NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello kim jong il is here today, of course, the greatest man on the planet. did u know kim jong scored many a hole in one on his first attempt at golf?

anyway kim jong has a question for those pesky people called libertarians!

a lot of libertarians say that the problem of pollution would be handled with the fact that it would be a lot easier to sue companies blah blah. but what about the companies just buying people out? churning huge profits from their use of polluting ways ; not to mention if they setup their factories outside of populated areas where pollution would be less of a problem to people.

what about companies buying out politicians? yes lib governments are limited but when enough politicians are being controlled by companies the same way the gov'ment became lib will be teh same way it removes itself from libtarinism.

plez help kim jong understand

I am a somewhat moderate Libertarian myself. I believe that fair environmental laws are better than people filing lawsuits against companies. I just don't see it as practical for people to sue companies. I also think that perhaps a private organization that is reputable could also provide voluntary restrictions in the area of environmental protection in exchange for endorsement. If people trust the private company then people would not deal with companies that were not endorsed.

a lot of libertarians say that the problem of pollution would be handled with the fact that it would be a lot easier to sue companies blah blah. but what about the companies just buying people out? churning huge profits from their use of polluting ways ; not to mention if they setup their factories outside of populated areas where pollution would be less of a problem to people.
That's a perfectly good scenario. If the polluters are able to pay off the victims of pollution, then that means that they get enough revenue from their production to pay for permission to pollute (in addition to all other costs). And that revenue can only come from what their costumers pay for their products. Which means that it is only possible for the firms to buy out everyone who is harmed by the pollution if the benefit of producing whatever they do is greater than the harm caused by their pollution.

The same goes for relocating or doing other things to mitigate the consequences of pollution. Profit seeking firms will only do it if the value gained in lessened harm (and thus decreased price for pollution-permissions) is greater than the cost of relocating.

what about companies buying out politicians? yes lib governments are limited but when enough politicians are being controlled by companies the same way the gov'ment became lib will be teh same way it removes itself from libtarinism.

plez help kim jong understand
This is a problem, but that is exactly why libertarians don't want politicians to control environmental policies. If the companies can't get power by paying politicians they will not do it, but instead spend their money on more useful things.

Hello kim jong il is here today, of course, the greatest man on the planet. did u know kim jong scored many a hole in one on his first attempt at golf?

anyway kim jong has a question for those pesky people called libertarians!

a lot of libertarians say that the problem of pollution would be handled with the fact that it would be a lot easier to sue companies blah blah. but what about the companies just buying people out? churning huge profits from their use of polluting ways ; not to mention if they setup their factories outside of populated areas where pollution would be less of a problem to people.

what about companies buying out politicians?
We have that now, and it's the fault of the politicians.

Which is why anarchy is best.

Basically most libertarians will admit to being anarchists, and most anarchists will admit to being libertarians. There's a kind of blurred boundry from libertarianism to anarchism but they both oppose politicians as they often spoil other people's freedoms.

oh yeah and kim jong il reminds you all of the ford pinto he means wtf? ford willing to pay lawsuits rather than remove a harmful product kim jong il is a confused person though still the greatest man alive.

oh yeah and kim jong il reminds you all of the ford pinto he means wtf? ford willing to pay lawsuits rather than remove a harmful product kim jong il is a confused person though still the greatest man alive.

If consumers actually think twice about what they buy than they'd avoid the ford ponto then. Thus removing the harmful product via the market.

Which means that it is only possible for the firms to buy out everyone who is harmed by the pollution if the benefit of producing whatever they do is greater than the harm caused by their pollution. No, it's only possible for firms to buy out everyone who is harmed by the pollution if the profit from producing whatever they do is less than the harm caused by their pollution. The benefit of the product doesn't come into the equation.

kim jong is intrigued by this answer jello, kim jong the greatest man alive enjoys eating jello, tell me more why you think this way.

http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/CoaseJLE1960.pdf

Buying people out is a natural and desirable process. If everyone who gets affected by the pollution is bought out (either by emitting it or by having to deal with it otherwise), there really isn't any problem, is there.

Do you really have to talk about yourself in 3rd person?

Do you really have to talk about yourself in 3rd person?

Me thinkth he hopes to piss someone off with the name Kim John Il.

Basically most libertarians will admit to being anarchists, and most anarchists will admit to being libertarians. There's a kind of blurred boundry from libertarianism to anarchism but they both oppose politicians as they often spoil other people's freedoms.

Wrong.

No, it's only possible for firms to buy out everyone who is harmed by the pollution if the profit from producing whatever they do is less than the harm caused by their pollution. The benefit of the product doesn't come into the equation.

Nonsense. The benefit of the product is all that matters. If the product did not benefit individuals, it would not be bought, therefore the revenue necessary to buy out all those affected by the production would not exist.

If the product was of benefit to a sufficient number of invididuals, then to that extent, the revenue would be available to buy out those affected.

Of course, there are inherient problems to the polluters.

Firstly, the other firms in the industry that have less damaging processes would, because of their lower costs, be able to bid down their prices in order to outcompete the polluting firm.

Secondly, the buying out of the affected people means the polluting firm is acquiring land that will significantly depreciate in value due to the damage.

This is of course good for the rest of us, as the firms that pollute more will have a greater chance of going out of business than those who pollute less.

Basically most libertarians will admit to being anarchists, and most anarchists will admit to being libertarians. There's a kind of blurred boundry from libertarianism to anarchism but they both oppose politicians as they often spoil other people's freedoms.

Libertarianism is an intellectual tradition. The real divide within the libertarian tradition is between minarchists (who believe in a government limited to a few functions, namely the provision of law and order, and national defence), and anarchists (who do not believe in government at all)

*********************************************

Ludwig von Mises showed that one government intervention leads to another, which leads to another, and so forth. I would go one step further, not only government intervention, but government neglect of its rightful responsibilities (protecting the individual rights of the people) will lead to government intervention.

Governments failed to enforce property rights, so we get these environmental problems. In fact, all environmental problems have at their root either the tragedy of the commons (no owners, so ovbiously no property disputes), or violations of property rights.

Nonsense. The benefit of the product is all that matters. If the product did not benefit individuals, it would not be bought, therefore the revenue necessary to buy out all those affected by the production would not exist.Products don't have to benefit individuals in order to be bought - look at cigarettes. Nonetheless, my point wasn't that the products don't benefit individuals, because they do, however a product that would benefit individuals such as health food, isn't nearly as profitable as a product that benefits individuals less, fast food. Therefore, the benefit to individuals really isn't in question, as the more beneficial product doesn't make as much money.

This is of course good for the rest of us, as the firms that pollute more will have a greater chance of going out of business than those who pollute less.It would be even better for us if the firms that pollute more aren't allowed to exist in the first place.

It would be even better for us if the firms that pollute more aren't allowed to exist in the first place.

Not to mention in a truely libertarian government, who would hold them accountable. The consumer who benefits from having a cheaper product? I think not.

Not to mention in a truely libertarian government, who would hold them accountable. The consumer who benefits from having a cheaper product? I think not.
:eek: We agree on something. :)

I find the idea that we don't need to worry about firms polluting because they will be held financially accountable a laughable one. If my loved ones get cancer and die due to pollution, there isn't enough money in the world to compensate me for the loss of them.

I think most anarchists would admit to being 'libertarian socialists' but few or no libertarians would admit to being anarchists, and if they did they'd be denied, heckled and ostracised by proper anarchists.
I don't see why a libertarian system cannot deal with this easily. Simply pass some laws, have some court cases, send in the police.
Of course, it's easier if you're an anarchist, then the problem will never come up...

Products don't have to benefit individuals in order to be bought - look at cigarettes. Nonetheless, my point wasn't that the products don't benefit individuals, because they do, however a product that would benefit individuals such as health food, isn't nearly as profitable as a product that benefits individuals less, fast food. Therefore, the benefit to individuals really isn't in question, as the more beneficial product doesn't make as much money.I disagree about cigarettes. "Benefit" can be a subjective term. People who crave the nicotene from the cigarettes "benefit" from by and using the cigarettes despite allowing the possible for great harm later down the line. To benefit is to have your needs fulfilled in a way that you deem acceptable.

I find the idea that we don't need to worry about firms polluting because they will be held financially accountable a laughable one. If my loved ones get cancer and die due to pollution, there isn't enough money in the world to compensate me for the loss of them.
Exactly, because it is cheaper and more finacially profitable for a company to make a polluting, unhealthy product, they will be able to offer it at a lower price without suffering a financial loss. Many people are more concerned with the financial benefit of choosing the cheaper product than they are about the health benefits of choosing the clean alternative.

Too many people are not forward thinking about their actions and what may come as a result of them. When you give them an option:Choice A or Choice B? most people would choose whichever one is cheaper because their money is a tangible object that is right here, right now. Choosing Choice A, which happens to cost 25% less than Choice B is a good choice in the view of many who look at events at a single moment.

I don't know, maybe my faith in the "average" person is a little low. But when I look at the attitudes and way that many Americans I know live their lives, I doubt that a majority would support a company that pollutes less regardless of the financial "sacrifices" required. Convincing people to not smoke is far easier than promoting anti-pollution companys. Many people easily make the connection with smoking that it is something that will cause problems at some point if you smoke your entire life. We haven't reached that level of awareness with pollution yet, where people realize that driving their SUV every day is bad for the environment and that the damage caused will mean bad news for you, your kids, and their kids. What's the best way to go about doing this? I'm not sure, there have been many ad campaigns, movements, etc. that have set out with that goal in mind that have failed, some laughably.


Ludwig von Mises showed that one government intervention leads to another, which leads to another, and so forth. I would go one step further, not only government intervention, but government neglect of its rightful responsibilities (protecting the individual rights of the people) will lead to government intervention.

Governments failed to enforce property rights, so we get these environmental problems. In fact, all environmental problems have at their root either the tragedy of the commons (no owners, so ovbiously no property disputes), or violations of property rights.While I mostly agree with what you are saying in this part of your post, I diasagree with your assumption that the firms that pollute more are more likely to go out of business. Just because some problems we have now may have been avoided by using libertarian approach, it doesn't always mean that a libertarian solution will fix that problem.

Simple, have someone start a company that has the power to tax for polluting. It might take a private army but they'll be able to make a profit and profit is the essence of motivation. The polluting companies will curtail it as much as possible to avoid losing cash. EVERYBODY WINS!:fluffle:

Simple, have someone start a company that has the power to tax for polluting. It might take a private army but they'll be able to make a profit and profit is the essence of motivation. The polluting companies will curtail it as much as possible to avoid losing cash. EVERYBODY WINS!:fluffle:

Surely they'll tax in their self interest rather than the interest of the enviroment.

Surely they'll tax in their self interest rather than the interest of the enviroment.
Not if they simaltaniously own forests that get revenue from hippies ohhing and ahhing at nature...

They still will. They'll either go for a cartel-type thing with other companies so they only have to pay $Xm instead of the $Ym it costs to pay for the environment, and not bother spending on an army (cos they've arranged everything) or they'll build a huge army and charge $Zm dollars and keep the profit for themselves. Either way, it's bad.

They still will. They'll either go for a cartel-type thing with other companies so they only have to pay $Xm instead of the $Ym it costs to pay for the environment, and not bother spending on an army (cos they've arranged everything) or they'll build a huge army and charge $Zm dollars and keep the profit for themselves. Either way, it's bad.
... At least I had an idea. *sulks*

Yes, but it's a capitalist idea, and therefore bad. :p

Yes, but it's a capitalist idea, and therfore bad. :p
... My sarcasm detector is on the fritz. Was that serious?

I think most anarchists would admit to being 'libertarian socialists' but few or no libertarians would admit to being anarchists, and if they did they'd be denied, heckled and ostracised by proper anarchists.
Actually, it's the other way around.

Actually, it's the other way around.
Yeah, the only thing that scares me about anarchism is the lack of a military to defend from other nations.

Products don't have to benefit individuals in order to be bought - look at cigarettes. Nonetheless, my point wasn't that the products don't benefit individuals, because they do, however a product that would benefit individuals such as health food, isn't nearly as profitable as a product that benefits individuals less, fast food. Therefore, the benefit to individuals really isn't in question, as the more beneficial product doesn't make as much money.

Silly Jello. You must realize that benefit does not only mean to improve someone's health, but to make them happier in some way as well. If I like to smoke like a human sized smokestack, then I am gaining something from my purchase of the cigs.

It would be even better for us if the firms that pollute more aren't allowed to exist in the first place.
Then we wouldn't have all of the delightful products we no have. No PCs, no pants (well, maybe pants), no MP3 players, none of it. I would miss it greatly. And if firms were disallowed to exist, I would burn the infrastructure in a style that would make my barbarian ancestors proud!

I disagree about cigarettes. "Benefit" can be a subjective term. People who crave the nicotene from the cigarettes "benefit" from by and using the cigarettes despite allowing the possible for great harm later down the line. To benefit is to have your needs fulfilled in a way that you deem acceptable. I agree that benefit can be a subjective term, but I can't agree that the last sentence is a sufficient definition for what benefitting is.

Silly Jello. You must realize that benefit does not only mean to improve someone's health, but to make them happier in some way as well. If I like to smoke like a human sized smokestack, then I am gaining something from my purchase of the cigs.And you would gain more if instead of purchasing cigs, you quit smoking and bought an apple instead.

Then we wouldn't have all of the delightful products we no have. No PCs, no pants (well, maybe pants), no MP3 players, none of it. I would miss it greatly. And if firms were disallowed to exist, I would burn the infrastructure in a style that would make my barbarian ancestors proud!There's the quantifier in what I said about the firms polluting "more" not being allowed to exist. Pollution in and of itself isn't necessarily harmful, depending upon the pollutant. (Hence the parts per trillion, billion, million, etc. measurements.) So PCs, MP3 players, etc. would only not exist if the amount that they pollute is sufficiently harmful to the people living around the plant.

As an entirely hedonistic Libertarian-Lafarguian, I believe a Libertarian system will not prevent pollution, but also believe that this is not a problem since we should exploit the environment maximally for our own immediate gain anyway.

And you would gain more if instead of purchasing cigs, you quit smoking and bought an apple instead.
.

Who are you to tell someone what actions they gain more or less pleasure from.

As an entirely hedonistic Libertarian-Lafarguian, I believe a Libertarian system will not prevent pollution, but also believe that this is not a problem since we should exploit the environment maximally for our own immediate gain anyway.

Whats the point of being rich if we destroy the world we live in.

Whats the point of being rich if we destroy the world we live in.

The effects shouldn't be immediate - our grandchildren will clean up our mess, not us.

As an entirely hedonistic Libertarian-Lafarguian, I believe a Libertarian system will not prevent pollution, but also believe that this is not a problem since we should exploit the environment maximally for our own immediate gain anyway.Along these lines, why not exploit each other, too?

Who are you to tell someone what actions they gain more or less pleasure from.The operative word is benefit, not pleasure. There are plenty of things that are pleasurable but not beneficial.

The operative word is benefit, not pleasure. There are plenty of things that are pleasurable but not beneficial.

What is benefit?
Would you benefit from stopping posting on NS and go join a gym and get some exercise. Your body may benefit. Or do you value benefit differently to a body builder.
Some people may argue they benefit from a life of pleasure over one of health. A blanket statement like drop the ciggy and buy an apple just follows what you view as beneficial, I don't care if 99.999% of the world would agree that will still mean an objective view of everyone is wrong.

What is benefit?
Would you benefit from stopping posting on NS and go join a gym and get some exercise. Your body may benefit. Or do you value benefit differently to a body builder.
Some people may argue they benefit from a life of pleasure over one of health. A blanket statement like drop the ciggy and buy an apple just follows what you view as beneficial, I don't care if 99.999% of the world would agree that will still mean an objective view of everyone is wrong.While I enjoy posting on NS and sometimes learn something, I don't do it because it is beneficial, I do it because it is fun. I don't view the two as being the same.

The effects shouldn't be immediate - our grandchildren will clean up our mess, not us.

The abandonment of personal/individual responsibility, at the heart of such a statement, strikes me as being decidedly unlibertarian.

Along the same lines, why not allow the continued operation of huge and wasteful government bureaucracy, creating huge deficits and other budget problems? Our grandchildren can pay for it.

edit: does "Lafarguian" refer to Paul Lafargue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lafargue)? My objection is based on the likes of Proudhon, among (many) others.

... My sarcasm detector is on the fritz. Was that serious?
Sarcasm. I don't think it's a good idea personally, but the capitalism-ness of the idea is nothing to do with that.

As for anarchists calling themselves libertarian socialists, I was right. Anarchism is a libertarian (minimal government) version of socialism (worker control). Libertarianism (generally) means a minimal government form of capitalism. As for an army, there would be a citizens' militia, much like Switzerland. Eventually, there would also be no need for an army (due to a spreading of peace and the like.)