Comment by messe
1 day ago
It's not even that. Free markets by themselves (as implemented thus far) DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR EXTERNALITIES.
I have yet to see reasonable fix to the tragedy of the commons in a free market situation, and that's one of the most basic things one is fucking introduced to when studying economics and game theory.
Anybody who thinks health care is best served solely privately should have to pay to be diagnosed for something; either that or they've been failed in their privately funded education.
In the past I have read some libertarian literature that suggested the answer to the tragedy of the commons was that there should be no commons. Everything should be privately owned. How that would actually work in practice is way beyond my tiny brain.
Former libertarian here. The issue with libertarianism is that it does not explain the state of the world. The world is inherently unregulated. If libertarianism was superior it would have outcompeted other systems and it would have been the dominant system right now.
Historic explanations are even more problematic. How does libertarianism explain nomadic cultures or rice growing cultures (that tend to be highly collectivist)?
It doesn't matter if it works in practice - it's religion, so it doesn't have to be true. We sent rockets up into space and there wasn't a giant man there watching us, but people still believe God exists. We tried living in a free market and everything turned to shit, but people still believe in libertarianism.
I think the theory is that if people owned the forest, the rivers, etc, they would have an incentive to take care of them for the long term. As we've seen with how companies have had all the value sucked out of them by private equity, leaving nothing but husks, I think this is a pipe dream.