|
|
|
|
|
|
by AnthonBerg
2523 days ago
|
|
|
First, will contend that, say, the atmosphere cannot be effectively privatized. Nor can courts. Who will uphold the correct fundamental rules of privatization? Who sets them? Finally, it is the case currently that we have democracy, wherein the individual has power and domain via a vote and participation in discussions. Then we also have effective privatization, where pure financial acumen can make things happen, or stop them. That is the case currently. We do not need to increase the power of money such that more things can happen for us to be able to pay for the salvation of the environment. We can do that now. The suggestion to switch to privatization is to ask people to relinquish the former power and leave everything to those with the latter power. I don’t see the benefit. Especially as when I have done business, it has clearly been private money that has done stupid and greedy and inefficient things, and governmental structures prevented it for the benefit of all. Government attempts to be a non-monetary contractual union that represents the mutual benefit of game-theoretical cooperation, in e.g. information sharing and consistency. It does work to do that. |
|
|
I'm having difficulty unpacking the last part of your comment but I think the essence is that private individuals will act in ways you find disagreeable and that government can prevent that for the benefit of all. I would counter that a government is just as capable of acting in the same ways. Unfortunately in the case where an individual acts this way the consequences are limited to what that individual can do (and can usually be corrected by the courts) whereas when the government is the actor no competition is allowed and the only recourse is to challenge the power in periodic elections.