Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 4

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
2,602
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Dec 10, 2007

Walter Block at the Fraser Institute explaining the relationship between free market economics and environmentalism.

  • likes, 5 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (takadi)

  • i agree with a lot he has to say, but remeber bayer and factor 8? that was fully free market and they were really scumbags for doing that whole deal. Knowing it was tainted then selling it overseas so they could profit.

  • You can't really be perfect in a free market society, and Walter recognizes that. The difference though is that a socialist or corporatist society inadvertently (or sometimes purposely) props up those corrupt systems where these scumbags can exist.

    Bayer's screw up had to do with the failure of the FDA. In a true free market, consumer investigations and reports would be a major force in the market.

  • He is actually incorrect about Exxon. After everything was said in done the Captains alcohol problem actually had nothing to do with it because he was asleep and not in charge of the ship at the time. It was actually his first mate who was severely sleep deprived that fell asleep at the wheel. That never got on the media because the story was old not NEWs. But he still correct. They should have a MWT (Maintenance of Wakefulness Test). Which is becoming standard for pilots.

  • Thanks for that correction

Top Comments

  • Government = benevolent angels, unlimited care and compassion for their assets

    Private individuals = selfish insidious agents who destroy and waste their assets.

    This is a very useful formula, but false i believe.

  • So basically my friend discovered that he needs to fill out all this paper work and be searched by government officials in order to use this public land. Not so public after all, and trust me, the government tells him what to do. In fact, he is trying to survival for a couple of months but the park rangers won't allow him to make a camp fire... So just keep on telling yourself that you control the government.

see all

All Comments (26)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • The company that owned the land originally made its profit when it sold the land to the dummy company. The dummy company was created to fail by the original owner of the land. It's a trick. Things are not what they seem to be.

    Now the damage is done and the land is useless.

  • "Then the dummy company went bankrupt."

    Precisely?

    Doesn't actually contradict what Walter Block says.

  • The bit about funding being cut from institutions going under budget etc is a gross oversimplification. Mom's a principal, trust me, going under budget doesn't happen and going over budget is a lot more likely to get you fired than anything else.

  • Block says that the logging companies will take better care of the forest if they own it. This statement is easily disproven. See the link to photobucket on my youtube page for PROOF.

  • Thank limited liability for that...

  • Bimmjim, you are right. Campfire and the risk for the public asset must be limit or paid for. Individuals who benifit from the public asset need to follow certain rules to protect public asset.

  • For example we need to have free public access to the earth atmosphere. However, we must not forget to charge anyone who damages it. There is no reason to privatise the earth atmosphere, the key here is a proper accounting of the environmental cost of the air pollution, and let the polluters pay. We do not need someone who charges everyone on earth who breathe, but if we allow everyone pollute the air for free we are committing slow suicide.

  • The idea situation is free pubic access and charge on environmental cost. It does not matter who owns the land. If you restrict public access you reduce public good. But if you fail to charge on environmental cost, the public will ruin the asset. The key is a proper accounting of environmental cost. What he is advocating is market is the best the price setting mechanism for environment cost.

  • You really don't understand what he is talking about, do you?

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more