Let's just say it's full of symbolism
So today (still lacking internet), I thought about Urinetown.
The musical, that is - the one set in a dystopian future where a terrible drought has brought an end to private toilets. Instead, everyone must pay to use the public toilets, run by the Urine Good Company; those who don't are shipped off to Urinetown - the place, that is. (Spoilers at bottom, for those who want to know more.) The plot of the musical follows an uprising against the UGC.
And I got to thinking (inspired in part by this Thomas Sowell article, but seriously, that's not the point of this post): as a capitalist, what, if anything, is my problem with the UGC, aside from the whole Sent To Urinetown thing? Should I, to be consistent, argue that they have a right to establish this monopoly? The musical does pause to note that they're doing some good - researching the drought, holding back overuse of water - but is this enough?
That prompted the question, then: why wasn't anyone else undercutting the UGC, selling the "privilege to pee" at lower prices? Why was a revolution necessary to effect this change?
And that answer, too, is in the musical: there's a law that you have to pay the fee. The UGC is, in effect, more government than company - they are the legislative and military powers, with the ability to snuff out any competing industries.
In a free market (with, you know, some sane levels of government protection of rights, in order to keep people from being shipped off to Urinetown), the UGC flatly doesn't work. Their business model is designed to drive customers away. A better - and, hopefully, more plausible - model would be to pay people to use their toilets, since that would return water to the company, and then to charge to sell people water back. You could, of course, go relieve yourself in the desert, but that would be pouring money down the drain (as it were). You could also try to set up a home filtration system if you didn't trust the UGC's exchange rates - and, of course, multiple companies could all try to buy your water.
It still wouldn't be a very pleasant place to live, I imagine, but that's a fundamental fact of there not being enough water. What could be avoided, though, are the two extremes of the musical: the crushing, monopolistic power of the government and the anarchic, free-for-all waste of water later on.
* - Being "sent to Urinetown" turns out to be the same thing as "being thrown off a cliff."
The musical, that is - the one set in a dystopian future where a terrible drought has brought an end to private toilets. Instead, everyone must pay to use the public toilets, run by the Urine Good Company; those who don't are shipped off to Urinetown - the place, that is. (Spoilers at bottom, for those who want to know more.) The plot of the musical follows an uprising against the UGC.
And I got to thinking (inspired in part by this Thomas Sowell article, but seriously, that's not the point of this post): as a capitalist, what, if anything, is my problem with the UGC, aside from the whole Sent To Urinetown thing? Should I, to be consistent, argue that they have a right to establish this monopoly? The musical does pause to note that they're doing some good - researching the drought, holding back overuse of water - but is this enough?
That prompted the question, then: why wasn't anyone else undercutting the UGC, selling the "privilege to pee" at lower prices? Why was a revolution necessary to effect this change?
And that answer, too, is in the musical: there's a law that you have to pay the fee. The UGC is, in effect, more government than company - they are the legislative and military powers, with the ability to snuff out any competing industries.
In a free market (with, you know, some sane levels of government protection of rights, in order to keep people from being shipped off to Urinetown), the UGC flatly doesn't work. Their business model is designed to drive customers away. A better - and, hopefully, more plausible - model would be to pay people to use their toilets, since that would return water to the company, and then to charge to sell people water back. You could, of course, go relieve yourself in the desert, but that would be pouring money down the drain (as it were). You could also try to set up a home filtration system if you didn't trust the UGC's exchange rates - and, of course, multiple companies could all try to buy your water.
It still wouldn't be a very pleasant place to live, I imagine, but that's a fundamental fact of there not being enough water. What could be avoided, though, are the two extremes of the musical: the crushing, monopolistic power of the government and the anarchic, free-for-all waste of water later on.
* - Being "sent to Urinetown" turns out to be the same thing as "being thrown off a cliff."