So a free market is bad when everybody is able to invest, but is good when a chosen few are able to invest?
True enough- IF you can prove it was a murder and not an accident.
Can you prove intent with global climate change? If you ignore the utterly non-scientific process of "scientific consensus", do you even have enough data left to prove the murder weapon?
And in the long run, does it matter? We're still left with the decision to either adapt or die; we're far too late for any mitigation attempt to work. Blame the culprit is a waste of time in this case.
In what way is insuring a fair and free market collectivism?
2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League