/liberty/ - Liberty

>>72432

What is this shit?

>Is water the ultimate enemy of anarcho-capitalism?

Nope. And why do you ask a question when you already think you have the answer?

>zero sum game

Distributing any kind of scarce resource is a zero sum game, by the standard you're probably using. There's no unlimited resources around, that's

>essential to life but increasingly scarce

Really, this thread again? This boils down ot the general question of how to allocate natural resources. I have yet to see solid reasoning that the market mechanism will work worse than rationing by the government.

>does not respect borders of property

In other words, you have problems imagining how property rights on waterbodies would work. Probably because it flows from body to body, but even that flow is not unlimited. I could even see it work with cubic parcels in the middle of the ocean, in principle. Just define your cube of water, and determine the average composition of it. Then, when someone dumps lead that leaks into your cube of water, you take him to court. There's practical problems, but your lack of imagination is no proof that they're unsurmountable.

>incredibly hard to manage even at a country level

Too vague for me to respond to. Why is it "incredibly" hard to manage?

>There's simply now way it could work without a centralized agency.

Also wrong, see above why.

>>72434

Pretty much this. Look up PERC's water rights shit and just extrapolate their reasoning to a stateless society. They pretty much give the excuse "muh gubment is necessary" and think nuclear reactors aren't feasible, but otherwise they're pretty accurate on the research/property rights end.

>>72434

There's more to water than just what you see on the surface. Please do some research before you dismiss a problem this serious.

>>72437

Actually, when I said "in the middle of the ocean", I meant "halfway inside the ocean". Granted, it was ambiguous, but still, that you chose the interpretation that's the least benign says quite a lot about your character.

>>72437

>>72441

There can't be a cube on the surface.

>>72443

I meant surface water, obviously, as opposed to ground water. I wasn't thinking about privatizing the oceans. There are a lot more complex everyday problems with water and its effect on the environment than only pollution.

>>72444

How about you tell us what these problems are, you lazy fuck? Your OP was cancerous shit and you can't blame us for not reading your mind.

>>72447

I thought you got everything already figured out?

>>72477

Not the inner workings of your mind, no. Nor can I anticipate every possible fallacy some moron can come up with.

Reminder that the gay OP still owes us an answer.

And still no response from OP. Bumping this so we won't have to create yet another thread. :^)

>>72432

Short answer, no. It is just like any other scarce resource with alternative uses. For instance, all the peak oil nonsense was blown away with innovative technologies that allowed more effecient access to a greater supply of oil, redefining the scaracity of that supply and affecting the demand in the marketplace. The same will indeed happen with water as well.

>>72898

Well that explains it. Still shocking since you expect sinking islands in places like islands in Polynesia or Micronesia.