NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, let me apologize for my name. Anyway, I have several questions to aks Libertarians (libertarians, too).

My first question,

What kind of privatized prison (if any) do you support? I don't really like the idea of the government giving prisons money to hold the inmates. You're still using taxpayer money and it doesn't actually end up being any cheaper.

Perhaps the government could give the prisoners to the privately-run prisons who would then utilize the prisoners as cheap labor.

I don't know, it all seems kind of messy. Maybe I'm not completely grapsing the idea of privatized prisons. Would someone mind explaining it to me?

Secondly,

If Welfare were to be abolished, wouldn't the crime rate increase? Those people who had welfare there to help pay for the basic of necessites would no longer have them and would resort to stealing? How would this be addressed?

Would a gradual elimination of welfare solve this problem more easily than abolishing it over night?

Finally,

Do Libertarians (or libertarians) support the Negative Income Tax? The flat tax?

Here we go again...

Here we go again...
I'll make us some popcorn.

Good topic...but it's too warm right now (stupid country, stupid sun, stupid lack of rain...grrrr!) for me to think.

Rest assured that I'll be back and attack people's arguments by sniping from behind my newly reconstructed position of moral relativism - it's unassailable...:D

Just kidding.;)

With privatized prisons, you're moving away from libertarianism to anarcho-capitalism...not my school of thought.

And welfare would be phased out in favor of private charity and the like.

This 'negative income tax' sounds confusing - I think I prefer a Fair or Flat Tax better...

With privatized prisons, you're moving away from libertarianism to anarcho-capitalism...not my school of thought.

And welfare would be phased out in favor of private charity and the like.

This 'negative income tax' sounds confusing - I think I prefer a Fair or Flat Tax better...

Explain the Fair/Flat tax to me, and why you think they would be a better choice.

Maybe I'm not completely grapsing the idea of privatized prisons. Would someone mind explaining it to me?

well you see, it is better/cheaper/more efficient/more just to get the government out of the law and punishment business. so what we do is turn prisons over to private firms operating for a profit. and, in keeping with the better/cheaper/more efficient/more just thing, we also should privatize the police and turn it over to for-profit private enterprises. and we can't forget about the courts either - they too should be privately run and seek to make a profit for their shareholders. this will of course lead to the most just society imaginable. or slavery. certainly one of the two.

Flat Tax= everyone the same rate

Fair Tax: www.fairtax.org a flat rate retail sales tax, with a poverty rebate.

Flat Tax= everyone the same rate

Fair Tax: www.fairtax.org a flat rate retail sales tax, with a poverty rebate.

What do Libertarians support?

What do Libertarians support?
We support guns, lots and lots of guns.

You might want to use a small l, it makes all the difference.

What kind of privatized prison (if any) do you support? I don't really like the idea of the government giving prisons money to hold the inmates. You're still using taxpayer money and it doesn't actually end up being any cheaper. Dumb idea. You've just shifted power from one institution to another, with even less accountability and transparency.

Perhaps the government could give the prisoners to the privately-run prisons who would then utilize the prisoners as cheap labor.
No. Forced labor of any kind is cruel and unusual punishment bordering on slavery. It's a bad idea to shift that much power into the hands of an unreliable authority, be it the state or a private prison's warden.

Would a gradual elimination of welfare solve this problem more easily than abolishing it over night? Short answer-- Yes. Weaning from the state's teat is better policy than immediate withdrawal. That's bad policy.

Do Libertarians (or libertarians) support the Negative Income Tax? The flat tax?I prefer the Fair Tax (http://boortz.com/more/fairtax.html) myself, and hope my party (http://www.lp.org) adopts it as platform before the elections in '06, or at least '08 (although I'm not going to hold my breath.)

What do libertarians support?

And why aren't libertarians, Libertarians? What is holding you back from joining the party?

EDIT:

Eichen, what do you propose to do with the prison system, if anything? The legalization of drugs would certainly remove quite a bit of the prison population, but what of the murderers, rapists, etc, where would they go?

What do libertarians support?

And why aren't libertarians, Libertarians? What is holding you back from joining the party?
They are for a gold standard.

They are for a gold standard.

What's the problem with a gold standard? Not enough gold? Wouldn't that just increase the value of the dollar?

What do libertarians support?
And why aren't libertarians, Libertarians? What is holding you back from joining the party?
Maybe this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#A_typographical_convention) will clarify your conundrum

Eichen, what do you propose to do with the prison system, if anything? The legalization of drugs would certainly remove quite a bit of the prison population, but what of the murderers, rapists, etc, where would they go?
Umm, in prison? Remember, that in libertarianism if you committ harm to another person you will be punished by the law.

What's the problem with a gold standard? Not enough gold? Wouldn't that just increase the value of the dollar?
Which isn't always a good thing.

What do libertarians support? Free minds and free markets. Basically, we support political initiatives that increase individual liberty and personal responsibility (instead of shifting it to the state).

And why aren't libertarians, Libertarians? What is holding you back from joining the party?
A small l libertarian is one who adopts a libertarian political philosphy. They can be a member of any party anywhere on the planet.
A Libertarian belongs to the Libertarian Party, or it's equivalent in another country. A capital l denotes a noun, while a small l can denote both a noun and an adjective.

Eichen, what do you propose to do with the prison system, if anything? The legalization of drugs would certainly remove quite a bit of the prison population, but what of the murderers, rapists, etc, where would they go?
I don't plan to do anything with prisons per se, but law concerns me a great deal. I'm not sure what you mean by "Where would these people go". I've never heard a l/Libertarian calling for the complete dissolution of the prison system. Some may wish for reform, but I'm not into privatization of prisons.
I tend to be a bit more moderate than some of my fellow freedom-lovers, which makes me more of a neolibertarian.

What's the problem with a gold standard? Not enough gold? Wouldn't that just increase the value of the dollar?
From my experience, the anarcho-capitalists are more into the Gold Standard than run-of-the-mill libertarians. But at that point of differentiation, it's a bit like splitting hairs and a source for senseless infighting. So I try not to discuss major differences outside of our political circle.

...oh my! ;)

Sorry, by "where will they go" I meant what TYPE of prison would they go to? I didn't mean to imply there would be no prisons.

...oh my! ;)

It was only a matter of time!

Republicans, Democrats, and deficit spending... oh my!!

Sorry, by "where will they go" I meant what TYPE of prison would they go to? I didn't mean to imply there would be no prisons.
Okay, after answering this many questions I gotta ask: What's your motivation for asking?
Are you considering joining our evil, capital-worshipping cult, or are you just enjoying watching me tapdance like a little trained monkey here? :D

:D I actually consider myself Libertarian and would truly like to see the party become more influential. But there have been some counter-arguments to the Libertarian platform that I have been unable to shake.

Namely,

If Social Security is to be phased out, what do we do with all the money that taxpayers have paid into it? Would they be refunded over time?

Also,

What about our debt? How would we get rid of this by lowering taxes? Even with a massive cut of government programs, would there still be enough money to pay off debt while keeping the government, military and courts running?

Explain the Fair/Flat tax to me, and why you think they would be a better choice.
Better double up that popcorn order.:cool:

Better double up that popcorn order.:cool:

Other than the sarcastic comment by Free Soviets and the one liners (which were probably the only possible answers in the context of the quote) by Neo Kervoskia, I've yet to see any real action from those with viewpoints that don't coinicide with the LP platform or libertarianism.

:D I actually consider myself Libertarian and would truly like to see the party become more influential. But there have been some counter-arguments to the Libertarian platform that I have been unable to shake.

Namely,

If Social Security is to be phased out, what do we do with all the money that taxpayers have paid into it? Would they be refunded over time?

Also,

What about our debt? How would we get rid of this by lowering taxes? Even with a massive cut of government programs, would there still be enough money to pay off debt while keeping the government, military and courts running?

Whoa, hold up a sec. You're asking so many questions, and now they're starting to get deeper than what I consider comfortably communicable on an internet forum. Honestly, those issues are bookworthy.
This is the first real book I read on the subject: What It Means to be a Libertarian (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767900391/102-3936315-6316143?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance). It's easy to digest and covers most of the issues and questions you've mentioned (far better than I could).

Once you've read that, you might want to progress to more intermediate studies with these two books (my second and third I had read on the subject): Libertarianism : A Primer (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068484768X/ref=bxgy_cc_text_b/102-3936315-6316143?%5Fencoding=UTF8) and The Great Libertarian Offer (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0965603695/102-3936315-6316143?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance).

Once you've covered the basics, we'll be better able to communicate about the finer details. Not to mention, they're all really good books regardless of your political persuasion.

Other than the sarcastic comment by Free Soviets and the one liners (which were probably the only possible answers in the context of the quote) by Neo Kervoskia, I've yet to see any real action from those with viewpoints that don't coinicide with the LP platform or libertarianism.
If by action you mean political protest, we leave that to the hippies while we work on getting elected and affecting legislation.

Also, you might need to know your way around the LP more before assuming that there's not movements to reform (http://www.reformthelp.org//home/intro/). Don't assume the water's depth until you've learned to dive first. ;)
EDIT: I'm also a member of the LRC, so your claim didn't seem to hold a candle to my level of reformatory activism.

What about our debt? How would we get rid of this by lowering taxes? Even with a massive cut of government programs, would there still be enough money to pay off debt while keeping the government, military and courts running?
Alright I'm going to try to tackle this part at least a bit.

By lowering taxes, we've shown many times in the past that the ecconomy goes up. This happens because there is more money in the pocket of the citizens who then either invest it in the economy directly through spending, or indirectly through personal investing (which does include savings, although that is a bit more removed to the individual than say stocks). With more investing businesses and more revenue to businesses the taxes will go up at the corporate level. This extra revenue also allows the businesses to expand, thus allowing either increases to employee pay and/or the hiring of more workers.

One of the advantages of the Fair Tax would be to eliminate all Corporate taxes. Because corporations look for the countries with the most favorable tax, many of the companies that have left the US will return along with many others. Diamler-Chrysler (SP?) testified before Congress that the reason they incorporated in Germany vice the US is that they would had a more favorable tax code there. If we make the US tax code more favorable than any other country (i. e. 0%) then we'll see a hug influx of companies which will mean more employment and more revenue in sales taxes.

*snip*
I haven't seen you around the boards, but it's nice to see another Sith on the Dark Side on such a brightly lit forum. :D

I haven't seen you around the boards, but it's nice to see another Sith on the Dark Side on such a brightly lit forum. :D
You must have missed me in some of the other threads dealing with the Fair Tax.

I think he's reading all of those books right now.

Whoa, hold up a sec. You're asking so many questions, and now they're starting to get deeper than what I consider comfortably communicable on an internet forum. Honestly, those issues are bookworthy.
This is the first real book I read on the subject: What It Means to be a Libertarian (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767900391/102-3936315-6316143?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance). It's easy to digest and covers most of the issues and questions you've mentioned (far better than I could).

Once you've read that, you might want to progress to more intermediate studies with these two books (my second and third I had read on the subject): Libertarianism : A Primer (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068484768X/ref=bxgy_cc_text_b/102-3936315-6316143?%5Fencoding=UTF8) and The Great Libertarian Offer (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0965603695/102-3936315-6316143?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance).

Once you've covered the basics, we'll be better able to communicate about the finer details. Not to mention, they're all really good books regardless of your political persuasion.

I'll definitely check those books out; especially if I'm spending some time in jail.

I was actually checking out the LRC; a bit pitiful that the votes were something like 13 to 36. Why don't more businesses support and donate to the LP? We need to be heard.

I'll definitely check those books out; especially if I'm spending some time in jail.

I was actually checking out the LRC; a bit pitiful that the votes were something like 13 to 36. Why don't more businesses support and donate to the LP? We need to be heard.
It's all about getting the word out (most people still don't know that we're an option since they think anything else other than what they see on Fox and CNN doesn't exist.)

Also, public sentiment is changing, but our views on drugs and borders/immigration currently hold up the biggest barrier concerning acceptance by businesses. I'm willing to sorta compromise on one, but not on the other.
Initiatives like the marijuana legalization victory in Denver and decriminalization in other states indicate that public sentiment is rapidly changing concerning the insane "war" on drugs.

I think we'll see great change in the LP in the future; at least, that's what I'm hoping for.

Well, I'm off for the night. Ciao.

Environment has always been my concern with libertarianism. How is the environment protected with a government so reduced in size?

Environment has always been my concern with libertarianism. How is the environment protected with a government so reduced in size?

Private property rights. The main environmental problems today are based upon a lack of private property rights and enforcement thereof.

Consider if all property was private. It would mean timber companies can't be allowed to run through public land. If they want to chop it down, they have to buy the land outright.

Pollution, as well. You've no right to crap up my property with your pollution, or my body because both violate my private property rights. You'd have to restrict the pollution, or buy up all the land upon which your factory pollutes.

Pollution, as well. You've no right to crap up my property with your pollution, or my body because both violate my private property rights. You'd have to restrict the pollution, or buy up all the land upon which your factory pollutes.

Which is where the libertarian philosophy finds it's downfall. There is no perfect information, and some things can't be fixed by suing.

When someone pollutes the air, who pays? Well, the guy who polluted it right? Okay... but how do you find them?

When someone pollutes the ground and it's not immediately apparant, but rather affects the groundwater supply and slowly kills cropland some three miles distant, how do you find who did it? Even if you do have a likely suspect, how do you prove it was them? Even if you do manage to prove it was them, does money really replace the family farm? The land made non-arable is a net loss for society as a whole, for many generations. How do you appropriately sue a firm for that? Do you sue not only the person but their children and grandchildren to pay for the damage done?

Which is where the libertarian philosophy finds it's downfall. There is no perfect information, and some things can't be fixed by suing.

When someone pollutes the air, who pays? Well, the guy who polluted it right? Okay... but how do you find them?

You're assuming that without government, there will be no investigation. That is not justified. Private investigators gather information for divorce cases, and the like because the Police won't. They don't do it for environmentat cases only because the state does it to the extent that the market doesn't exist.

Another thing, perfect solution fallacies do not an argument make. No one said there was any such thing as perfect information, nor does there need to be. All that's needed is the amount of information needed to satisfy the burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt)

When someone pollutes the ground and it's not immediately apparant, but rather affects the groundwater supply and slowly kills cropland some three miles distant, how do you find who did it? Even if you do have a likely suspect, how do you prove it was them?

The Government's investigators do it. Why not private sector investigators?

Even if you do manage to prove it was them, does money really replace the family farm? The land made non-arable is a net loss for society as a whole, for many generations. How do you appropriately sue a firm for that? Do you sue not only the person but their children and grandchildren to pay for the damage done?

"Society as a whole", you've completely missed the point. The problem with pollution is that it violates private property rights.

Under any reasonable system of law, you can sue a person, or a corporation. I think you can sue an estate as well.

To add to what Disraeliland said:
It is most likely that, in a society with no central government, arbitration firms appear (to replace the courts, etc). Not complying with what an arbitration firm suggests is a fair solution will result that that firm (and the ones it has contracts with to not accept people considered as non complying) will not take you as a client until you comply with the solution. This basically allows open season on the non-complier assets since there is no where that the non complying party can go and ask for arbitration as long as the non complyance persists .

To put it in other terms it's an endless repeating cycle of the prisoner dilemma where the parties involved remember how you reacted in the previous cycle (and work on a tit for tat principle).
And now the funny thing is that the most viable strategy in this situation is cooperation. You might be better of one cycle but in the cycles after that you'll be worse off.
Here's a Link (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html) to a simulation of this. Now try to pollute in the 3rd round by going for the compete option (you pollute since it's cheaper and because of that makes you more money and you are not planning on repairing the damage done by the pollution) and try to maximize the money you get. Then try it again but now cooperate for the entire time (which is equal to either not polluting or compensating for the pollution done).

Flat Tax= everyone the same rate

Fair Tax: www.fairtax.org a flat rate retail sales tax, with a poverty rebate.

So a progressive tax that places an undue burden on the middle class.

Whatever floats your boat.

Pollution, as well. You've no right to crap up my property with your pollution, or my body because both violate my private property rights. You'd have to restrict the pollution, or buy up all the land upon which your factory pollutes.

Well that's the problem isn't it? Factories may actually start buying up property and polluting it. Even if this compensates property owners the enviroment is harmed nevertheless.

At one point you have to realize that there are some things that cannot be repaired or compensated with more money. Would you really risk the stability of the enviroment and the habitability of our world for the narrow concern of compensation? Do you have so much faith in the imperfect decisions of thousands of self-interested actors to save us before they destroy us?

It's perfectly fine to allow individual actors to determine their economic destiny, in fact it's wrong not too. But should this extend to issues the severity of which is far beyond what these economic actors usually concern themselves with? I really am baffled by the assertion that the market is a solution for everything.

That being said, I think a private prison system may be of some benefit as long as: (1) these prisons are required to follow laws with regards to prisoner welfare; (2) private prisons prove to be more efficient than public prisons.

It is most likely that, in a society with no central government, arbitration firms appear (to replace the courts, etc). Not complying with what an arbitration firm suggests is a fair solution will result that that firm (and the ones it has contracts with to not accept people considered as non complying) will not take you as a client until you comply with the solution. This basically allows open season on the non-complier assets since there is no where that the non complying party can go and ask for arbitration as long as the non complyance persists .

Cooperation aside you have the problem of no guiding principles of law from which these arbitration firms may base their decisions upon.

Some firms will favor X kind of client why others the Y kind of client. Battles over which firm is controlling will be the central feature of contracts. What's worse is contracts which do not specify which firm controls; how do you resolve that jursidictional issue?

You aren't even touching on the issue of criminal law. Not very likely that you will have any concern for criminal rights by independent firms. In fact, the most popular firms would likely be the most oppressive on suspected criminals.

A privatized justice system doesn't have to offer a perfect solution, but it should at least be better than a public justice system...

Well that's the problem isn't it? Factories may actually start buying up property and polluting it. Even if this compensates property owners the enviroment is harmed nevertheless.

At one point you have to realize that there are some things that cannot be repaired or compensated with more money. Would you really risk the stability of the enviroment and the habitability of our world for the narrow concern of compensation? Do you have so much faith in the imperfect decisions of thousands of self-interested actors to save us before they destroy us?

It's perfectly fine to allow individual actors to determine their economic destiny, in fact it's wrong not too. But should this extend to issues the severity of which is far beyond what these economic actors usually concern themselves with? I really am baffled by the assertion that the market is a solution for everything.

That being said, I think a private prison system may be of some benefit as long as: (1) these prisons are required to follow laws with regards to prisoner welfare; (2) private prisons prove to be more efficient than public prisons.

That's a lot of land that would have to be bought up. Any expansion (even if it was into previously purchased land) would mean the company would have to buy more land to compensate for pollution. If the effects of pollution are so widespread as people claim (and they are) then a company would be looking at having to buy massive amounts of land. It would be cheaper to be kind to the environment.

And why aren't libertarians, Libertarians? What is holding you back from joining the party?
I'm a libertarian. I'm most assuredly not a Libertarian. And a sales tax is the least fair tax of all.

I'm a libertarian. I'm most assuredly not a Libertarian. And a sales tax is the least fair tax of all.

So why aren't you a Libertarian? And why is sales tax the least fair?

That's a lot of land that would have to be bought up. Any expansion (even if it was into previously purchased land) would mean the company would have to buy more land to compensate for pollution. If the effects of pollution are so widespread as people claim (and they are) then a company would be looking at having to buy massive amounts of land. It would be cheaper to be kind to the environment.

No company would be willing to buy a property that provides them no production value that they can avoid buying. Therefore, companies will not purchase property unless requried to by some kind of court system. The courts will have to draw arbitrary lines in the level of pollution that requires purchase so that only the most obvious instances of pollution will require companies to purchase land.

However, pollution is not always overt. Hundreds of factories can contribute to the pollution of a particular area. If these factories end up, for example, killing fish along a coastline should they compensate the families of fishermen for their lives? If the poisons they produced spread into the middle of the Atlantic should they buy up the sea? The point is that pollution can be far more widespread than what companies would be legally required to compensate for.

Furthermore you did not consider the point that compensation isn't salvation. If we want a sustainable world shouldn't we also require that companies clean up their mess rather than hide it away on their property? We most likely should.

It's true that all the costs of compensation and clean-up will force companies to start running clean. The problem isn't the incentives, the problem is the timeliness of the incentives. Will comapnies start to run clean while the damage is still repairable? We can't say for sure and I for one am willing to give up some efficiency for some certainty.

No company would be willing to buy a property that provides them no production value that they can avoid buying.

That makes no sense, what you're saying is that they would risk a lawsuit, rather than buy land. Avoiding lawsuits, that could potentially bring the company down is important.

However, pollution is not always overt. Hundreds of factories can contribute to the pollution of a particular area. If these factories end up, for example, killing fish along a coastline should they compensate the families of fishermen for their lives? If the poisons they produced spread into the middle of the Atlantic should they buy up the sea? The point is that pollution can be far more widespread than what companies would be legally required to compensate for.

Why not buy parts of the sea, they could also charge fees for ships passing through it.

Whether the fisherman should be compensated is a complex question, the fishermen might own the part of the sea in which they are fishing (should compensate), or it might belong to the company, and the fishermen are there illegally (should not compensate)

You are nevertheless ignoring the fact that presently government would do nothing if the firm was large enough to be politically connected, and nothing further if the sea being polluted wasn't in its territory.

If you think I am arguing a perfect solution (and the only people who think a perfect solution is being argued are those who wish to look for the slightest imperfection in order to say the entire argument is rubbish), you would be wrong. I am arguing a better solution than the idiocy now, where government swings from being in the pockets of big business to hammering on the environment in order to get votes, and undermines private property rights. Where the "environment", and "sustainability" are trojan horses for increasing state power and intervention. It is no coincidence that left-wing parties favour "environmental" interventionism.

Here is an mp3 for you to download. It is a lecture by Walter Block on environmentalism: http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/block/block5.mp3 you'll probably need a fast connection. I shall look for a transcript if you like.

That makes no sense, what you're saying is that they would risk a lawsuit, rather than buy land. Avoiding lawsuits, that could potentially bring the company down is important.

That's true. If you read the sentence you quoted in conjunction with the next sentence you will see that I am setting up that kind of motivation. Unless there is the threat of lawsuits then companies will not willingly compensate anyone. It's just bad business.

Why not buy parts of the sea, they could also charge fees for ships passing through it.

Whether the fisherman should be compensated is a complex question, the fishermen might own the part of the sea in which they are fishing (should compensate), or it might belong to the company, and the fishermen are there illegally (should not compensate)

Well there are two problems there. At first the seas were free passage and now companies are charging fees. Shipping companies will have to either pay the fees or find new, less efficient routes. As always the final costs are passed on to the consumers. So ultimately the consumers pay for the pollution. Anyway that's solved with just a 'no fee for you' law.

With regards to the fishermen. I think it is safe to assume they either own the land or have a right to fish it (I certainly wouldn't include criminal fishermen as people who might have a right to be compensated). So, let's assume that they either own the sea or own a right to fish it (the most likely scenario). Assuming that a company ruined a part of the ocean, that it didn't own, so that these fishermen can no longer use it but had a right to, should the fishermen be compensated? For how much?

You are nevertheless ignoring the fact that presently government would do nothing if the firm was large enough to be politically connected, and nothing further if the sea being polluted wasn't in its territory.


That is a problem, and I certainly do not advocate bad government. But before we move to a free market solution shouldn't we try our hand at reform?

If you think I am arguing a perfect solution... you would be wrong. I am arguing a better solution than the idiocy now...

That's how I interpreted your argument. Though I honestly did consider declaring that fallacy for shits and giggles. :p

[QUOTE=Disraeliland]Here is an mp3 for you to download. It is a lecture by Walter Block on environmentalism: http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/block/block5.mp3 you'll probably need a fast connection. I shall look for a transcript if you like.QUOTE]

I got it. I will try to listen to it over the weekend. I heard the first 5 minutes, there are some interesting quesitons being raised. I may have to download the next session on abortion, was it any good?

That is a problem, and I certainly do not advocate bad government. But before we move to a free market solution shouldn't we try our hand at reform?


"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." -- Milton Friedman

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." -- Milton Friedman

"Louie, Louie, oh no, said we gotta go.
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah, I said a
Louie, Louie, oh baby, said we gotta go."

- Kingsmen

"Louie, Louie, oh no, said we gotta go.
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah, I said a
Louie, Louie, oh baby, said we gotta go."

- Kingsmen

Now I feel like a 'tard.

Now I feel like a 'tard.

Eh... Victory?

That's true. If you read the sentence you quoted in conjunction with the next sentence you will see that I am setting up that kind of motivation. Unless there is the threat of lawsuits then companies will not willingly compensate anyone. It's just bad business.

And if you will read what I have posted, lawsuits are exactly what I have advocated, and that firms that pollute are liable for what they pollute.

Well there are two problems there. At first the seas were free passage and now companies are charging fees. Shipping companies will have to either pay the fees or find new, less efficient routes. As always the final costs are passed on to the consumers. So ultimately the consumers pay for the pollution. Anyway that's solved with just a 'no fee for you' law.

That isn't a problem, it is a normal consequence of private property rights. Besides, they get taxed hugely, and a libertarian state would not charge the huge taxes. The consumers of internationally moved goods pay for the transport of those goods.

With regards to the fishermen. I think it is safe to assume they either own the land or have a right to fish it (I certainly wouldn't include criminal fishermen as people who might have a right to be compensated). So, let's assume that they either own the sea or own a right to fish it (the most likely scenario). Assuming that a company ruined a part of the ocean, that it didn't own, so that these fishermen can no longer use it but had a right to, should the fishermen be compensated? For how much?

That's not strictly relevant to the thread, you're asking about tort reform, and if we get into that, we'll be here for eons. Sufficient to say that if they own the part of the sea, or a licence from the owner to fish, then they are entitled to compensation from the polluter.

That is a problem, and I certainly do not advocate bad government. But before we move to a free market solution shouldn't we try our hand at reform?

Because the process is inheriently bad. Environment and the state are a bad combination. Instead of reinforcing property rights through strict liability, the state has used envrionmentalism as a Torjan Horse to erode property rights, and create a huge regulatory burden. In the erosion of rights, small reform isn't good, what is good is the reinforcement of property rights all around.

That's how I interpreted your argument. Though I honestly did consider declaring that fallacy for shits and giggles.

You'd have declared it wrongly. The "perfect-solution fallacy" is applied by those who wish to refute something be claiming it isn't perfect, for example: "These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.".

The answer is: "It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving enough to make the policy worthwhile?"

Cooperation aside you have the problem of no guiding principles of law from which these arbitration firms may base their decisions upon.

Some firms will favor X kind of client why others the Y kind of client. Battles over which firm is controlling will be the central feature of contracts. What's worse is contracts which do not specify which firm controls; how do you resolve that jursidictional issue?

You aren't even touching on the issue of criminal law. Not very likely that you will have any concern for criminal rights by independent firms. In fact, the most popular firms would likely be the most oppressive on suspected criminals.

A privatized justice system doesn't have to offer a perfect solution, but it should at least be better than a public justice system...
About your critisms.

1) No guiding principles.
Non argument. For two reasons.

These firms are not created in isolation so there is a base that will be build on
The guiding principle is to make money. To make money they need to deliver arbitration in an as efficient manner possible without comprimising their (perceived) neutrality and fairness.


2) Who prosecutes.
Criminal acts (as the one on which I made my comment) do not need a contract that is to be broken in the first place. But there are at least two layers, that I can think of just typing here there might be more, which can also influence where someone gets prosecuted. One is contracts between different arbitration firms, the second one is the insurance firm insuring the damaged property/person.
Most likely if arbitration firms getting into contact discover they have no contract(s) with each other yet will first setup such a contract to facilitate conflict resolution.
There is one exception to this (which ties in with your point 3) an arbitration firm that is perceived as being unfair to accused parties. Such a firm will either lose/not get contracts with other firms or have to accept that they will not arbitrate at all.

3) Criminal law
See 1) point two and 2) second counter argument.
Can't say if the most oppresive firms will be the most popular since those rules are the ones they expect their clients to abide by as well.

4) Worse system.
I applaud your ability to infer from a single statement made about how a specific situation might be handled by private arbitration in absense of a government arbitration system (AKA courts) that the private arbitration is always worse then government enforced arbitration.
Please explain why private arbitration (AKA (alternate) dispute resolution AKA (private) mediation) is steadily increasing in popularity. Keep in mind that the reason that cases still end up in the government court is that ADR has to be acceptable by both sides since it's voluntary and the people doing the ADR generally have no options to enforce their solution.

First of all, let me apologize for my name. Anyway, I have several questions to aks Libertarians (libertarians, too).

My first question,

What kind of privatized prison (if any) do you support? I don't really like the idea of the government giving prisons money to hold the inmates. You're still using taxpayer money and it doesn't actually end up being any cheaper.

Perhaps the government could give the prisoners to the privately-run prisons who would then utilize the prisoners as cheap labor.

I don't know, it all seems kind of messy. Maybe I'm not completely grapsing the idea of privatized prisons. Would someone mind explaining it to me?

Secondly,

If Welfare were to be abolished, wouldn't the crime rate increase? Those people who had welfare there to help pay for the basic of necessites would no longer have them and would resort to stealing? How would this be addressed?

Would a gradual elimination of welfare solve this problem more easily than abolishing it over night?

Finally,

Do Libertarians (or libertarians) support the Negative Income Tax? The flat tax?

Being a Libertarian doesn't mean NO state services, what it means is the minimum number of services provided by the state, as required; and if that means having government owned prisons, then that'll be the situation.

Libertarianism isn't about absolutely everything privately operated and owned, its about justifying the boundaries of where the government ends and the private sector begins, and whether something can be done more efficiently via the private sector, be it in the form of the marketing having its way, or targeted assistance by only subsidising services for those who truely deserve/require assistance.

For example, welfare could be better achieved by getting charieties to carry the burden by allowing individuals on higher incomes to make donations to these charieties rather than having the money forcefully taken off high income earners and redirected through a maze of beaucracy.

And if you will read what I have posted, lawsuits are exactly what I have advocated, and that firms that pollute are liable for what they pollute.

And I didn't deny that you were. We are both saying the same thing, let's not quibble over it.

That isn't a problem, it is a normal consequence of private property rights. Besides, they get taxed hugely, and a libertarian state would not charge the huge taxes. The consumers of internationally moved goods pay for the transport of those goods.

Lanes that were once free to travel between would be taxed by polluting companies trying to recoup the losses they themselves created. Seems to me this is a problem... But anyway the specific application of the free market solution is not at issue here, I'm more concerned with any such application being inadequate no matter how it handles the purchase of the sea.

That's not strictly relevant to the thread, you're asking about tort reform, and if we get into that, we'll be here for eons. Sufficient to say that if they own the part of the sea, or a licence from the owner to fish, then they are entitled to compensation from the polluter.

It has nothing to do with tort reform. More people will be harmed by the free market solution than property owners, I'm just trying to point that out and ask how would those that are harmed are to be compensated, if at all.

Because the process is inheriently bad. Environment and the state are a bad combination. Instead of reinforcing property rights through strict liability, the state has used envrionmentalism as a Torjan Horse to erode property rights, and create a huge regulatory burden. In the erosion of rights, small reform isn't good, what is good is the reinforcement of property rights all around.

Either the government erodes property rights through regulation or private companies do so but simply compensate the victims for doing so. Either way we turn we have people's property rights being violated. Therefore, the question for me is which is more likely to curb pollution, government oversight or the free market? It seems to me that an actor that can take a broad view of the enviroment and the economy will be best suited for the job. The government has more information at its disposal than individual companies, more experts to call upon, and the reach to insure that all companies are complying with pollution reduction standards. The individual firm can only hope to regulate itself and will do so only if there is a profit to be made in it. I'm not sure that the profit will be there before we have past the point of no return. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But on such a serious matter I'd rather be safe than sorry.

You'd have declared it wrongly.

I'd have declared it in jest. It was a joke man.

1) No guiding principles.
Non argument. For two reasons...

Funny that I'm making a non-argument. I didn't say that arb firms would be created in a vacuum. But what does that mean? Simply that they will react to each other as other firms in other industries do, but so what? That doesn't mean that they will form a common legal system amongst themselves.

They're motive is to profit? Well, of course. But why should that mean that they will form a common legal system? They will want to be the most efficient, but that's a ministerial issue, not a legal issue outside of the rules of evidence. They will certainly want to be perceived as fair but that doesn't guarantee a common dispute resolution system. Any number of rules can be perceived as fair given the right circumstances. Therefore, you will likely have boutique arb firms that cater to a particular class of clients.

2) Who prosecutes.

Ok... that was an answer. But to what question?

Can't say if the most oppresive firms will be the most popular since those rules are the ones they expect their clients to abide by as well.

Well the clients are those that can afford to pay for justice. Most likely they will be protected not only by their own justice system but by the undesirables that can't afford protection themselves.

Anyway, I will be honest and admit that the statement I made is only speculation on my part and I can't demonstrate to a high degree of certainty what kinds of firms will prosper. I stand by it, but let's move on for now and focus on the central argument I made.

That argument is that a totally private judicial system will be horribly inefficient as you will have competing systems of law in the same localities with no overriding authority to set them straight.

I applaud your ability to infer from a single statement made about how a specific situation might be handled by private arbitration in absense of a government arbitration system (AKA courts) that the private arbitration is always worse then government enforced arbitration.

I'm not even touching the method of operation here. I am pointing out a general failure of a totally private legal system.

Furthermore I am not arguing against arb alongside a public system. You began your post assuming no public courts and demonstrating how totally private arbitration would work. I am just proposing my arguments on why it can't.

Please explain why private arbitration (AKA (alternate) dispute resolution AKA (private) mediation) is steadily increasing in popularity. Keep in mind that the reason that cases still end up in the government court is that ADR has to be acceptable by both sides since it's voluntary and the people doing the ADR generally have no options to enforce their solution.

I don't have to. I'm not against all arb or mediation. I find an arb option in the context of a public legal system is ideal.

Lanes that were once free to travel between would be taxed by polluting companies trying to recoup the losses they themselves created. Seems to me this is a problem... But anyway the specific application of the free market solution is not at issue here, I'm more concerned with any such application being inadequate no matter how it handles the purchase of the sea.

I don't see where the problem is, except that fees have to be paid to cross territory.

It has nothing to do with tort reform. More people will be harmed by the free market solution than property owners, I'm just trying to point that out and ask how would those that are harmed are to be compensated, if at all.

That is not correct. Firstly, how people are to be conpensated is essentially a debate concerning tort reform.

Private property rights also includes your ownership of your body.

Either the government erodes property rights through regulation or private companies do so but simply compensate the victims for doing so. Either way we turn we have people's property rights being violated.

You left a lot out. The violation of property rights by government goes unpunished, on the other hand, under the system I advocate, the violation of property rights is punished. This punishment creates an incentive to respect property rights.

Therefore, the question for me is which is more likely to curb pollution, government oversight or the free market? It seems to me that an actor that can take a broad view of the enviroment and the economy will be best suited for the job. The government has more information at its disposal than individual companies, more experts to call upon, and the reach to insure that all companies are complying with pollution reduction standards.

Government doesn't take a broad view. Government takes a highly narrow and simple view. In matters of the environment, it's priorities is to secure votes, and increase its power. The government has the information it pays for by hiring people with the appropriate training, and experience. Under the system I advocate, there will be a private market for people with such training and experience to provide the information to private firms for planning and legal defence, and to normal lawyers to provide evidence for lawsuits.

The individual firm can only hope to regulate itself and will do so only if there is a profit to be made in it. I'm not sure that the profit will be there before we have past the point of no return. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But on such a serious matter I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Surrendering liberty to get the promise of security? Not a viable plan.

The individual firm must regulate itself in a strict liability system, otherwise it will be held to account. Harsh punishments for violations of property rights are necessary.

Government attempts to regulate the envrionment are either so feeble as to be totally ineffective, or so grand that they will destroy essential liberties.

I don't see where the problem is, except that fees have to be paid to cross territory.

I don't see how there is a problem understanding it. Where there was once free passage there are now fees. The companies that pollute will regain the money spent to buy the property, maybe even make a profit. Hell, pollution opens up the possibility of a whole new income stream. The more pollution the better too, that way you can buy up more property so those crafty carriers can't get around you. Pollution becomes profitable. More so than usual.

That is not correct. Firstly, how people are to be conpensated is essentially a debate concerning tort reform.

Alright fine, call it what you want. But answer the question. Pollution will harm more people than just property owners, who will be compensated?

You left a lot out. The violation of property rights by government goes unpunished, on the other hand, under the system I advocate, the violation of property rights is punished. This punishment creates an incentive to respect property rights.

In your system there is no punishment, there is only compensation. The very least these polluting companies can do is pay for their own mess.

Did you consider though that this property-based method of compensation won't be all that fair for the victims of pollution? The polluting companies will get to buy polluted land at a discount of its original value. The original property owners lose their land, get pittance for compensation, and this system is supposed to preserve property rights? I call a foul.

Government doesn't take a broad view. Government takes a highly narrow and simple view. In matters of the environment, it's priorities is to secure votes, and increase its power.

That's the motivation that makes the whole thing work. I don't consider the profit motive to be dirty word, why should the power motive be? I'm not advocated giving the government a totally free hand in drafting and enforcing regulations. We don't have to choose between a king and a pauper. There is a happy middle to be found.

The government has the information it pays for by hiring people with the appropriate training, and experience. Under the system I advocate, there will be a private market for people with such training and experience to provide the information to private firms for planning and legal defence, and to normal lawyers to provide evidence for lawsuits.

So the government works to reduce pollution so that it gains more power. Or firms work to avoid compensating anyone for their pollution to gain more profits.

The second is the better option? We should go with the system that is actively seeking to avoid responsibility for the issue we are concerned with?

Surrendering liberty to get the promise of security? Not a viable plan.

Ah yes, the ever lofty liberty to poison nature and your fellow man to protect your economic interests.

Government attempts to regulate the envrionment are either so feeble as to be totally ineffective, or so grand that they will destroy essential liberties.

False dilemma. That is unless you mean "Government attempts thus far...", is that what you meant?

I don't see how there is a problem understanding it. Where there was once free passage there are now fees. The companies that pollute will regain the money spent to buy the property, maybe even make a profit. Hell, pollution opens up the possibility of a whole new income stream. The more pollution the better too, that way you can buy up more property so those crafty carriers can't get around you. Pollution becomes profitable. More so than usual.

You're assuming that the sea will be so cheap that they can easily recover the outlay, or that the shipping firms won't simply use another route. It is cheaper not to pollute because your outlay is much less.

In your system there is no punishment, there is only compensation. The very least these polluting companies can do is pay for their own mess.

Did you consider though that this property-based method of compensation won't be all that fair for the victims of pollution? The polluting companies will get to buy polluted land at a discount of its original value. The original property owners lose their land, get pittance for compensation, and this system is supposed to preserve property rights? I call a foul.

You are setting up strawmen. I never said that the legal system would produce just the clean-up, or health costs. I said nothing either way of the possibility of punitive damages. I will, now, however, punitive damages can be laid. With strict liability for losses, they will be far more effective than they could now.

As to health (another strawman you set up), your property rights extend to your body.

You've not read my posts in detail. Firms will only be able to pollute legally on land they own before the pollution takes place. If they pollute on land they don't own, they are fully liable for actual and punitive damages.

They have two options, one, buy up all the land upon which they would pollute, or don't pollute. The second is cheapest, it means not having to pay for land, or lawyers and investigators. You can say they will just pollute, and hope for the best in court, but this is simply absurd. There is no good reason for the unnecessary risk.

That's the motivation that makes the whole thing work. I don't consider the profit motive to be dirty word, why should the power motive be? I'm not advocated giving the government a totally free hand in drafting and enforcing regulations. We don't have to choose between a king and a pauper. There is a happy middle to be found.

Government, which is by its nature forceful, vindictive, and imprecise is never a happy middle. Clearly, government regulation has failed.

So the government works to reduce pollution so that it gains more power. Or firms work to avoid compensating anyone for their pollution to gain more profits.

The second is the better option? We should go with the system that is actively seeking to avoid responsibility for the issue we are concerned with?

Are you saying that companies should not be able to defend themselves in court? I call foul!

The problem with current trends of thought in environmentalism is that is nothing more than a torjan horse for increased government interference in our lives and business. This is clearly the worst option because our property rights (what little of them we have left) are further eroded, and the environment still gets worse. Governments only have to appear to act.

False dilemma. That is unless you mean "Government attempts thus far...", is that what you meant?

Its hardly false when the empirical evidence backs it up.

Some notes:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/002175.asp

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=113&sortorder=articledate

In a highly regulated system, people have an incentive to aviod the regulation.

Funny that I'm making a non-argument. I didn't say that arb firms would be created in a vacuum. But what does that mean? Simply that they will react to each other as other firms in other industries do, but so what? That doesn't mean that they will form a common legal system amongst themselves.

They're motive is to profit? Well, of course. But why should that mean that they will form a common legal system? They will want to be the most efficient, but that's a ministerial issue, not a legal issue outside of the rules of evidence. They will certainly want to be perceived as fair but that doesn't guarantee a common dispute resolution system. Any number of rules can be perceived as fair given the right circumstances. Therefore, you will likely have boutique arb firms that cater to a particular class of clients.

That was not what you wrote down. You wrote that they would have no guiding principles. I gave two reasons why they have. And you just admitted you knew that your argument was spurious.
I'll humour your this time and answer your redefined question.
Why would there be a need of a unified across all the arbitration firms set of rules?
I'll give you the short: there isn't. As an example I've the real world with all the different government systems that work side by side and the ways they interract with each other.

Ok... that was an answer. But to what question?

Funny that you repeat the condensed question when you ask that.
I've to assume seeing that answer you have no problems with the argument I gave when you asked who would do the prosecution, etc.

Well the clients are those that can afford to pay for justice. Most likely they will be protected not only by their own justice system but by the undesirables that can't afford protection themselves.

And soon the arbitration firm trying to keep these people out of the grip of other arbitration firms regardless of what happened will have lost all the contracts with other arbitration firms. Which is not something those rich people will want since that will result in 'repossessions' and other accidents against their property without any recourse against those actions since they have no way of getting the offenders. And anything done by the people with this arbitration firm will have to answer to the other arbitration firms rulings without mediation from their own.

Anyway, I will be honest and admit that the statement I made is only speculation on my part and I can't demonstrate to a high degree of certainty what kinds of firms will prosper. I stand by it, but let's move on for now and focus on the central argument I made.

That argument is that a totally private judicial system will be horribly inefficient as you will have competing systems of law in the same localities with no overriding authority to set them straight.

You know that if the private system would be horribly inefficient then how bad is the government system? I've yet to find a single example of a something that is run more efficiently by a government then by a private interest.
The best way to make more profit(which is not the governments goal)is in this being more efficient then the competition while giving at least the same amount of service quality.
And why do you need an overriding authority? A contract between firms on how to operate when clients of each firm are involved would be enough.

I'm not even touching the method of operation here. I am pointing out a general failure of a totally private legal system.

No you are quoting a total failure of the legal system as you see it.
From what I've gathered so far you are assuming that the private firms are and will stay morally bankrupt, will obstruct any attempts by others to enforce ruling on their clients while forcing their rulings on the rest of the world, will only try to attract the wealthy by writing rules of conduct that are only beneficial to them, will never communicate with each other. Which is an extreme solipsist world view that no private firm, regardless the product/service they make, can assume and survive.

Private arbitration firms to survive need to communicate with each other, need to attract a client base that is large enough to make a profit, need a way to get their rulings accepted without the risk of their clients being targetted in ways they consider illegal and who cares about morality as long as all parties involved consider the result a fair arbitration

Furthermore I am not arguing against arb alongside a public system. You began your post assuming no public courts and demonstrating how totally private arbitration would work. I am just proposing my arguments on why it can't.

I'm using ARB as a point showing that private arbitration does work. Which I thought made clear in the original message.

I don't have to. I'm not against all arb or mediation. I find an arb option in the context of a public legal system is ideal.
Why not kick out the government system all together and make the ARB totally private?

What about those people who can't afford to take these companies to court if their land is polluted?

How is a fisherman/farmer expected to fight off a massive corporation with all of its lawyers, etc? Especially as it's "Innocent until proven guilty"; that puts a lot of responsibility on the farmer to prove the company is polluting...

What about those people who can't afford to take these companies to court if their land is polluted?

How is a fisherman/farmer expected to fight off a massive corporation with all of its lawyers, etc? Especially as it's "Innocent until proven guilty"; that puts a lot of responsibility on the farmer to prove the company is polluting...

Contingency would make it affordable (charging a percentage of damages with nothing down, as opposed to a simple hourly fee)

How can they prove it? Again, contingency would cover it. The expenses (in terms of hiring such people with appropriate experience and training to find the facts) would be worth it due to large punitive damages.

That was not what you wrote down. You wrote that they would have no guiding principles. I gave two reasons why they have. And you just admitted you knew that your argument was spurious.

I specifically said "no guiding prinicples of law." You offered examples of non-legal principles which I rightfully acknowledged as true but as non-issues unless you can demonstrate that these other motivations would lead to a common legal system.

Why would there be a need of a unified across all the arbitration firms set of rules?
I'll give you the short: there isn't. As an example I've the real world with all the different government systems that work side by side and the ways they interract with each other.

But you either have a single system with authority and a reasonable process of law or you have multiple authorities and bureaucratic chaos.

The multiple legal systems in the U.S. complement each other as they allow for legal experimentation, they do not conflict with each other because in each jurisdiction there is mandatory authority.

But take an example from this plurality of courts. Parites to a suit already battle over favorable venues to hear the dispute. This conflict will only be mutliplied in a system with several legitmate authorities and no single authority to decide who will hear the case.

Funny that you repeat the condensed question when you ask that.

Yes I know the specific question was 'who would prosecute?'. Maybe I should have said instead who asked that question or why should we care?

And soon the arbitration firm trying to keep these people out of the grip of other arbitration firms regardless of what happened will have lost all the contracts with other arbitration firms. Which is not something those rich people will want since that will result in 'repossessions' and other accidents against their property without any recourse against those actions since they have no way of getting the offenders. And anything done by the people with this arbitration firm will have to answer to the other arbitration firms rulings without mediation from their own.

I don't understand. Are you saying that your proposed legal system is not to be based on any sense of justice but on firms trying to protect their own clients from other firms?

If that's the case why the hell would I bother with lawyers? I'd rather just get a few armed guards. Subpoena me now.

And why do you need an overriding authority? A contract between firms on how to operate when clients of each firm are involved would be enough.

Right because contracts drafted by legal authorities are never disputed. :rolleyes:

Who decides contract disputes between arb firms?

You know that if the private system would be horribly inefficient then how bad is the government system? I've yet to find a single example of a something that is run more efficiently by a government then by a private interest.

Begging the question, why should we assume that a privately owned firm must be more efficient than the government? Monopolies are as inefficient as the government would be. And I think a private justice system is an example of how inefficient a market solution can be.

From what I've gathered so far you are assuming that the private firms are and will stay morally bankrupt...

I said no such thing. I am only arguing that the mounds of jurisdictional issues would be far worse creating far more inefficiency than a public justice system.

...will obstruct any attempts by others to enforce ruling on their clients while forcing their rulings on the rest of the world, will only try to attract the wealthy by writing rules of conduct that are only beneficial to them, will never communicate with each other. Which is an extreme solipsist world view that no private firm, regardless the product/service they make, can assume and survive.


I'm not talking about active sabatoge but you do seem to understand my point. There is an advantage to cater your firm's law to suit a client. Show me the counter-advantage.

Private arbitration firms to survive need to communicate with each other, need to attract a client base that is large enough to make a profit, need a way to get their rulings accepted without the risk of their clients being targetted in ways they consider illegal and who cares about morality as long as all parties involved consider the result a fair arbitration


They need these things, but that doesn't suggest instant cooperation. McDonald's needs Burger King's customers, they aren't making whoppers though.

Why not kick out the government system all together and make the ARB totally private?

Because the current process is working in the context of a larger public legal system. You can't analogize current success into a totally private system. I have told you the advantages of a common legal code with authority to decide jurisdictional issues. So far you have only offered vague motives to communicate that may occur but they may not, as I have demonstrated.

You're assuming that the sea will be so cheap that they can easily recover the outlay, or that the shipping firms won't simply use another route. It is cheaper not to pollute because your outlay is much less.

I assumed no such thing. I said that they may profit but will certainly regain some of the costs. If the costs are the regulatory mechanism in your scheme why offer a company a way to ease such a cost? This would surely encourage more pollution than would otherwise (without cost recovery) be necessary. Furthermore, I have already addressed the possibility of shipping firms finding alternate routes.

You are setting up strawmen.

What strawman? That's ridiculous! I'm not going to cast your argument in the best light possible for your benefit. You just added the possibility of punitive damages. I'm not goint to infer your argument is stronger than it expressly appears or is immediately implied by the language you use. As far as I know you have been talking about compensation as punishment not punishment over and above compensation.

But anyway, now that you add punitive damages in I will accept that as a part and parcel of your argument from this point forward.

As to health (another strawman you set up), your property rights extend to your body.

I didn't even address the issue of health outside of a rhetorical flare. But it's a valid issue to discuss so let's consider it.

You've not read my posts in detail. Firms will only be able to pollute legally on land they own before the pollution takes place. If they pollute on land they don't own, they are fully liable for actual and punitive damages.

They have two options, one, buy up all the land upon which they would pollute, or don't pollute. The second is cheapest, it means not having to pay for land, or lawyers and investigators. You can say they will just pollute, and hope for the best in court, but this is simply absurd. There is no good reason for the unnecessary risk.

Alright, that seems reasonable to me. But my objection still stands. Compensation is inferior to prevention. Wouldn't it save more time and money and more strictly preserve life and property by denying the ability of companies to pollute in the first place?

Government, which is by its nature forceful, vindictive, and imprecise is never a happy middle. Clearly, government regulation has failed.

What is it you like to say again... ah yes, that is more of an assertion than an argument. You presume to know the essence of a human institution composed of tens of thousands of individuals with varying goals, methods, and ideologies?

Are you saying that companies should not be able to defend themselves in court? I call foul!

Where the hell did you get that from my statement that firms will work to avoid compensation?

The problem with current trends of thought in environmentalism is that is nothing more than a torjan horse for increased government interference in our lives and business. This is clearly the worst option because our property rights (what little of them we have left) are further eroded, and the environment still gets worse. Governments only have to appear to act.

And as I said before, pollution erodes property rights and compensation is inherently unfair to either the victim or the company. There is no clean sollution here. I know the government will infringe on property rights. But also knowing that companies will also then my main concern isn't the preservation of property rights (because they are screwed either way). Instead, my main concern is which vehicle of regulation is most likely to protect the enviroment.

Its hardly false when the empirical evidence backs it up.

Some notes:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/002175.asp

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_deta...er=articledate

OK, the first one doesn't provide any hard evidence at all but citation to a few cases that only support a minor premise and not the argument as a whole. It did have some interesting ideas though.

The second is purely an anecdotal story of how wonderful it was for the author to save his junk-ass Ford but how the 'evil' government will destroy his hero the salvage yard, which as we all know is the paragon of enviromental fluffiness.

That's ridiculous. The author is caught up in the 'my property my problem' nonsense that we need to get passed. Even though the business is not harming other people's property, the enviromental impact of oil drips can be very subtle. Did the author bother to see if the salvage yard was endangering a water table? Possibly contributing to the poisoning of the local water supply? Of course not, and why should he, after all "a salvage yard is a naturally drippy place." :rolleyes:

The rest of the argument is mostly an ad hominem against the EPA. If their agents are bad then their enviromental concerns must be invalid? Nope, that doesn't sound right to me.

You are supposing that I am trying to defend all government regulation of the enviroment? Let me clear the record once again. I think the government can play an important role in regulating the market with regards to enviromental issues. I don't think the free market will necessarily be able to correct itself before the time that the earth is nearly uninhabitable. I don't support all the current regulations and actions of the government. I do support its attempt to enter into the fray as long as it does so with a reasonable regard to economic liberty and the possbility that the free market will produce innovative and effective solutions to the problem.

I assumed no such thing. I said that they may profit but will certainly regain some of the costs. If the costs are the regulatory mechanism in your scheme why offer a company a way to ease such a cost? This would surely encourage more pollution than would otherwise (without cost recovery) be necessary. Furthermore, I have already addressed the possibility of shipping firms finding alternate routes.

You didn't address the possibility of finding alternative routes, there is simply no reason for companies to do it.

What strawman? That's ridiculous! I'm not going to cast your argument in the best light possible for your benefit. You just added the possibility of punitive damages. I'm not goint to infer your argument is stronger than it expressly appears or is immediately implied by the language you use. As far as I know you have been talking about compensation as punishment not punishment over and above compensation.

Why would you not read punitive damages in. The mere discussion of lawsuits against firms includes punitive damages, and they are a common part of the tort system.

Alright, that seems reasonable to me. But my objection still stands. Compensation is inferior to prevention. Wouldn't it save more time and money and more strictly preserve life and property by denying the ability of companies to pollute in the first place?

I have addressed prevention. You claim I haven't because you assume that firms will undertake costs that are unjustified.

They will have incentive to prevent pollution to aviod buying extra land upon which there is no productive activity that adds profit. A firm must increase its prices to cover the costs of buying land. This spending is different to spending on more or better machines, or more workers. These costs will certainly be recovered, and can even enhance profit because more and better machines and more workers makes more production, and more profit.

Factories that pollute a lot wil have to purchase large amounts of land, and will thus have to be sited remotely. This will increase transport costs on both ends of the production process (suppliers have to go further, and the distances are similarly greater in taking finished goods away to be sold)

A firm that prevents pollution will be able to site itself in a good location in terms of costs, and will not hold unprofitable land.

Where the hell did you get that from my statement that firms will work to avoid compensation?

You intimated that you did not like the idea of firms working to aviod compensation. Of course, the way for them to do it include:


Preventing pollution
Buying the land upon which they pollute, and
Defending themselves in court against suits.


For firms, the main idea of their operation is to maximise profit, which means minimises cost. Which approach does this? Prevention. No large, unprofitable land purchases, and no $2000/hr Queens' Counsel (for those not from the Commonwealth, QC's are the top barristers which tend to be used by rich people and large firms)

And as I said before, pollution erodes property rights and compensation is inherently unfair to either the victim or the company. There is no clean sollution here. I know the government will infringe on property rights. But also knowing that companies will also then my main concern isn't the preservation of property rights (because they are screwed either way). Instead, my main concern is which vehicle of regulation is most likely to protect the enviroment.

As I've indicated, under a government system, the incentive for firms, or any landowners, if they wish to develop their land (and they do, because that is how they cover the purchase price, and make profit), they have an incentive to evade the regulations, they have incentive to buy off regulators, officials, and legislators. Under a property rights system, under which you can only pollute on land you own, and if you pollute on land you don't own, you are fully liable for potentially tens of millions of dollars, your incentive is to aviod these costs for land, or lawyers, and not pollute.

I want to start by saying that I have liberatarian leanings, though I am not one.


What kind of privatized prison (if any) do you support? I don't really like the idea of the government giving prisons money to hold the inmates. You're still using taxpayer money and it doesn't actually end up being any cheaper.
Much to my surprise, I found out that a few are operated in the US. They are cheaper because they are more efficient. I think that prisons should be privatized completly. However, I think that a government using the prisons needs to check them regularly, audit their finances, and most importantly, have an independent panel periodically review the prison's security plans. I don't even mind if governments choose to go as far as to revoke the liscenses of underpreforming prisons.
Perhaps the government could give the prisoners to the privately-run prisons who would then utilize the prisoners as cheap labor.

I think convict labor needs a revival. But honest labor must be kept for honest men and women. Keep the convicts only on government-related projects, or in sustaining themselves (I think it'd be a great idea to have prisoners in agricultural regions grow their own food). If they can't find anything else for the convicts to do, have them transport heavy objects for no reason at all.

If Welfare were to be abolished, wouldn't the crime rate increase? Those people who had welfare there to help pay for the basic of necessites would no longer have them and would resort to stealing? How would this be addressed?

Would a gradual elimination of welfare solve this problem more easily than abolishing it over night?
We've gone over this issue enough times to make it pretty clear.

Do Libertarians (or libertarians) support the Negative Income Tax? The flat tax?
A flat tax would be great. Allow deductions only for veterans and the chronically disabled, and the latter should have a deduction in lieu of any benefits.. Otherwise, it'd be unhealthy.

I specifically said "no guiding prinicples of law." You offered examples of non-legal principles which I rightfully acknowledged as true but as non-issues unless you can demonstrate that these other motivations would lead to a common legal system.

I gave you two reason why there would be guiding principles of law.
One is the old laws on which this system will be initially based. That is what I meant with the no vacuum argument.
One is that that the customers will demand a certain set of base laws regardless of who they pay for it.

But you either have a single system with authority and a reasonable process of law or you have multiple authorities and bureaucratic chaos.
The multiple legal systems in the U.S. complement each other as they allow for legal experimentation, they do not conflict with each other because in each jurisdiction there is mandatory authority.

But take an example from this plurality of courts. Parites to a suit already battle over favorable venues to hear the dispute. This conflict will only be mutliplied in a system with several legitmate authorities and no single authority to decide who will hear the case.

The first paragraph is contradicted by currently available evidence of different law systems in the world interacting with each other.
The second paragraph does not imply that only a central authority works. This effect can just as easily be reached by a set of contracts between firms.
Infact your third paragraph shows that central authority does not work well. This because central authority has a tendency to stunt initiative. Which in this case stops different government courts from setting up something to deal with this situation. Private arbitration firms have an incentive to write contracts with other firms to specify what will happen in this kind of case.

Yes I know the specific question was 'who would prosecute?'. Maybe I should have said instead who asked that question or why should we care?

I condensed your question, so you asked.


I don't understand. Are you saying that your proposed legal system is not to be based on any sense of justice but on firms trying to protect their own clients from other firms?

If that's the case why the hell would I bother with lawyers? I'd rather just get a few armed guards. Subpoena me now.

No that is what you've been argueing. I gave a reason why that would be counter productive to the clients of that firm.

Right because contracts drafted by legal authorities are never disputed. :rolleyes:

Who decides contract disputes between arb firms?

Never argued that that contracts between firms would not be disputed.
Who will reside over this problem? Another arbitration firm.

Begging the question, why should we assume that a privately owned firm must be more efficient than the government? Monopolies are as inefficient as the government would be. And I think a private justice system is an example of how inefficient a market solution can be.

I don't see any monopoly if there are multiple firms. In one thing you are correct the government is inefficient due to it being a monopoly.
Give me the examples and I'll show you government intervention as cause.

I said no such thing. I am only arguing that the mounds of jurisdictional issues would be far worse creating far more inefficiency than a public justice system.

These are the underlying ideas that govern your arguments. You are correct you haven't said these things directly but they show very clearly in your arguments.

I'm not talking about active sabatoge but you do seem to understand my point. There is an advantage to cater your firm's law to suit a client. Show me the counter-advantage.

Please make up your mind. In your last argument you said these are not your underlying ideas now you say they are.
I already countered them, you split the counter argument out of the quote into it's own quote.

They need these things, but that doesn't suggest instant cooperation. McDonald's needs Burger King's customers, they aren't making whoppers though.

Lets see if I can get this flawed analogy to work.
Nope, I can't because there is never an interaction between a customer of McDonalds and a customer of Burger King that would require the two firms to communicate with each other. And there are a bunch of other reasons that you won't see McDonalds make a whopper that either don't apply to arbitration firms (like admitting that a whopper is better then a bigmac which equates to free advertisement for Burger King) or are nullified/altered if government enforcement is removed
You might want to try insurance companies, that is a slightly better analogy. For some reason these have either such a set of contracts or communication protocols between them for when their clients interact with each other.

Because the current process is working in the context of a larger public legal system. You can't analogize current success into a totally private system. I have told you the advantages of a common legal code with authority to decide jurisdictional issues. So far you have only offered vague motives to communicate that may occur but they may not, as I have demonstrated.
I can extrapolate from a currently working system by removing the government enforcement (currently the last step if no arbitration can be reached) and replacing it with another form of coercion (no possibility to get other things arbitrated until complying) that is not monopolized.
About the communication, you have not demonstrated that. All you have shown is that you expect these firms to be solipsistic to the extreme which will cause any firm regardless of what it does go bankrupt. You brought in one analogy, that didn't even pertain to communicating if something happens between clients of different firms, that was extremely flawed. You brought in one example of why the current system in one country actually discourages communication between its sub components.
I have real world examples, from the communication between different government justice systems to private firms like insurance companies communication with each other if clients of other firms are involved, that show that communication will occur.

What do Libertarians support?
I support lower taxes.

What do libertarians support?

And why aren't libertarians, Libertarians? What is holding you back from joining the party?I am registered to vote as a Libertarian but prefer not to identify myself that way. I am not responsible for what that party does or says and don't want anyone to think that I am.

What's the problem with a gold standard? Not enough gold? Wouldn't that just increase the value of the dollar?Not enough gold would decrease the value of the dollar. If congress re-backed the Federal Reserve Note with gold there would not be enough gold in reserve to meet the current $450/ounce price of gold.

I would support the above action. However, I ultimately support the abolition of government/fractional-reserve banking altogether. The gold standard was originally imposed in favor of gold holders and against silver owners.

So why aren't you a Libertarian? And why is sales tax the least fair?
In response to the first question: I'm neither in the US nor especially pro-market.

The second question... ugh, this is going to sound pathetic but I really don't have the time or the inclination to get into a debate on this issue - feel free to ignore my original comment.

If Social Security is to be phased out, what do we do with all the money that taxpayers have paid into it? Would they be refunded over time?Easy, that money's already been wasted! What I'm mostly comfortable with is that the program be ended with those who've paid in recieving their promised benefits from regular income taxes.

What about our debt? How would we get rid of this by lowering taxes? Even with a massive cut of government programs, would there still be enough money to pay off debt while keeping the government, military and courts running?What about it? The only way to repay the debt is through tax. Defaulting on the debt is more justifyable than taxing folks to repay it. This would make it impossible for the government to continue borrowing money in the future, which is a good thing. The great bulk of US federal spending could be stopped tomorrow with little disruption to the people who don't make a living off of tax money.

What about it? The only way to repay the debt is through tax. Defaulting on the debt is more justifyable than taxing folks to repay it. This would make it impossible for the government to continue borrowing money in the future, which is a good thing. The great bulk of US federal spending could be stopped tomorrow with little disruption to the people who don't make a living off of tax money.
Do you not think, perhaps, that the creditors may have something to say about such an action?

That's the point. There's no surefire way to stop governments trying to borrow money, but defaulting is a surefire way to stop lenders lending governments money, because the default will destroy the government's credit.

The creditors will have a lot to say, most of it being four-letter words and quite unprintable, and that's the point of defaulting.