Re:Because we all know (Score 1)

But in today's society the free market is essentially broken.

At the risk of sounding flip (it is very late and I've been up for a long time), how can you tell? We do not operate under a free market. Most commodities that you purchase today have had some part of their materials subsidized, either directly or through tax incentives. Almost all commodities are taxed.

The environmental damage caused by burning a gallon of gas is not paid by anyone that is a party to the transaction. Additionally, a future that forever will have one less gallon of gas is a cost that isn't paid at transaction time either.

Easily explained. Neither of the transaction parties above has enough interest in these ideas of the future to include them in your calculus (if your rather cynical point is granted, and I and my Prius say that it isn't). If, as you suggest, no one places enough value on the future impact for it to change their consumption patterns, then how can we depend on governmental force to do it for us? I dare a politician to propose a policy that demonstratively reduces the public's ability to travel in their own fashion. It would be political suicide. So even if your point is true (and again, I don't think so), your solution won't happen.

It is only lately that each transaction carries such hidden costs because it is only lately we have such awesome technology and so much individual power.

Every generation has foretold of the awesome power of destruction that is readily available now, but wasn't then, and lamented at our inability to control the coming doom. "The longbow/cannon/rifle/tank/automatic weapon/atomic bomb/internet etcetera etcetera will be the end of society/sovereignty/humanity etcetera etcetera" While I don't advocate giving me or anyone else the bomb, somehow we have managed to keep these horrible scourges down. And it was frequently by the actions and protests of people outside of government who helped to do so. Yes we have more individual power today. Welcome to the rise of the middle class that began somewhere in the 13th century. We also have better educations, with the stated goal of helping us use that power responsibly.

Libertarians might say society will do fine as long as everyone minds their own balance sheet.

...we discount the future so highly that destroying a finite resource somehow has a non-infinite price.

Again at the risk of sounding flip? Wha - hunh? First, what does the second quote even mean? Does destroying a gallon of gas have an infinite price? Also, the use of "might say," and "so highly" are weasel words. Who might say? Not this libertarian, at least not blindly as you imply. And how highly do you (you used the word "we," remember) discount the future? Have you met my children? I am extremely fond of them, and I am doing my best to help provide as positive a life for them as I can. I don't discount the future at all. Don't confuse my disagreement with you with a contempt for human life. You are not the arbiter of all that is true for humanity and society, nor are the groups that you support.

Lets assume the extreme case now: plenty of individuals have the resources to build a nuclear reactor on their property. Can society afford to butt out and ignore the risk that his reactor could explode and poison the environment for hundreds of miles in every direction? Good God, no. We restrict their autonomy in mob-like fashion (maybe unreasonably so, I like nuclear power) because the risks are so high.

"Will no one think of the children???" I leave this for last, since it is by far the most ludicrous of the arguments presented. Extreme case? I assume this is a reference to the recent news story of the (deranged) person who managed to build a small nuclear pile in his backyard recently. No one in their right mind would claim that this person, or any other individual who did such a thing is acting without harming his fellow man. Please do not create such a ridiculous straw man in an attempt to discredit libertarian thought. Of course the government's job in such a case is to prevent something like this from happening - there are some examples of public force that are necessary, and no one thinks that this isn't one of them.

In the aggregate our wealth is diminishing, and because these losses aren't appearing on any individual's balance sheet is exactly why the Libertarian argument has to be rejected.

So to sum up: individuals can't be trusted, so we must impose the force of the majority to make them do what's right, so that we all retain wealth (did you define that? If this argument did, your definition is extremely limited.) for our future. (I must pause to ask how any ideology that calls itself "progressive" can be so aggressively cynical about the intelligence and basic decency of individual people and groups.) So, here comes the obvious question - who gets to decide what's right? The government? Acting on behalf of the people? But aren't these the people who can't be trusted to do what's right in the first place? And why is the group of people called government exempt from your contempt? Because they have virtually unlimited force behind their actions? And if it's right in Georgia, is it still right in Oregon? If it's right in urban Chicago, is it still right in rural Indiana? Libertarians aren't anarchists. We want government. We merely want it at:

1. it's previously determined limits, and
2. as locally controlled and relevant as possible

Basically - your values, problems, and solutions aren't mine, so stop pretending you know better than me.