Capitalism isn't designed to handle non-ownership. That is why it is an easy target. Either privatize or regulate, but don't blame it on a system that is DESIGNED to maximize profit.

don't blame the system for having massive, glaring flaws!

or... do, do that

THE SOLUTION IS TO REGULATE, except that capitalists use their enormous wealth to lobby against any and all effective regulation, but that's not capitalism's fault lolz

Capitalism is based on private ownership. Is it really a flaw if it applies badly to an area of public/common ownership? Is a plane flawed because it doesn't fly underwater?

I like the analogy !

But whose fault is it now that someone is trying to apply the system to public/common ownership ?

It seems that it would be the fault of whoever is trying to apply it.

It's not like even die-hard supporters of capitalism claim that applying it to public property works well. From Mises.org:

  On the contrary, when the individual is merely a tenant, either of
  a farm or a dwelling or a business site, his interest is in taking
  out all he can to compensate for the cost of the rent he pays. This
  is true whether his landlord is a private person or a government.
  Actually, in those cases where government has become the landlord,
  the evidence abounds that tenants are even less interested in
  improving or even maintaining the property they occupy.

It seems an appropriate description. Of course, their solution would possibly be to privatize the seas, which I personally wouldn't advocate for.

You know, if you write all your arguments in capslock they will be even more persuasive.

There is no homogenous group of "capitalists". Many regulations are the product of collective wishes of 99% and its absurd to blame some non-existent group for lobbying against "any and all" effective regulation.

I swear someday I will write browser extension to analyze and hide such hand-wavy arguments like this one.

In the example of overfishing, there is no group lobbying against "any and all" regulation.

But the owner of the fishery/cannery is lobbying against quotas, the owner of the fishing boat is lobbying against worker protections that would slow down the harvest, and the restauranteurs sure have a significant interest in keeping the price of fish as low as possible.

Heterogeneous groups, acting in their own interests, end up working towards the same goal - preventing regulation that would slow overfishing. That's the tragedy of the commons.

OK, am I getting you right? You say the system is totally ok, shall take no blame, because it just is that way?

That naturalistic argument (don't blame it on the missing rain, that your crops died) is good for natural processes. But you are talking about a cultural/societal process here. So this system was designed in a special way. It could have been designed in a more ethical way. In a way to internalize externalities.

It was designed intentionally is what I wanted to say. And that invalidates a naturalistic argument.

I think you and pi guy are on the same wavelength, but emphasizing different pieces... He is saying that pure capitalism doesn't work well against common goods (e.g. capitalism in fishing leads to over-fishing). He further says to privatize or regulate (via government intervention). This is the same as "internalizing the externalities" as you described.

In other words, don't blame capitalism (a natural set of incentives aligned around gain from profit) for the disruption of the fish supply in the small town. Blame the Mexican (per the parable) government for not either licensing the fishing rights to a single charter or regulating the amount of fishing in the area. Properly managed, either approach would incentivize business to reign in the take-all (free capitalism) approach for long-term sustainability (and thus, greater overall profit).

Riight. And National Socialism is not to blame for the unfortunate fate of Jews. After all it is DESIGNED to exterminate lesser races.