Privatization usually does not translate in to 'the people that use the resource will own it', it usually translates in to 'big-corp' in 'some other country' now owns a resource you depend on and will make you pay through the nose for it.
If the situation were such that each of us gets to be responsible for their little chunk of the planet then I wouldn't have a problem with it, in practice that is not how it works. Hence overfishing and all kinds of other issues that could have been avoided.
One of the major problems seems to be that there simply are too many of us, that's a very harsh thing to say according to plenty of folks but it may very well be that the only real long term solution leading to better stewardship of the environment is to reduce the number of people that consume resources. Not a very popular point of view, that's for sure.
More can be done with less and that sort of improvement is happening all of the time. freedom and innovation is the solution, not limiting people's freedom
when I see tiny, populated, resource-poor, rich countries, its clear to me that trade and the rule of law are the solution to a great many problems many insist are unsolvable in other places that lack freedom
The situation you describe where deals are made with foreign corporations for control of resources are typically made by governments that have such control themselves. when resources are controlled by individuals in a competitive market, its very difficult for corporations, foreign or domestic, to bribe officials to sell out for far less than a resource is actually worth
I think you both failed to make a distinction between resources necessary for life and optional resources.
When it comes to water, healthcare, minimum daily amount of food, leaving that up to the market (especially one where monopolies form over time, and I believe monopolies will form in any "free" market over time) is tantamount to a country abusing their own population and shows a disregard for human life.
When it comes to designer clothes, jewelry, eating out, entertainment, sure let the market work its "magic". When it comes to peoples' lives, the market will not put their interests first and a "free" market will end up producing lots of suffering for lots of people.
Also it is worth pointing out that a centrally planned economy is also not an option. The answer if probably somewhere in the middle.
Sorry if it came across like that, I thought we were discussing water, which is pretty much the example of resources necessary for life (the others being air and staple foods).
Trinkets and cell phone subscriptions are a different matter. (and in the case of cell phone subscriptions you could even wonder if the market is doing its work or not).
Oops didn't mean to derail the topic. You made a good point with which I agree. I just wanted to add how in one case government intervention is needed while in the other case it would be detrimental (think international tariffs on specific models and types of cars, etc.)
The same short term profit paradigm that seems to prevent most corporations from engaging in sustainable business practices. Only if you forget short term profits and look to enduring sustainable profits does any sort of sustainable business model work.
