But, back to the OP topic, does anyone *coughPeter Ugslycough* have any issues with my list of FY,GM examples that seem to cross both socialist and capitalist economic sides, or has anything more to add to the topic? Like, maybe, why are libertarians lab led with the FY,GM label, when the FY portion suggests they would keep something from others, when all they ask for is a fair price?
Little word game, then:
So, the Gulf oil spill is still pretty terrible. The gulf has lost value to the life there, the people there, and the cities that are on it's border. It has cost the environment and the doings of mankind. The cost to repair it would be, it appears, too great of a burden to bear. Where is the wealth growth in ignoring it and hoping it fixes itself?
Socialists might demand restrictions on oil well drilling at unsealable depths to prevent it from happening again and begin the long campaign of readjusting the human interactions along the gulf in order to mitigate the damage, at least in the human world. Oil production would scale back immediately as a result, throwing charts and graphs akimbo. Public transit would have to run more often (you can't raise fees as it's already paid for, likely) and in extremes new GPM requirements might be pushed through on vehicles to ensure the supply isn't strained to the point it causes further catastrophe. Scientists would likely be called in to create a rehabilitation plan and offered a large grant to see it through.
Communists would close up businesses in the gulf area to force the population to move elsewhere to mitigate the damage, run stories about how undesirable the area is, and mitigate human harm by forced relocation. Those that refused to relocate would be made responsible for cleaning it up, but as it isn't a state sponsored action would likely suffer heavy shortages of supplies. The deserted areas would make a great place for a new penal colony, and the locals could use the help.
Libertarians would ____________________________________________________________.