undefined | Better HN

0 pointswithinboredom2y ago0 comments

Surely you can see how insane this idea is IRT pollution. If companies aren’t forced to NOT pollute, they will pollute. Government very rarely (at least in the West) regulates industries for the sake of regulation. Usually, those regulations exist because companies wouldn’t self-regulate and “do the right thing.” History has shown time and time again that if given the choice, a company would rather poison and kill its employees, their families, and neighboring communities (and in some cases, their customers), than lose out on profits.

IRT fires: fires are extremely unlikely to hit your specific house. You already have insurance for it. No, the fire department isn’t there to put out your fire to save your house. They are there to stop a single fire from burning down the city. I’ve seen this happen on our base in Afghanistan. It all started with a small fire, the guy ran to get a fire extinguisher, but by the time he got back, the fire was too big. In less than an hour, half the base was gone. People prioritized saving mattresses over ammo (mattresses would be the last thing replaced while ammo would be replaced immediately, and fuck sleeping on the ground).

IRT roads: you are basically saying the rich have freedom of movement but the poor do not. With taxes, more can be taken from those that have more and less can be taken from those who have less. Having mobility in a civilized society is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society instead of middle age bs.

0 comments

valty2y ago

> If companies aren’t forced to NOT pollute, they will pollute

If no one buys their products, or any products with them in the supply chain, then they won't pollute.

Visibility into these supply chains wasn't possible before internet/technology. A free market relies on consumers paying attention which so far they haven't been, because we are too used to relying on the government...and then complain so much about government.

You definitely see consumers driving improvements through their purchasing. Definitely in areas such as sustainability.

I guess regulation addresses a time lag situation. But if a private market developed for a companies that regulates other companies with subscription fees, then this would solve the problem and do it in a better way. Although I'm not sure how the threat of jail can fit into this. Can penalties be strong enough? Is bankruptcy a strong enough disincentive to lie to private regulators.

> They are there to stop a single fire from burning down the city.

Interesting point. Definitely has non-excludability.

I remember this scene in Gangs of New York where the firemen fight each other back when it was privatized (don't know if this was real).

> rich have freedom of movement but the poor do not

A lot of transport is private. Maybe the poor have more money if they don't have to pay so much in taxes.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse