[hacker789]

> I think you misread the comment you're replying to.

I think you misread mine, because you're inserting the word "all" where I never placed it.

> People are not entitled to ignore all externalities that cause discomfort to others.

I agree with this. The man being vilified in this thread almost certainly does, too.

> For example, creating toxic pollution that spreads to people around you and forcing them to pay the cost of cleanup is not OK

I agree.

> but you're suggesting it is?

Not at all.

I was responding to a post that vilified people who ignored externalities that cause discomfort for other people. I responded by explaining that everyone ignores externalities that cause others discomfort. Every action (or inaction) negatively and positively affects other people, and you can't be paralyzed by that.

If you've ever been in a monogamous relationship, you've created externalities that caused discomfort in your romantic rivals. You made a judgement call, and decided to do it anyway.

Everything is a judgement call. The man in the article made one. We're not arguing principles here; we're arguing where to draw the line.

> And the part about not paying for public goods that you use, you seem to have misread as "not using public goods that you don't pay for".

I don't understand why you feel I misread it that way.

I was responding to a post that vilified people who felt they shouldn't be forced to pay for things that benefited them.

If I plant attractive flowers in my front yard, it would be nakedly evil for me to force the family across from me to help pay for them, even though their lives are improved by the flowers.

If I give someone genuinely useful advice, I shouldn't be allowed to say, "Ha! You're benefiting for free! Pay up."