I tend to agree that the free-market/capitalist system is the most-efficient way that we know to convert resources and opportunities into products and services. However, this doesn't mean that it's the "best" for the population for all times and conditions.

The classic tragedy of the commonsshows that in a free system, an available resource will be exploited to depletion. Similar to the prisoner's dilemma, each individual gains by grinding everyone else down. An individual advantage is, ultimately, a societal loss.

I would argue that a free market is at its best in an unbounded and open environment, such as the America of the 19th and early 20th Centuries. There are abundant resources, and opportunities for growth and expansion. "Victory" clearly goes to the commercial entity that grows quickest. The word "monopoly" springs to mind. Having conquered all, they can then exploit market scarcity and lack of competition by driving up price for their own benefit.

In a closed environment, with limited resources, I would argue that "success" is in sustainability. The question must be asked - "Can this activity be sustained essentially indefinitely and continue to benefit future generations" or is it a one-off pillage of a common resource?

Regardless of whether that common resource is a stand of forestry, a species of deepwater fish, or the quality of the atmosphere, the logic is the same. No entity or group of entities should be ALLOWED to degrade the common property of mankind, but mechanisms should be in place to ENCOURAGE sustainable production, including beneficial ownership of the resource, providing that the resource is not unfairy degraded.

We must stop rewarding individuals with personal wealth for raping and pillaging a common resource. Sure, we should reward them for efficient and SUSTAINABLE productivity, but a free market and the capitalist economy does not do this, imho.

To return to the original observation by TB about "Fire Nazis":- of course, it is ridiculous in a low population density rural zone, surrounded by abundant forests and sustainable wood production. There, a wood-burning fire is logical, simple, efficient and "good". The atmosphere is big enough to absorb a moderate amount of smoke, without undue harm to others. I appreciate the light scent of wood smoke on an autumn evening.

But in an urban environment, with air-quality issues from multiple sources, EVERY source of pollution must be addressed on an equitable basis. I *thoroughly* dislike thick blankets of smoke from a neighbour's smouldering fire to burn-off damp leaves, trapped under a temperature inversion.

Somehow, we must find a way to encourage the vigour and productivity of a free market, but to have caps on activities and also reward sustainability, over and above naked greed...