“When purchasing a lunch for example, the cashier getting the money says “thank you” and the customer getting the food says “thank you.” Both have benefited and both were selfish and greedy, only looking out for their own interest.”

You’ve been listening or reading John Stossel, haven’t you? But if I could channel Stossel further, doesn’t he, a libertarian say, that there are certain limits to Capitalism, especially in regards to the environment. Because Capitalism is a slow beast to turn, it doesn’t immediately change directions with the winds of demand. And if global warming is as dire of a situation as Gore would have us believe (and for the sake of the argument we will say it is) and needing IMMEDIATE, drastic measures to reverse, is Capitalism ALONE the best option? Isn’t SOME regulation necessary? That’s what Stossel said at a speech of his that I attended last year; some government regulation is necessary to protect environmental issues that Capitalism can’t always address. A great example is a company that secretly dumps waste to save on costs or employs child laborers. Eventually Capitalism and societal mores will catch up with that company, but not until our environment has been damaged or children abused.

One other thought… for those interested in the economic viability of current ideas to fight global warming, read Bjorn Lomborg’s Cool It book.

That said, global warming is a crock and probably part of the reason that Colin doesn’t hear about it as much is that the scientific evidence is mounting against it. For one, the earth hasn’t warmed since 2001 (in fact, recently it has slightly cooled) and this past winter was the coldest in 20 years for the globe as a whole (here in Minnesota, we just got 2 feet of snow this week because of our very below-normal temperatures).

You’ve been listening or reading John Stossel, haven’t you?

I have always liked John Stossel. The double thank you came from him.

A great example is a company that secretly dumps waste to save on costs or employs child laborers. Eventually Capitalism and societal mores will catch up with that company, but not until our environment has been damaged or children abused.

How does the government find out about this company or these abusers until after the fact? Why is the government any more able to deal with these problems in an immediate way? Government’s only ability different than private entities is force. In other words, the only way they can respond to increasing potential for waste dumping and abuse is increasing use of force. It invariably leads to totalitarianism (even if it is hundreds of years in the future).

As I will argue, it is in everyone’s long term benefit to work these out with freedom, even though there will be some short-term problems.

Good point… I wasn’t so much arguing for that side as repeating what I’ve heard Stossel say, who, like you, is a libertarian. Sounds like you don’t agree with him on that point.

Stossel and I are on fairly different ends of the libertarian spectrum. We’d agree on a lot, but he still favors intervention in places that I would not.

Alas, this sensible solution will never happen since the capitalism side hates the word tax and the socialism side only wants to control everyones life with regulations. Also,

Colin wrote, “How does the government find out about this company or these abusers until after the fact? Why is the government any more able to deal with these problems in an immediate way?”

Your argument presumes that any “infraction” is a one-time event. Child labour or slavery probably aren’t good examples, because you would agree that force is required to free those people. But let’s take the toxic dumping scenario: if the government catches a company dumping toxic waste, it is probably not the first or last time that the company will dump. Are you suggesting that nothing should be done until consumers boycott the company and purchase from a company that does not dump toxic waste?

If they are dumping the waste in your or my backyard, then we have a legal precedent with or without a government. No one would argue that if you put a pile of filth on my lawn, I have every right to seek justice. However, if it is being dumped in an area being “preserved” as commons by government, then government created that problem in the first place, really. There are no “consumers” to perform a boycott in such a case - because “everyone” owns that land/water/air. In other words, that problem of a polluter dumping in commons is caused by socialism. That’s not hard to disagree with - but it is hard to see how capitalism might fix this. I’ll try it out tomorrow.

Anyway, your argument doesn’t make any sense *even after* you change the meaning of all the words…if ‘everyone’ believed that ‘everyone’ owned the land, then nobody would accept pollution of said land, would they?