Great example of the issue of regulation

[wufwugy]

Or to dump that shit in my air. I'm looking at you, entire history of fuel consumption.

Most libertarians favor taxing harmful externalities like this. Ultimately, things like getting lead out of gasoline could happen without regulation just as easily as with it as long as property rights are upheld. The process would involve lawsuits against the company where the plaintiffs demonstrate how the lead in the atmosphere is harmful to their property (their bodies) and produced by the companies. This, along with public awareness/pressure, would likely have just as strong an effect on cleaning up externalities. Companies can't cheat markets

[a500lbgorilla]

Most libertarians favor taxing harmful externalities like this. Ultimately, things like getting lead out of gasoline could happen without regulation just as easily as with it as long as property rights are upheld. The process would involve lawsuits against the company where the plaintiffs demonstrate how the lead in the atmosphere is harmful to their property (their bodies) and produced by the companies. This, along with public awareness/pressure, would likely have just as strong an effect on cleaning up externalities. Companies can't cheat markets

I don't trust people to get this right. It's clear to me that some people are talented at establishing and moving public opinion. The public can easily become split over a complex issue with an inability to discern the experts from the expert-fakes. I don't understand enough about the legal system to wonder on how it will fail, but I'm betting the side with the biggest pile of cash is better than no chance to win over some cold hard facts on the ground.

And in your post below the quoted, you say that people make perfect the opposite of what they don't like. I agree and partially believe this fuels the love for these theoretically free market societies. Because we have to live with the shit society with its regulations today, and don't have to deal with any of the unforseen possible fallout from these pretend societies of tomorrow.

[wufwugy]

I don't trust people to get this right. It's clear to me that some people are talented at establishing and moving public opinion. The public can easily become split over a complex issue with an inability to discern the experts from the expert-fakes. I don't understand enough about the legal system to wonder on how it will fail, but I'm betting the side with the biggest pile of cash is better than no chance to win over some cold hard facts on the ground.

The same is true of regulatory agencies and policymakers. The argument is that those end up making it worse by creating special interests and misallocation of capital due to inefficiencies and distorted incentives, while market foundations go the opposite direction and solve a lot of these problems due to relying on consequential capital allocation.

I think you're assuming a distinction between decision-making and truths; whereas market proponents don't necessarily. The reason is because a market system is itself a truth-finder because "the cold hard facts" of whatever economic behavior prevails is what wins out. Costs and prices are representations of those economic facts and behaviors. I think when we look at the influences of the smoke-filled room shadow characters, we're only seeing a fraction of the picture. In our current society, those with the greatest influence in aggregate have come out of this value system (Microsoft made Bill Gates, not Machiavellisoft). Ultimately, the allocation of capital chases cold hard facts, be they about raw resources or cultural sensibilities

Socialism is at its core an attempt to thwart markets. Its an attempt at supreme morality, at capital distribution based on morals instead of the cold hard facts of the world, and that's why it has failed in every country that has tried it