> Suppose industry in your country has higher costs, because people care about say, waterways, and thus there has to be filtering and proper waste disposal.
Well then people can buy stuff cheaper from abroad, I guess? That's certainly a benefit to them, compared to paying more.
There are auxiliary benefits too, because then people have more money left to spend on other things (which contributes to jobs getting created etc).
> If you allow free trade from a country where they simply dump waste everywhere, you are punishing industry for doing the right thing, and rewarding polluters.
You know no one wants to live in a polluted environment, right? But it's the government everywhere that's supposed to protect it - not people from other countries with their purchasing choices.
If you don't buy stuff from China, will China be less polluted? How?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, 50% of all people outside of China decided to stop buying Chinese goods as a protest against "bad environmental standards"[1]. What would happen?
[1] Nevermind that the standards are circumvented with bribes anyway.
Now lots of stuff produced outside of China would become costlier to produce, or might not get produced at all. Living standards would decrease accordingly. Oh, and that might encourage foreign producers to do whatever it takes to lower their costs, including ignoring environmental standards (or bribing their way past them).
What about China then? Would the polluting factories etc shut down, or would they be used for producing something foreigners were still buying? Would they keep polluting after being repurposed for something else?
Would they pollute even more in an attempt to lower their prices to make their products more attractive to the protesting foreigners? I bet some people would start buying again if the products just were cheap enough.
But all in all, you see it's not that simple. You can't expect to force higher environmental standards on anyone by not buying from them, especially when it's the government that decides what companies are allowed to pollute and how much, and those limits are circumvented through bribes.
> Sure, US democracy is badly implemented, but that doesn't mean the idea is inherently flawed.
If you believe the act of dropping a piece of paper into a box actually affects what a politician can do, I've got a bridge to sell you. That's what it would take for voting to actually affect something, otherwise you're just engaging in a pointless ritual.
Of course it's only pointless on the voter's part. People believing in the idea that subjects have a say in how they're ruled sure as hell benefits the rulers!
> I just object to libertarians pretending they can avoid it
In fact, I've avoided all non-governmental forms of coercion all my life!
> externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about them
Entities like rulers, perhaps? You know "campaign contributions" are an euphemism for bribes, don't you?
When the people who you think are preventing externalities get bribed, they actually have an incentive to not care about them.
> You can call them "rulers" if you like, but then you'd be ignoring the concept of democracy.
What exactly am I ignoring? The idea that you can affect something by dropping a piece of paper into a box? That belief is extremely convenient for the people who are in no way bound by that act, you know?
> Except you don't support "voluntary" anything, because you're talking about property rights.
Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don't steal from others is that they'd be punished for it?
> As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources.
That's probably true in the sense that someone somewhere will rob someone regardless, but.. if you actually have a problem with "coercion in the distribution of resources", then you just can't sanely support the idea of an organization that coerces potentially hundreds of millions of people in how their resources are "distributed".
> And we have a name for contractual agreements with everyone in a society. We call them "laws".
Except that no one asked us if we agreed. Without mutual agreement, there is no contract. In reality, laws are commands that we're punished for disobeying.
Tell me, what's the practical difference between getting punished for disobeying a King's or Emperor's law, and getting punished for disobeying a law written by politicians or bureaucrats somewhere?
Then there's the problem that governments don't actually adhere to their own laws anyway. NSA's surveillance is unconstitutional. That's not a problem for them, but if you disobey laws, you will be punished one way or another.
> as far as I know, in the US police are never given orders to hurt protesters. In theory, they can even get in trouble for doing so. In the other countries you listed, this was official policy.
Well, they don't need orders to hurt protesters. Some of them will actively seek out opportunities for doing so, because that's what they signed up for. Those would be the psychopaths, by the way.
Yes, in theory they can get in trouble for hurting people, but in practice we all know they don't.
> The final blow was a court ruling that said they have to clear out. (The wording was a bit more subtle, but that's what Wikipedia is for.)
I have no clue if that's accurate, but it sure would have been convenient for Wall Street.
> Forces are always present that create instability, so we need to continually make corrections by pushing back in the right direction. Tipping to far towards any ideology can cause catastrophic failure.
By "instability" do you mean draconian legislation like SOPA / PIPA / CISPA / NDAA / TPP / TTIP and all the other nasty shit we're supposed to keep "pushing back" on, because otherwise they'll just inflict it all on us, and then it's too bad because we kind-of-sort-of asked for it by voting in the bums and not resisting.. ? :P
Let's hope we never experience whatever catastrophic failure would follow from pushing back too successfully!
> When Tesla becomes a affordable car seller then ok they will no longer be a company that specializes in selling very expensive cars to a wealthy niche.
Another take is that Tesla is a company that's doing what it needs to, to get into a position where they can sell affordable cars to low-to-middle class people.
But damn Elon Musk, that nasty capitalist oppressor pig that abuses poor people by pricing his cars higher than they can afford, just like Motorola when selling their first mobile phone http://mashable.com/2014/03/13/first-cellphone-on-sale/ .. those filthy bastards!
> As for libertarianism - it has some good ideas, but the more extreme forms burst into flames at the first mention of the word "externality".
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're suggesting that "externalities" are better handled by rulers ruling over their subjects than voluntary co-operation between individuals.
That's what we have now, you know. Rulers and subjects. There's a small elite imposing their will on everyone else, and it seems you think they're taking care of externalities better than we could without rulers.
Presumably, if you didn't think so, you'd support voluntary co-operation instead of our current societal arrangements.
But it's pretty damn difficult to believe you sincerely think so, considering we all know corporations around the world are somehow managing to pollute their hearts out despite our benevolent overlords being there to protect and serve us.
The people of Beijing can't be particularly happy with how their externalities are handled, for example.
It's like there's this thing called "bribery", and it's a really effective way of getting to do whatever the hell you want with the environment, as long as you keep handing money to the right politicians.
Oh, and by the way, this way of circumventing any negative consequences for destroying the environment wouldn't be available without political power, as you may be able to comperehend.
But nevermind, I wrote this message not so much to you, but to some innocent bystander who might happen to read this.
> By "worth the price", if you are someone that considers a 60k to 120k car "worth the price" then yes. But personally I would rather not fool myself and admit I have the money and I want something luxurious.
Value is subjective, by the way.
That means that if a Tesla costs $70k and someone buys one, then he demonstrably values the Tesla higher than his $70k, which means it's safe to say he considers a Tesla worth the price.
> maybe even "objectively"(lol...) nicer than other sports/luxury cars
Nope, not "lol". For example, Teslas are objectively safer than other cars. That's because they can be constructed to be like that because they're electric vehicles, but that doesn't make it any less objectively true.
Also, there's no problem with someone having the money and wanting something luxurious. The fact that some people do is the reason why lots of jobs involved in serving their wants exist, which surely you'd agree is a good thing.
(So basically: Teslas getting bought for their current prices is a Good Thing for us little folks, so I'm not sure what your problem is)
> My point is. [..] They. Are. Not. Within. The. Price. Range. Of. The. Middle. Class... [..] Apple. Computers. Were.
If both of those claims are true, then you've established that "Tesla is not like Apple that way". But is that what you mean?
It seems you're more concerned with some other people being able to afford Teslas than whether Tesla is like Apple that way.
> if you look at it from a price-to-value standpoint
Again, what the hell does "price-to-value" mean?
> Maybe they do in your life and then you are most likely either single, upperclass, or bad with money.
Huh? If someone buys a Tesla, it most definitely doesn't follow that he's bad with money.
> The first two are ok, expensive luxury vehicles are ok. Am I touching a nerve here?
Did you accidentally a word there? But no, you're not touching a nerve. I'd like to have a Tesla for myself, in the right circumstances (which don't even currently apply), but I couldn't afford one anyway.
That's perfectly fine with me though. It's alright that I don't have one, and it's fine I wouldn't even have the money. It's also perfectly fine that some others do, and buy them. If that touches a nerve with you, then there's something wrong with your nerves.
> Tesla is an extremely expensive car. Especially if you consider its value-to-price
I'm not sure what you mean with "value-to-price", but aren't pretty much all Tesla owners in love with their cars? They seem to be valued very highly, and considered worth the price.