Awesome presentation on capitalism and socialism

[Renton]

I challenge any of the socialistly inclined in this thread to come up with one problem caused by free market capitalism that is assuaged by a socialist policy, and what the nature of that policy is. I will respond in turn with how that policy has a net negative effect on the very problem it intends to remedy.

[d0zer]

I challenge any of the socialistly inclined in this thread to come up with one problem caused by free market capitalism that is assuaged by a socialist policy, and what the nature of that policy is. I will respond in turn with how that policy has a net negative effect on the very problem it intends to remedy.

I'm probably not your man then. I support free-market capitalism for the most part, with only a few exceptions, the environment being one of them. The libertarian approach to solve the pollution problem is interesting, but impractical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that environmental regulation on the free market technically falls under the blanket of socialism.

Laisse-faire capitalism would have allowed leaded-gasoline to continue burning for way longer than it would and should have without government intervention.

[Renton]

I'm probably not your man then. I support free-market capitalism for the most part, with only a few exceptions, the environment being one of them. The libertarian approach to solve the pollution problem is interesting, but impractical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that environmental regulation on the free market technically falls under the blanket of socialism.

Laisse-faire capitalism would have allowed leaded-gasoline to continue burning for way longer than it would and should have without government intervention.

Environmental regulation is not socialism in and of itself. In a completely voluntary society with no state there could easily emerge such regulations on a more local level, especially with empowerment of property owners and a redefinition of what constitutes an aggressive act against another property owner. Polluting someone's groundwater, for example, would be seen as a form of vandalism and one would be liable for damages.

That said, there's not a lot of evidence to suggest that any environmental regulation from the top down has had a large positive effect on pollution. So I'm not sure it works in the context of my challenge because I'm not sure it works anyway. I do have something to say about leaded gasoline though. This is from wikipedia:

Tetraethyllead (common name tetraethyl lead), abbreviated TEL, is anorganolead compound with the formula (CH₃CH₂)₄Pb.
It was mixed with gasoline (petrol) beginning in the 1920s as a patented octanebooster that allowed engine compression to be raised substantially, which in turn increased vehicle performance or fuel economy.^[1][2] Ethanol was already known as a widely available, inexpensive, low toxicity octane booster, but TEL was promoted because it was uniquely profitable to the patent holders.^[3] TEL was phased out starting in the U.S. in the mid-1970s because of its cumulativeneurotoxicity and its damaging effect on catalytic converters. When present in fuel, TEL is also the main cause of spark plug fouling.^[4] TEL is still used as an additive in some grades of aviation gasoline, and in some developing countries.

It looks to me like this product would have been quickly phased out regardless of the prohibition. I'm also highly skeptical of the toxic effect of using this product. Environmentalists are the king of making a mountain out of a molehill, saying that a product is "toxic" because a rat died, failing to understand that chemicals are dangerous based on their level of concentration in the air or water, and that there are few if any inherently toxic chemicals.