Reply #29: I agree, in most cases [View All]

However, suppose we have a company who makes widgets and sells them overseas. Unfortunately, making widgets involves rather large amounts of pollution. This harms people who aren't party to the contract between the widget maker and the people who buy widgets overseas. Now, if the government doesn't make laws that force the widget company to clean up their pollution or compensate those who suffer from it, will the company clean it up? No they won't, because it would hurt their bottom line to do so. Is it just that third parties should suffer such consequences when they had no say in the original contract? No, it is not.

Another example, suppose that the government stopped funding such things as roads. Could there be an efficient private solution to this problem? No, because it would make no sense to have competing roads going to the same places. There would be one company controlling the roads in a monopoly. Inefficient, and dangerous, to put that kind of power in the hands of a private concern.

Now, most everyone can agree that experiencing pollution is a bad thing. Most everyone can agree that roads are good things. That is why the government can and should make laws about these. Morals are trickier and much more uncertain. The lack of agreement there, and the belief that the individual has the right to live their life how they want if they do not harm others in specific ways, are the reasons why governments do not regulate all morality.

Economics is a separate matter, and somewhat different problems apply there, as illustrated above, IMHO.