If people are not compenstated for their labor, they will not produce.
And if people don't use something then they won't waste it, and if their bad is regulated then the incidents of that bad behavior are fewer and the consequences minimized.
You can purify salt water. I don't know how this is delusional.
It is delusional to think that it solves the problem of wasting fresh water.
Systems can expand. Moreover, prices incentivize non-arbitrary conservation.
The earth cannot expand, not can it's systems. Essentially, we live in a closed system.
So you don't want us to produce more water... you want us to deal with whatever we have now?
We can't produce more water. The earth has only so much and its part of the hydrologic cycle.
Its arbitrary in that consumer's subjective preferences are "arbitrary". But an individual's subjective preference is very valuable to him, and nothing can supercede it without attempting to compare interpsonal utility.
The problem is in an individual's subjectivity. Objectivity can and should supercede that with respect to sustainability, environmental, and rights concerns, among others.
Actually this is a straw man. Property rights are instrumental in environmental protection. It is states who have no incentive to conserve resources.
Definitely not a straw man as property rights have never stopped environmental degradation. The Dust Bowl is a good example. States only have no incentive to conserve resources when either a) the people who comprise the state do not value anything but material wealth and/or (b) those who hold the real power, the wealthy, do not value anything but material wealth. States are the result of culture and therefore reflect the values of those in control, whether the people or some subset such as corporations.
It leads to increased production and conservation of the resource, so yes there is every reason to "commoditize" it.
Which leads to negative consequences when the only value is in its acquisition such as habitat destruction due to no value being placed on habitat and all value placed on a resource contained in that habitat. There is no reason to allow commoditization, at least to the extent that environmenatl degradation is allowed. Regulation can help minimize harm, which is the point.
Why? The future scarcity of certian commodities bids up their price, incentivizing conservation and increased production in the NOW. We don't run out of oil every few years and then need the government to come bail us out.
Civilizations have collapsed due to environmental degradation caused by economic utilization of resources without any controls in place to minimize the negative effects. Scarcity doesn't incentivize conservation, a good example is with the fur trade between Indians and Europeans or with the Passenger Pigeon, it only serves to provide pressure to maximize one's take before scarcity eliminates the resource.
If by regulation you mean protecting property rights of people who are being polluted against, then yes. I daresay true free market advocates are less willing to bend on environmental issues than you.
No, property rights has nothing to do with regulating bad behavior, other more fundamental rights do, such as the right to breath air not polluted by human activity.
These economic philosophies are wrong. You did not address my argument about government's not being able to calculate. It is called the misesian calculation problem.
Governments reflect the values of those in control and the culture of the society in which they operate. Therefore, it isn't government that can't "calculate" it is that the value system of the people is structured such that the calculations ignore certain parameters.
The industrial revolution was unprecedented. If you lived in the 1700s would you say an industrial revolution was impossible because all human societies had hietherto been hunter/agricultural? We've only had 150 years of post industrial society. All the western governments are residual from agricultural societies, which are particularly vulnerable to predation. Things are different now. The night is young.
The earth can't sustain those that exist and our activity. Nothing we do is sustainable.
This is not a rebuttal to my charge that states are monopolies, and are also bad for their consumers. Monopolies are inherently unstable on the market because competition and free entry into the market makes cartelization nearly impossible.
Humans are social animals and create hierarchies, including the controlling structure that I assume you refer to as "the state". Therefore, those that control any society, including the U.S., exert political pressure to further their desires, which is ultimately exerted through the government. This is simply the nature of being social animals.
With regards to business, monopolies, generally consisting of a limited number of cooperating members, are always the result, except at the lowest levels, and so require the government to regulate business to minimize the development of monopolies. Monopolies are very stable.
You won't be able to find an example of a free market company obtaining large portions of market share without serving consumers better than their competitors.
Sure you can. A big company assumes a smaller company and merely has to provide acceptable service or product.
Hierarchies need not be in the form of coercive legal monopolies. I.e. states. Control of "bad behaviour" is best enforced through voluntary organization. Again, there is contradiction in a system that prevents aggression by aggressing against all its members.
Of course they don't, but that depends on the culture of the masses. Control of bad behavior is best enforced through the legal system with the threat of punishment.
Sorry. So you think that if men are angels the state will work?
Men aren't angels and societies work to various extents.
Actually all western laws have their roots in common and customary anglo saxon law, developed on a non-aggressive basis outside the state.
And then as societies grew past a certain point, a codified law was needed and a formal mechanism to enforce society's rules. Thus government.
People do not create states.
Yes they do. We're social animals and always develop a "state".
So they're basically just making rights up. Fine. But they should be guided by economic logic, which entails free association and lockean homesteading as the only two rights.
You can't use economic "logic" as it is a result of a person's value system, which may not realize any rights.
The free market does not either, but through an invisible hand men are led to help eachother.
The free market is no better than the people that operate in it. For example, our free market produced a dead Lake Erie and it was a few good people who forced the government to regulate behavior to reduce pollution that allowed the lake to recover. The free market is wholly incapable of controlling bad behavior, only concerned people working through politics can, as we are political animals.
"Capitalism" is not a system based on wealth. It is a system of free association and respect for homesteading rights.
It is a system based on power derived from wealth.