Say someone has a rattlesnake as a pet, and it gets on the loose in a place that doesn't usually have rattlesnakes - having pets like that is kind of a danger to people who live around you, kind of like nuclear weapons are (nukes could detonate and harm neighbors, exotic pets could escape and harm neighbors).
For that matter, how does the government deal with this issue now?
well, like in florida don't they have problems with pythons which are an invasive exotic pet that got in to the wild?
So this was one idea I thought of, as a problem that free markets might allow to happen, but maybe freedom to develop defense against this problem also might be created
of course, was just wondering if anyone has thought about this issue before. It's not like the government's regulations prevented the python outbreak in Florida either
The python issue is often blamed on individual exotic pet owners because government loves an excuse to restrict people, but it was actually caused by a giant reptile farm getting destroyed in a hurricane and their breeding stock getting loose. The lionfish problem has a similar orgin, they were turned loose by a diving company trying to make their dives more exotic and appealing to customers.
thanks for giving more insight on the issue, although that would still be just as much a problem for the free market to deal with since it was private companies that caused the problem
Having a farm like that is a danger to the surrounding community just like having nuclear weapons is (like I think I mentioned in the OP), so I guess really it's an open conversation whether there's a government or not, we need to either have defenses in place for a natural disaster that could release certain animals into the wild, or encourage such farms to have certain security practices in place to make sure they don't escape.
I guess freedom to shoot it in the fucking face
How would the free market deal with it as opposed to what system that deals with it now?