Discussion about this post

User's avatar
antoinette.uiterdijk's avatar

- Pollution not only harms the fisheries downstream, it harms a lot more and many more. Sometime in the future the continuing pollution will have more effects and a clean-up wil bee needed. Those are complicated and expensive. Containing pollution at the source is usually the best and - in the long run - cheapest way. Co.'s should not be allowed to choose the for them cheapest option (pumping out polluted discharge) because that usually means more costs for the tax payers (and often lasting environmental damage).

- Maybe people would not mind to pay it bit more if the co. in question produced cancer meds instead of bitcoin. Also, paying more for something its not possible for everyone, see the examples of people not heating/cooling their habitat and dropping dead as a result.

- Someone buying a last piece of candy is of course a non-issue. Buy what if it was an OTC med that someone really needed as he/she had run out (think allergy meds/D), and the previous buyer still had some ?

Expand full comment
Peter Watt's avatar

Property rights clarifies. You do not have property rights over a chocolate bar in a shop until you have bought it. You do not have property rights for things you might like to buy to continue to be available.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts