Comment: Huh, that's funny. From the

(See in situ)


Huh, that's funny. From the

Huh, that's funny. From the last 3 video's I watched on this site, one of them was from a Libertarian economist ADVOCATING something similar to what this guy said: privatizing large patches of ocean currently unowned by any government. Oil spills would be damage to private property in such an event and such a case would then be grounds for a lawsuit. Though the subject was mainly the privatization of land, it would essentially mean the privatization of the water supply as well.

It's pretty ironic how the comments on both these videos are widely divergent. See here the power of headlines and labels. If a statement that could be controversial is in the headlines, people are more prone to react negatively without thinking the case through. And then there are the labels.

Since we knew the guy was a Libertarian in that vid I just mentioned, people were more inclined to think positively. Meanwhile, this guy is a CEO (in other words, a greedy capitalist) and even though he says the same thing as the Libertarian, he gets judged negatively on it.

Now, not to say that the guy in this current vid is absolutely correct. His view on GMO food for instance does make him more akin to a typical greedy capitalist. Not certain he's entirely wrong on that issue either, but I agree with Magwan77 that in the case of the privatization of water, that this is not a clearcut case.

We don't even know for sure what he exactly means by privatizing water. Does he mean rainwater as well? I remember a headline where the government went after someone that was gathering rainwater that fell on his property. A ridiculous idea of course.