: : The capitalist poisons the water hole in the pursuit of short term gain (who cares if we're all dead tommorrow?) and the politicians poisons the water hole while pursuing bigger better weapons, they both do it the same. : There's nothing profitable, either in the short-term or the long-term, in poisoning a water hole IN a free market.
This is self-evidently untrue. Given a limited number of waterholes and competition for the 'customers' of that waterhole, then the owner of that waterhole can boost his profits and customer numbers greatly - by poisoning the other waterholes; limiting customer choice under the name of 'fair competition'.
Ask Microsoft.
: A publicly-owned water-hole, on the other hand, since it belongs to everybody, belongs to nobody and therefore can often be poisoned without recriminations.
However, if everyone has a real stake in the waterhole and the profits thereof, then it is in everyone's interests (not just the owner's) that it remain clean and usable. If you go to a water-starved area of the world and attempt to poison or pollute the village well, you will be killed.
: If the market in water-holes were free, rather than constrained by social government ownership of the water-holes, they would be privately owned and better taken care of.
A conjecture unsupported by the evidence.
: I understand you meant the whole "water-hole" thing metaphorically, but my critique of it stands whether literal or metaphorical.
I think not.
Farinata.
None.
