lol. Someone has to have that authority, which means someone can be bribed to end the debate before the real advocate for one side can even speak.
Poisoning food you own is assault if you then put the food out there where other people are likely to eat it. And even more so, if other people don't have a choice but to eat it- just as we don't have a choice but to breathe polluted air and experience the effects of climate change.GPC100s wrote: It's not a form of assault for the same reason poisoning food that you don't own is not a form of assault...
If you keep all of the poisoned food responsibly sequestered, then it's not assault.
The amount of CO2 that stabilizes the climate and prevents further climate change and sea level rising. This is an empirical number, not based on opinion. Likewise, don't add to particulate count. If you create pollution, then clean up some pollution so it balances out.GPC100s wrote: You can say that everyone owns the air, but then no one can agree on how much CO2 is ok.
That's the worst possible way to treat it. And also why many people hate libertarians- because bad libertarians want to do that.GPC100s wrote: I prefer to say that it's no one's, that way anyone can do anything with it
It's assault, plain and simple. I don't have a choice but to breathe air and drink water, and be affected by extreme weather. Communal resources are owned by everybody, and must be respected because of it.
No, it won't. Because it only takes one person being irresponsible and irrational to ruin it for everybody.GPC100s wrote: and if enough people care about the environment, market forces will force the change.
It's not expensive to destroy the environment- it's expensive to protect it.
It doesn't work like that. If 51% of companies stop polluting because 51% of consumers want to protect the environment, that only cuts the rate of pollution by 51%, which means the consumers who are paying more for a non-polluting product are still breathing the same 49% polluted air as the 49% of polluters, who are saving money.GPC100s wrote: But if not enough people care, then democracy won't fix it either.
On the other hand, if 51% of voters want pollution to stop, it will. 100% of people get to breathe 100% unpolluted air. And 49% of people have to pay more for products than they wanted to- but it wasn't the right of the 49% of people to force everybody else to breathe their pollution because they didn't want to take responsibility for their own actions.
Nobody can be completely happy in either case, but the latter case is better for the majority, and it's better for everyone in the sense that now the air isn't polluted.
It's not a question of living in the stone age. It's a question of carbon capture and sequestration. Which makes products cost slightly more.GPC100s wrote: The reason I prefer air to be unowned as opposed to collectively owned is because a collective 51% of the people can say "I don't want any CO2 from industries!" and the 49% who want some industry will be forced to live in the stone age.
No industry has to be stopped, or even scaled down. Instead, a new industry needs to be built up. Market forces will also encourage, since the TRUE price of polluting energy sources is now being reflected, a migration to less polluting energy sources like nuclear, solar, wind, ethanol, etc.
No, you have the 51% paying more for products, and yet still living miserably in 49% polluted air.GPC100s wrote: Without a collective, you'll have the same 51% living in the stone age, happily;
No it wouldn't. Nobody wants climate change and air pollution. Everybody would be unhappy with the quality of the environment. Only, the 49% of people who preferred to save money on products would still be paying less. Everybody would be miserable though.GPC100s wrote: while the 49% get some industry, happily; and the resulting CO2 output will be the collective wants of the people.
No, the proper price of energy is the price that includes the cost of cleaning up after itself.GPC100s wrote: the point still stands for what the proper price for energy should be.
This is the same issue as with government subsidies.
We think coal is cheap, because we're forcing somebody else to spend money cleaning up the mess it produces.
This is the opposite of Libertarianism. Libertarianism requires people to take full responsibility for themselves- which means cleaning up after themselves too. Without that, it's a non-starter.
Just as democracy doesn't work without education, Libertarianism doesn't work without responsibility.
If you classify pollution as assault, then the system starts to work, because you hold people responsible for their actions against others. Without that, it's completely non-viable.
If a system were in place where pollution were ignored and unregulated, then I would just pollute too. Up-wind of the companies doing the polluting. So they have to breathe my pollution. And I might pollute with Chlorine gas. I'll find some excuse of a manufacturing process that outputs that. Everybody in the factory down wind of me dies. No more polluters- and it's all completely legal because I'm allowed to put poisons in the air.
Sound good?
Because that's what will happen.
The 51% will just kill the 49%. And they'll do it legally by polluting them to death.