If you think the State, choosing to ignore certain negative externalities through regulations — like water pollution — by not holding the guilty parties accountable and pushing up pollution targets, is going to get you clean water, as opposed to any other system where accountability is not distorted by coercitive rules that are almost impossible to challenge: I don’t know how any more naive that position could be. When pollution is not associated with having to pay for cleanup and the financial consequences are negligible, even the stock market picks up on it and publicised major pollution events don’t mean a company’s valuation plummets.
I didn’t know weather forecasts and bridges were more difficult for people not paid by taxes.
Are you suggesting a privatized National Weather Service and toll bridges would be better? If so, I have a nice bear-ridden town in New Hampshire you might like to move to.
Regulations are exactly how you deal with negative externalities.The EPA makes corporations pay for reducing pollution and cleanup. Why do you think corporations target EPA so much? Because EPA costs them money. Never hear any corporations whining about that free taxpayer-funded geological data coming out of USGS
