The only issue I see is that we as a species have a (built in) tendency to exploit.
Michael J. Sullivan

Starting from the most obvious mistake there: Haiti has never been an example of ‘laissez-faire’. Quite the opposite, a dictatorship since independence, if its dependence on handouts and intervention has ever meant anything like freedom.
That illustrates the common misconception that individual behaviour adds up to collective behaviour. It doesn’t. What adds up are the effects of individual behaviour, seen after the fact and from a statistical distance.
Meaning that intentions and demands do not exist in the market until expressed, committed or realised.
So it is not proper to ascribe intentionality, such as ‘if you ruin your environment, no worries,’ when such considerations were never made.
Our ancestors acted just like any other animal, and as aboriginal tribes still do: just use what you find and want. No contingency. If food becomes scarce, the pressure of hunger will make people move. That’s all.
Forethought and civilisation developed in tandem. Forethought, precaution and rational use can be stimulated and fostered, never regulated: things change and regulations start to become obsolete the day they are enacted. Wise governments will regulate with a light hand, to prevent the less prevident from ruining it for everybody else.
All other decisions will not rest with the ‘market’ or with ‘capitalism,’ but with the aggregate result of individual acts of forethought, resulting from social relations.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.