| > If companies aren’t forced to NOT pollute, they will pollute If no one buys their products, or any products with them in the supply chain, then they won't pollute. Visibility into these supply chains wasn't possible before internet/technology. A free market relies on consumers paying attention which so far they haven't been, because we are too used to relying on the government...and then complain so much about government. You definitely see consumers driving improvements through their purchasing. Definitely in areas such as sustainability. I guess regulation addresses a time lag situation. But if a private market developed for a companies that regulates other companies with subscription fees, then this would solve the problem and do it in a better way. Although I'm not sure how the threat of jail can fit into this. Can penalties be strong enough? Is bankruptcy a strong enough disincentive to lie to private regulators. > They are there to stop a single fire from burning down the city. Interesting point. Definitely has non-excludability. I remember this scene in Gangs of New York where the firemen fight each other back when it was privatized (don't know if this was real). > rich have freedom of movement but the poor do not A lot of transport is private. Maybe the poor have more money if they don't have to pay so much in taxes. |