And we have to give up plastic straws, even those of us who have never littered anywhere in our lives.
British water company dumps sewage, claims "no right to swim in the sea"
41–50 of 68 posts
Re: British water company dumps sewage, claims "no right to swim in the sea"
#42What is the libertarian solution for situations like this?
Move somewhere else, probably. I have never seen a good answer from Libertarians on environmental issue. Or any tragedy of the commons problem.
What? The solution for the tragedy of the commons is making the common thing private.
There are large green areas in the UK owned by private funds, that are amongs the best preserved in the whole country, or even the whole Europe.
Recent Nobel price Elinor Olstrom studied this theme, and found that in places where the tragedy of the commons is avoided, there are mechanisms that are akin to private property, like a common river being "owned" by a guardian or a private organization that keeps it safe from pollution.
Re: British water company dumps sewage, claims "no right to swim in the sea"
#43What is the libertarian solution for situations like this?
Depends if you are the kind of libertarian who acknowledges that there are limits to what can be privately owned, or not.
If you recognize that the sea and the air are fundamentally socialized resources, then there is no Libertarian solution and such resources must either be regulated by a government or treated as a commons, with consequent tragedy.
If you’re the kind of “no limits” Libertarian who thinks you can privatize the sea…
Re: British water company dumps sewage, claims "no right to swim in the sea"
#44What is the libertarian solution for situations like this?
Has the UK become a libertarian paradise lately, without we noticing? This is happening in a social-democracy, to a public good owned by the state. And yet you put the blame on libertarians! The company dumping sewage is doing it to the sea/rivers, not in private areas like a private swimming pool. Because they will be sued, and lose, if they did. The libertarian solution to this is "make the waters private". Anecdot…
I haven't put any blame, just curious how a libertarian solve the issue as a thought experiment. Maybe there's an angle I haven't thought of.
The "make the waters private" doesn't solve the problem of making the waters private if you haven't made the waters private before you want to swim.
If you are going to purchase everything you need to live a life, this will quickly spiral into socialism with capitalist titles because you will need someone to manage all that so you can do stuff you actually care for. Someone will come up with a package that sorts things out for a subscription, you will just have your taxes called monthly subscription fees and the unelected officials will be called managers or CEO or something. Then they will reduce service quality since it would be very hard for you to simply switch to other providers if you are not happy(they will optimize for profit once the growth slows). Then the management will start selling access to you, for example if someone want to do taxi services to subscribers like you, they will have to pay a fee to the management.
Honestly, IMHO this is not even socialism but just communism with different accounting formula and labels.
Re: British water company dumps sewage, claims "no right to swim in the sea"
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has the UK become a libertarian paradise lately, without we noticing? This is happening in a social-democracy, to a public good owned by the state. And yet you put the blame on libertarians! The company dumping sewage is doing it to the sea/rivers, not in private areas like a private swimming pool. Because they will be sued, and lose, if they did. The libertarian solution to this is "make the waters private". Anecdot…
I haven't put any blame, just curious how a libertarian solve the issue as a thought experiment. Maybe there's an angle I haven't thought of. The "make the waters private" doesn't solve the problem of making the waters private if you haven't made the waters private before you want to swim. If you are going to purchase everything you need to live a life, this will quickly spiral into socialism with capitalist titles b…
You were "curious" and not blaming but quick to downvote. Good way of showing curiosity.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the state allowed the pollution of a public owned area, and now you want a libertarian working solution after the fact. How does that make sense? The libertarian solution is, as I said, make the waters private. The owner will immediately sue the pollutant, to at least stop dumping waste. Reminder that the state is doing nothing at all.
Is anyone dumping thrash in your privately owned house? Why is that? Please, point me a privately owned area were someone who is not the owner openly and freely thrash the place without consequences.
Re: British water company dumps sewage, claims "no right to swim in the sea"
#46Is there an actual "right to use the sea"? ! My city dumps dozens of wild dogs on beach, they attack people in large packs, and everyone is told to use beach at their own risk. No right to swim on public beach! Or environmentalists dumps dangerous bears into public forrest. They routinely kill people, even roam city streets [1]. But there is no "right to safely use forest". 1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68…
Slovakia has mountains with population of bears. The bears have always been there nobody has dumped them there. They dont routinely kill people. In recent years there was one death by a bear and one death when lady sliped why trying to run from bear. Those are only recorded incidents in last 50years.
[dead]
Re: British water company dumps sewage, claims "no right to swim in the sea"
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't put any blame, just curious how a libertarian solve the issue as a thought experiment. Maybe there's an angle I haven't thought of. The "make the waters private" doesn't solve the problem of making the waters private if you haven't made the waters private before you want to swim. If you are going to purchase everything you need to live a life, this will quickly spiral into socialism with capitalist titles b…
You were "curious" and not blaming but quick to downvote. Good way of showing curiosity. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the state allowed the pollution of a public owned area, and now you want a libertarian working solution after the fact. How does that make sense? The libertarian solution is, as I said, make the waters private. The owner will immediately sue the pollutant, to at least stop dumpin…
New York City is privately owned.
Before automobiles horse shit was everywhere.
The horse shit issue went away thanks to a change in technology which replaced a visible issue with a less visible one.
Today, as a consequence of industry, the air is polluted, perhaps if someone "owned" the atmosphere?
Today, as a consequence fo fossil fuel usage, the mean tempreture is rising like a slow train wreck - with consequences beginning now and increasing with time.
An efficient system would have addressed and averted these problems when first highlighted in the 1970s rather than allow Koch et al to hire tobacco apologist media companies and think tanks to spred climate FUD for decades.
Early action, early pivoting to renewable development and small more efficient vehicles would have been magnitudes cheaper and more productive in the long term than kicking the can down through time for 50 years while the problem grew and spread to other economies.
Re: British water company dumps sewage, claims "no right to swim in the sea"
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't put any blame, just curious how a libertarian solve the issue as a thought experiment. Maybe there's an angle I haven't thought of. The "make the waters private" doesn't solve the problem of making the waters private if you haven't made the waters private before you want to swim. If you are going to purchase everything you need to live a life, this will quickly spiral into socialism with capitalist titles b…
You were "curious" and not blaming but quick to downvote. Good way of showing curiosity. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the state allowed the pollution of a public owned area, and now you want a libertarian working solution after the fact. How does that make sense? The libertarian solution is, as I said, make the waters private. The owner will immediately sue the pollutant, to at least stop dumpin…
> You were "curious" and not blaming but quick to downvote. Good way of showing curiosity.
I can’t downvote your direct replies to me, just as you can’t downvote mine.
Anyway, since the government screwed up on this one they can be replaced on the next election. What would be the libertarian solution to shitty beaches?
Move somewhere where the private owners offer clean beaches? What if they have clean beaches but no need for your services? Maybe they are bunch of hippies.
Re: British water company dumps sewage, claims "no right to swim in the sea"
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Individuals and corporations quit caring about the environment; Which, is why there is sewage and microplastics in the sea and ocean.
Corps quitting caring about the environment implies they ever did. They did not until environmental regulations forced them to, and they ignore those regulations every time they think they can get away with it. And individuals are not much better.
It’s definitely not new and often nothing is done until it directly affects the “great and the good”
For example nothing was done about the pollution of the river Thames until it got so bad it affected the business of parliament.
Re: British water company dumps sewage, claims "no right to swim in the sea"
#50Worth noting that this dumping is usually done during periods of high rainfall, to avoid sewage backing up through toilets into households. It’s not villains pulling a lever because they’re evil. The fundamental problem is a lack of investment in increasing the capacity of sewer infrastructure, much of which is Victorian-era. This is a good paper on the causes and possible resolutions: https://www.ice.org.uk/media/ec…
No it is pure evil: they opted for dividends over capex for the last 30 years