01
Feb
2016
Contra Krugman Ep. 20: Krugman Blames Government Water Crisis on Free Market
Make sure you don’t misinterpret my argument: I’m not saying that any one disaster invalidates a whole system. What I’m saying is that you can’t point to government officials screwing up water supply as *further evidence* that we need government officials to provide water, as Krugman tries to do.
Another example, in case you missed it, is what happened in Sacramento, CA.http://www.abc10.com/story/news/investigations/2015/11/04/75112994/
“It took the Great Stink of 1858, when the stench made the Houses of Parliament unusable, to produce action.”
The Great Stink made government less efficient, so the solution was to take people’s liberties?
From the document to which Krugman links:
“Before an effective sanitary regime could be introduced to the metropolis to deal with the problems described in the previous chapter, it was first necessary to set in place an organisation with the wide-ranging powers and the substantial financial resources required to execute the work.”
Does anyone know where to find the previous chapter so we can analyze the problems described from a libertarian perspective?
Great Stink: Background
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink#Background
“Background
“Brick sewers had been built in London from the 17th century when sections of the Fleet and Walbrook rivers were covered for that purpose.[a] In the century preceding 1856, over a hundred sewers were constructed in London, and at that date the city had around 200,000 cesspits and 360 sewers. Some cesspits leaked methane and other gases, which often caught fire and exploded, leading to loss of life, while many of the sewers were in a poor state of repair.[2]”
Were these public works projects or subsidized with taxpayer money?
Is it a coincidence that what parents typically help their young children with – going to the bathroom – is something Krugman says should have an analogue with government as parent and civilians as young children?
You’re trying to take away Krugman’s parental figure.
I think we can safely say that Krugman’s column needs to be moved to the STYLE PAGE which would be primarily concerned with giving advice to the style-conscious types concerning what are and what are not fashionable ideas. Let’s concede that Krugman is one smooth connoisseur of style and fashion.
We also need to move the Rothbardian AnCap Private Neighborhoods thing to the STYLE PAGE (with a different and more female-friendly name, of course). Think of the fashion/real estate writer cooing about relatively inexpensive neighborhoods where the water is always pure and clean and where in your new home you can bathe in waters containing Christie Brinkley age-defying skin restorers. Plus, private streets and schools with no criminals. Ever. I guarantee it (HT to Joe Namath).
“… and where in your new home you can bathe in waters containing Christie Brinkley …”
Heh.
All of you libertarians are just a bunch of racists and sexists.
Bob,
Did you see the article in The Atlantic that was complaining about Wal-Mart giving out free bottled water to residents in Flint, under the logic that people might grow overly dependent on Wal-Mart and not be able to fend for themselves, which would be bad because Wal-Mart is “unregulated” and does not necessarily have the interests of the poor and powerless at heart and might then serve them polluted water?
That sounds like an awful article.
Damned if you do help, damned if you don’t help.