It would be quite a sidetrack. Start a thread if you would like to discuss it further.
“That is the opposite of the correct criticism. The main problem with classical libertarianism is that it doesn’t allow enough pollution. Under libertarian theory, pollution is a form of violent aggression that should be banned, as Murray Rothbard insisted numerous times. OK, but what about actual practice, once all those special interest groups start having their say? Historically, under the more limited government of the 19th century, it was big business that wanted to move away from unpredictable local and litigation-driven methods of control, and toward a more systematic regulatory approach at the national level. ”
I should start a thread? What would I write in OP?
And where would I post this OP? GQ, IMHO, or BBQ? Surely not GD: I’m not going to argue for or against Rothbard’s solution to external costs since I don’t even know what it is!
Speaking of which … I could lecture for hours and hours on image compression but could also post an informative 2-paragraph summary of Jpeg. The summary wouldn’t explain everything, but would give the interested reader an idea of what follow-up questions to pursue. If Rothbard has a plan to cope with external costs it could also be summarized briefly, but …
… this isn’t it.
I did read your summary though: “pollution is a form of violent aggression that should be banned, as Murray Rothbard insisted numerous times.” So CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions of any sort should be illegal (including the CO[sub]2[/sub] from the lungs of those neglected children?) and would be if big business were unfettered by government? I don’t think so. I suggest you re-work the summary.
What’s our point of comparison? I’m just making sure that it’s not the American system, because both Britain and Canada blow the US out of the water in terms of costs and effectiveness.
Some services have been de-listed and are available for private practitioners. Podiatry for example. But most medical services are illegal to engage in other than through the government system.
Collectivist leaning people can always make fun of extreme libertarians, who are often comical, and practical pro-market people can join in the fun.
But those are three bad examples for different reasons.
Demand for gasoline is only really inelastic in the short term. In any longer term you get one fleet of vehicles with sub $1/gal gas taxes (even with half ass loophole ridden CAFE standards) in the US, and a pretty different one in several $1 per gal equivalent gas tax countries.
A very small % of fresh water is directly consumed by humans. Water shortage issues are again in any longer term view a function of public policies setting artificially low prices water for use in agriculture and industry in areas where it’s not naturally sustainable. And not investing in things like reducing leakage from water systems (which can easily be larger than direct human use let alone just drinking consumption).
Demand for healthcare overall is demonstrably elastic not inelastic. If people experience the actual cost. But they usually don’t. Not in the hybrid semi-collectivized US system or the more collectivized systems in other rich countries. But in the more collectivized systems there is much stronger rationing, which must go along with lack of price signals. The US system mainly shields people from price signals, but with much less rationing, which is basically why it works even less well. It’s not because demand for the full panoply of modern health care is inelastic which it’s definitely not. Demand for emergency treatment by seriously injured people who can quickly be well again if they receive it, that’s inelastic, but that’s like describing water markets as if they were mainly about enough water for humans to drink directly, which is not the issue. The big uses are elastic with price over any but a very short period.
Monopolies and price elasticity are only partly related topics. There is a monopoly price under classic economics where loss of demand with higher price balances greater profit per sale. True that’s higher if the elasticity is less. But the major issue with monopolies is how high are the barriers to entry to competitors. For most people with common sense it’s apparent those are impossibly high if you have to build a whole other water system. They are low to build another supply chain for gasoline. That’s why no serious person opposes regulated monopolies for water utilities (for last mile distribution anyway) and realizes it doesn’t relate much to gas stations, despite water and gas both being ‘necessities’.
Not quite. You can’t charge both your patients and the government for the same services. So if you are charging the government to fix Bill’s broken leg, you can’t also charge Bill for fixing his broken leg, or even charge him to fix his broken leg faster. You can still charge Bill for the crutches though.
This stuff also varies by province, as Canada’s medical system is regulated provincially. What I said is true for BC, but I know things are different and more private service friendly in Alberta.
What would I write in OP?