On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:13 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 11/19/2013 3:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:12 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 November 2013 22:41, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market
>>>>> solution can't - or is highly unlikely - to work.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but this is circular. You're saying that the market cannot work
>>>> for things that you do not allow to be part of the market. The
>>>> government has to exist, otherwise how is the government to exist?
>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't a question of not allowing the commons to be part of the market.
>>> YOU try convincing a private organisation to put lots of resources into
>>> fixing the commons. Try and persuade, say, Dell or Oracle or McDonalds
>>> that
>>> they should spend a substantial part of their revenue building motorways
>>> or
>>> fixing the climate, and see how far you get.
>>
>> There is a huge market for roads. Both McDonalds and Dell need them to
>> distribute their stuff. Why would they not be built? Sounds like a
>> great investment.
>
>
> Because it's hard to collect money just from users of your road. Have you
> never used a toll road?

Yes, many times. And bridges too. They were all built with tax-payers money.
You can also pay with RFID almost everywhere in Europe. You don't even
have to stop. In my home country you don't even need that anymore,
they just photograph your license plate and send you the bill. They
did this so that they could quickly start applying tolls to regular
roads. And if people don't go through the tolls enough times, they
still receive a bill in the form of extra taxes.

> You act as though there is some government
> conspiracy preventing all these wonderful libertarian solutions.

The use of the word "conspiracy" here seems like a rhetorical trick to
make me sound like a lunatic. I guess it depends on what you mean by
conspiracy. I'm suggesting that people abuse power and don't want to
lose it.

> There's
> not.  They have all existed at different times and places.  There were toll
> roads. Private police forces.  Private fire fighters. Private armies.  There
> still are some places.  But in general they didn't work as well as public
> ones.

Feudal serfs might have argued that democracy has been tried before. I
have no doubt that you have a scientific mind from reading many of
your other posts, but here you are willing to take a bunch of
anecdotes and decide that more sophisticated proposals just don't
work. You also ignore the fact that a good part of the western world
is already full of toll roads -- these will probably come to the USA
eventually, as part of some set of austerity measures. The USA does
indeed employ mercenaries, as is well known, and so do other western
powers. The public police force is being heavily militarised and
engaging in creating check points that, frankly, look like something
from nazi Germany. Show me your documents.

I understand the feeling that private police is creepy, but is this less creepy?
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1241&bih=683&q=police+militarization&oq=police+militarization&gs_l=img.3..0j0i5j0i24l3.1106.6200.0.6439.25.22.2.0.0.0.106.1366.21j1.22.0....0...1ac.1.31.img..3.22.1252.fC4GmX2-u_Y

>> But there would be less roads, that's for sure. For
>> example, my bankrupt home country probably wouldn't have two highways
>> running 10 Km parallel to each other, like you can see here (A17 and
>> A1):
>>
>>
>> https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.880235,-8.539124&spn=0.658647,1.18103&t=m&z=10
>>
>> They both charge expensive tolls, by the way. A17 is always empty, but
>> that's not a problem because the "company" that built it has a
>> guaranteed minimum profits contract with the government that tax
>> payers have to support.
>>
>> Reducing carbon emissions will not be a problem once the alternatives
>> become efficient,
>
>
> But the efficiency depends on lots of externalities.  When the fossil fuel
> industry was getting started the emission of CO2 (and other pollutants)
> wasn't recognized as an external cost.  If is were, then fossil fuel might
> already be less efficient than nuclear and wind.

Sure.

> And it's not just overall
> efficiency that counts, it's incremental efficiency.  The market only
> considers the return on the increment of investment to be made.  The
> infrastructure for distribution and use of fossil fuel is already in place,

Yes, and it was bootstrapped by fossil fuel itself, when it was cheaper.

> so it's much easier to profit by supplying more gasoline to cars than
> supplying electrical power to cars.  Even thought the latter is more energy
> efficient.

In a free market there is no difference between profit and efficiency.

Telmo.

> Brent
>
>
>> and thus profitable. Unless, of course, the oil
>> companies manage to lobby the government to prevent it.
>>
>> If we are facing an extinction level event where the only chance of
>> survival is to shut down civilisation for a while, then we are dead
>> already. That is never going to happen, government or no government.
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to