0 votes

How does free market capitalism deal with corporate pollution?

What or who stops massive corporations from polluting rivers, lakes, forests, land, etc?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It handles itself

free market, using less resources is more economically efficient, and therefore people will try to use less as time goes on. It's not a fast fix, but sooner or later people will get better and better at using less resources. The notion that the atmosphere is a public good and needs to be regulated is ridiculous. As long as there is no private property violation, ie dumping on their land or blowing smoke in their face, there is nothing anyone should be able to do about it in a free society

The same way it did BEFORE

The same way it did BEFORE Teddy Roosevelt exempted industrialists from pollution trespass.

Pollution is a property rights trespass.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Way for Trey Grayson searchers to find Rand Paul
http://www.treygraysonforsenate.com
Trey Grayson For US Senate 2010 in Kentucky. A Page to optimize the keywords

SD Ron Paul liberty Operation up an running.
http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/

Donate here https://rally.org/southdakotaforliberty/donate
Volunteer for Phone from Home here http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/node/4

...

Through private property rights. You can read about it in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Environment-Reconciliation-W...

You can hear Walter Block talk about it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo

This is an *excellent* interview.

The Corporate CEO's & Executives

Go to jail for destroying other people's property (it is the same as going on your neighbor's lawn and smashing all their windows as far as I am concerned). Then you also make the company pay RESITUTION to the owners of the land (Not the government, as is currenlty done with "fines").

This is a property rights issue. The environment is taken care of in two ways: private ownership encourages conservation (who wants to ruin their own property- or go to jail for ruining someone else), and two as a conservative/Christian I find that not polluting is in line with "being a good steward" of God's nature..

Jeremy

Marlow: Rothbard vs Mises

Original argument I'm responding to: Jump Here

MarlowWith respect to Rothbard, I found Gunnings criticism of Rothbards's approach to pollution that he provides no method of dealing with "contestable" property rights to be nonsense. Contra Gunning, there would be little difficulty in determining whose rights are being violated by pollution.

Octobox: Rothbard is an Anarchist – In an Anarchist Society there can be no leveraged advantage (Gov’t) to force people to “obey” a law or rule. Everything that can “force” in a Rothbardian world is in the Private Market. So, if you hire someone to force me I can hire someone to protect me – whoever has the most money “leverage” will win. Now if there’s a voluntary contract dispute and the power to decide was given to the mediating court (privatized) then voluntarism between the party is suspended and the possibility of force granted. In all other disputes the two parties would have to “agree” on the private court and “agree” on the method of force to comply to. Without said agreement you have a small war of mercenaries (hired men who will force for their client). The latter is not “anarchy” – it is not voluntarism.

MarlowMore accurately, perhaps you should refer to Rothbard and Mises as looking at individuals in their roles as consumers or property owners pursuant to their respective methodologies.

Octobox Perhaps – I’m not attached to my path or solution, only to the insurmountable road block in a Rothbardian world.

MarlowYou say, "Rothbard's notion leads to ever stronger gov't" - quite a curious statement considering Rothbard was an anarchist. Perhaps you consider that enforcement of property rights requires government but you are too well read to believe that so I honestly cannot see the basis for your statement.

Octobox I answered above why exactly Rothbard’s world (giving power – court – force advantage to the propertied individual – thus over the consumer and worker – and thus perpetual war).

MarlowFirst, Mises was outspokenly opposed to intervention. Second, Rothbard accepted consumer sovereignty in the sense that in a free market consumers are king. Entrepreneurs that fail to satisfy consumers go out of business. The fact that Rothbard sees propety rights as an essential framework within which consumers can exercise their choice should not be seen as a shortcoming in his thought.

Octobox Mises was against Intervention – Rothbard was not. Anarcho-Capitalism is an attempt to undue Marxism; and does not “benefit” the un-propertied worker. Whereas Consumer-Individualism (born from a transitionary period of Consumer-Minarchism) leads to consumer-authority, the right bearer (the cosumer is everyone – equally). Marx created the term Capitalism and defined it as Economic-Fuedalism - he was right given the time period (the poor to middle class could not own the means of production - back then). The very naming of "Anarcho-Capitalism" show's Rothbards intention and pits him against "worker-rights" individuals. Thus, by giving "power" (advantage) to the propertied individual he perpetuates what would become economic-fuedalism. The latter always leads to economic-fascism which is what we have now.

MarlowFinally, you say, "Since Rothbard does not call for Minarchism as a transition (for any reason) He will not resolve property-disputes before entering his anarchism and thus people will protect property by force of gun and by mercenaries-for-hire."

MarlowYes, Rothbard was an anarchist but that did not mean he rejected a transition period.

Octobox He had to seek out politics, because that’s where his audience was. His core teachings were not so much “correcting” current political structure rather they were creating a utopia that ignores certain positions easy to prove if one meditates: #1 “Property” ownership as a bases of individualism (which Rothbard “does” assert – Self-Ownership et al type of commentary) is not a strong profit driver in a free-society. Property valuation is tied to Currency (it’s a long-term asset – as is currency). In a Corporatist Society Property and Currency are turned into short-term speculative assets (by the Business Cycle and Fiat Money Printing – Politicking and Lobbying). The b-cycle according to RP is a “false dichotomy” used to make monopoly positions (career politics, banking, corporatism, long-asset positions) profitable.

Octobox#2 In a Free-Society the ONLY profit drivers (for the wealthy) are entrepreneurialism and intrapreneurialism. Any long-term asset holdings ties up wealth (owing to ZERO market barriers). So, no long-term real estate, no long-term “stocks / bonds,” no long-term currency positions, no long-term tool or plant ownership – et al for the rich. The “middle class” would come to own these assets in the medium to long-run. Currency does not “fluctuate” in value in a free-society where there is 100% competition in currency; in fact it becomes quite stable.

Octobox #3 Property Rights (Law) is what allows Corporatist to hold advantage (by politicking: subsidies, regulatory advantages, judicial rulings, fiat credit, bailouts – to name the most potent) – Property Rights necessitates INTERVENTIONISM.

Octobox #4 In a Free-Society the Wealthy Hustle – The Poor / Middle Class Hold (Save) as RP and Mises argue.

Octobox#5 Rothbard is “off” in his estimation of “holding assets” (property). Property cannot be protected “wisely” in the short-run – too costly to have assets tied up.

Marlow [What's] wrong with people protecting themselves "by force of gun", as you put it, or by using free market police who you disparage as "mercenaries-for-hire"

Octobox Who ever "holds assets" for this purpose can circumvent the market drivers in a free-society -- in fact they'd need to. Tying up assets for protection and seizure is not a liberty principle. Who ever has the greatest assets for this purpose will rule. Monopolize.

Mises believed that Monopolies could form in the short-run, but not be maintained in the medium to long-run -- To protect assets in the long-run requires "force" or "gov't" or "monopolization." It's easy to see if you meditate on it.

Octobox

You and I have some serious

You and I have some serious differences.

On the one hand, and correct me if I'm wrong, you at times indicate sympathy with anarchism of some sort. Yet, simultaneously, you effectively state there can be no means of enforcing law using free market courts (i.e., competitive court systems without the need for gov't monopoly courts - hence anarchism) and that disputes will only resolve by battling "mercenaries". You are repeating the same exploded nonsense that free markets cannot peacefully settle disputes that is common among minarchists who refuse to pay attention to the reasoning demonstrating just the opposite - that free markets would be better than the current system at resolving disputes in an efficient, peaceful and just manner. Such arguments have been made to you in the past but you ignore them.

Hence, to refresh your memory, here are some excerpts from previous attempts to spread light on this issue:

"The argument that the "guys with the biggest guns/clubs will create their own laws" does not stand up under scrutiny. Just a thumbnail response: there will multiple providers of police services. If one were to attempt to take over the other providers would band together to stop the aggressor. Also, the attempt to take over would be very costly in terms of resources that would have to be applied to subdue resisters. Until the aggressor police force obtained control it would have to raise funds for its operations. The attempt to take over would require it charge its customers more. They would have every incentive to leave it for a less expensive police provider (or dispute resolution organisation - whatever you wish to call it) causing it to lose the revenue required to dominate others. But realistically, and here is what I have not seen minarchists address, is that to even get to a free market in all goods and services would mean the liberty movements educational efforts won the day and the populace embraced freedom en masse. To believe such a freedom loving populace would then idly sit back and watch as a relatively small group - compared to the population at large - attempted to destroy their freedom as it sought to control their lives is ludicrous. And let us not forget, a free society will not have been disarmed by government. A well armed citizenry would be the ultimate obstacle to anyone with designs to take over an anarchist society by a rogue police force. Sadly, I can pretty well count on someone in the next anarchism thread proclaiming the impossibility of anarchism because a powerful group will take over. This assertion is just that, an assertion. It is never backed up, just repeated with nausiating regularity."

You state,

"1) Once you are fully Anarcho-Capitalist you would hire agencies to "take" property and agencies to "protect" it. If I disagree with you over who owns a piece of property -- you'll hire yours and I'll hire mine and there is no-authority that can stop us.

2) Courts are "hired" too -- So, if I don't agree with your court of arbitration; there is no authority to settle the issue.

Taking your claims one at a time:

1) Such clashes would be minimal in an anarchist society, as Rothbard has explained, because the street owner would have his guards, the storekeeper his, the homewner his, etc. Realistically, in the everyday world there would be little room for direct clashes between police agencies. But suppose two neighbors get in a fight and each calls his own (and different) police company. It would pointless, irrational and physically self-destructive to for the two police forces to shoot it out in the street. Instead, every police company, to remain in business at all, would announce as vital part of its services, the use of private courts or arbitrators to decide who is wrong.

2) Say person A accuses person B of robbing him and that person A is a cutomer of Court X while person B employ Court Y. And suppose the two courts eahc find in favor of their respective client. How to resolve this? Will their respective Marshalls shoot it out in the street? No. As with the police, such behavior would be irrational and self-destructive. Therefore, an essestial part of any court's service would be to provide an appeals process. Thus, every court would agree to abide by the result of an appeals procedure, decided by a voluntary arbitrator. Any court that refused to abide by an agreed upon appellate decision would quickly go out of business as it could not provide the dispute resolution it was employed to provide. Of course, the parties could agree to more than one appeal but it seems reasonable that once the same decision is arrived at by two courts the decision should be binding."

Can I assure the protective services would take exactly this form? Of course not, but then I am a free market advocate, not a central planner. The market will work out the precise form. But unless you believe a free people are too stupid to devise effective methods to peacefully resolve disputes this issue is groundless.

"I personally have on several of these Anarchism threads referred readers to www.freedomainradio.com where anyone can obtain free downloads of Stefan Molyneux's books, Everyday Anarchism and Practical Anarchism. These books provide much more detail than what I have here provided on exactly how Dispute Resolution Organizations (DRO's) in an anarchist society can handle all contractual and criminal conflicts in a much more efficent manner than do the current government monopoly courts. Molyneax also has hundreds of free podcasts that go into great detail as to how and why an anarchist society is far superior to minarchism. You've been on these threads a long time. Surely you're aware of these sources. Have you referred to them?"

Let me ask you again - have you investigated these sources?

Here is a taste of Molyneux from "Practical Anarchy" with one viable free market approach to dealing with disputes:

"Here is as good a place as any to introduce you to the concept of Dispute Resolution
Organizations (DROs). This concept cannot answer every conceivable question you might have
about dispute resolutions within a stateless society, but rather is a framework for understanding
the methodology of dispute resolution – just as the scientific method cannot answer every possible
question about the natural world, but rather points towards a methodology that allows those
questions to be answered in a rational manner.
DROs are companies that specialize in insuring contracts between individuals, and resolving any
disputes that might arise. For instance, if I borrow $1,000 from you, I may have to pay $10 to a DRO
to insure my loan. If I fail to pay you back your money, the DRO will pay you instead. Obviously, as
my credit rating improves, the cost of insuring my contracts will decline.
The DRO theory can be as complex as any other free market theory – and a lot of intellectual effort
has gone into resolving how particular transactions might occur, such as multimillion dollar
international contracts. Credible DRO theories have also been advanced that solve problems
ranging from abortion to child abuse to murder to pollution. For more on DRO theory and practice,
please see “The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives” below.

BUT – WON’T THE MOST SUCCESSFUL DRO JUST ARM ITSELF, VIOLENTLY ELIMINATE
ALL THE OTHER DROS, AND EMERGE AS A NEW GOVERNMENT?
First of all, if the potential emergence of a new government at some point in the future is of great
concern, then surely the elimination of existing governments in the present is a worthy goal. If we
have cancer, we go through chemotherapy to eliminate it in the present, even though we may get
cancer again at some point in the future.
Secondly, unlike governments, DROs are not violent institutions. DROs will be primarily populated
by white-collar workers: accountants, mediators, executives and so on. DROs are about as likely to
become paramilitary organizations as your average accounting firm is likely to become an elite
squad of ninja death warriors. Given the current existence of governments that possess nuclear
weapons, I for one am willing to take that risk.
Thirdly, if a DRO tries to turn itself into a government, the other DROs will certainly act to prevent
it. DROs would simply refuse to cooperate with any DRO that refused to submit to “arms
inspections.” Furthermore, DRO customers would also not take very kindly to their DRO becoming
an armed institution – and their rates would certainly skyrocket, because their DRO would have to
provide its regular services, as well as pay for all those black helicopters and RPGs. Any DRO that
was paying for goods or services that its customers did not want – i.e. an army – would very quickly
go out of business, because it would not be competitive in terms of rates. For more on this, please
see “War, Profit and the State” below."

Afurther point Molyneux makes is that those who refuse to abide by "court" decisions will find no insurance agencies willing to cover their future activities. Absent proof of insurance to protect against loss in future business dealings other businesses will refuse to do business with non-compliant litigants.

Please read this book. Its fairly easy reading. Then we can discuss it if you wish.

You make other claims above which I consider utterly wrong. However, this post is already way too long so they must wait for another day. I simply wanted to address the absurd claim that free market police will devolve to warfare.

Logically, what that claim amounts to is that if people are free they will end up fighting and lose their freedom. Therefore, to protect freedom we must institute and maintain a system that does not allow freedom.

That's right- its an Orwellian "Freedom is Slavery" claim and its about time the minarchists see that.

marlow

marlow

Marlow: Let's continue this in e-mail

octokev@gmail.com

We are long winded (you and I) and I doubt too maybe people are following.

I will say this I believe as does Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises that a transitionary Minarchism is necessary.

Naval Arsenal and Army - Air Arsenal cannot be released into the private market -- not just after they've been forced to shift from Corporatism to free-market competition.

I do believe after a successful transition from Corporatism to Consumer-Minarchism we can move on to a Consumer-Individualist society -- Indivdualism is the "root" of Anarchism.

I can't say how long such a transition might last.

E-mail me and I'll answer your good arguments (above),

Octobox

Good suggestion. But I

Good suggestion. But I appreciated we could exchange without the rancor that unfortunately often occurs in these threads among people who should be allies.

I too, agree with your transition to minarchism and regret that focusing on anarchism vs minarchism distracts us from the direction we all want to go. To be sure the minarchist ideal would be a tremendous improvement.

I just hope our movement can one day get to the point this discussion is more than academic. But that time may well be after I'm long gone.

I appreciate your comments. If you don;t mind I'll take a rain check on pursuing this further. While its been good to exercise my brain I need to get back to other projects.

marlow

marlow

freedom -vs- free market capitalism

I do not know the precise truth of the following assertion, but it has been made, and I'll guess it's correct:

When individual freedom is predominant, you do not have massive corporations. Massive corporations are the creation of regulation and corporate identity.

It is certainly true, if you consider large oppressive criminal organizations like the mafia in Italy, that (1) a tremendous amount of their motivation and profitability comes from regulations/laws that are, arguably, unnecessary, and (2) a large factor in their ability to successfully operate comes from government support and protection, i.e., they know how to manipulate the regulatory system to their advantage.

Here is a quote of my own (first made public on the Daily Paul many moons back): Regulation creates the environment in which those who game the system take advantage of those who are forced to participate in it.

I'll guess that these considerations are not the end of the story. If you really want to reduce undesirable behaviors like polluting, you need a populace that has strong ties to the land and understands the consequences of abuse from within and without. Read Wendell Berry.

farmer

This article is about ganjapreneurs.. in it it makes the claim that the economists do not know how this is working http://www.dailypaul.com/node/106724

It's working, cannabis clubs, because they are being established as free market, no rules or regulation in allot of areas, and soon this is going to change as the free market becomes regulated.

This is a long article, and it does not talk about some of the issues the cannabis community is talking about RE: pollution. There are movements inside where people are supporting ot not indorr grows, unless they are solar, soil dumps and contamination of property from lack of recycling waste.. or burns that alarm neighbors...

The price of cannabis has been stable through out the bailouts, and since the Obama administration confuning stand, which here in CA, unlike CO, busts are non stop and the free market is controlled like the wild wild west with a court system in a city that is like from another world.

The point I try to make with you about Nader, is Nader claims that regulation should be something that comes from a community, not a government. Kosher label claims it is above government standards. If govt wants to establish a standard, fine. But people should not have to have the government AND Kosher, or organic or whatever can satisfy claims to it's consumers they meet of surpass government standards. Regulations should come from within each organization, not the government.

Just a note to say

I caught your post, read the other old thread (real cause of destruction of the usa and western civ.), commented there. Should have mentioned more about community here---thanks for taking up the slack.

Nobody "stops it".

Not even the most tyrannical and oppressive gov't can "stop it".
What they do is to make onerous penalties for it, if they catch you.

Penalties for murder don't stop murder, and penalties for polluting don't stop polluting. They merely provide a penalty, in the hopes/expectations that people will "police themselves" and not perpetrate the crime.
If "Pollution Pete" wants to dump dioxin into a river, there's no law or penalty that's going to stop him from doing it. Only to penalize him if he's caught.

So, this showcases the fact that self-policing is the only way to achieve the goal, and there is more than one way to do that.
As RP states in a post way down the page, damage lawsuits can be employed to provide the same type of "incentive to not pollute" by providing the damaged individuals a way to sue the polluter for damages done to him or his property or resources.
And that can have the same effects on a perpetrator as any other penalty, because he won't want to get caught doing it, and may very well self-police his actions to ensure he doesn't get sued.

But in the end, the people must self-police or self-control, or there's no solution. No matter how many laws there are, I could go out back and dump a load of PCBs into the ground, and nothing can stop me.
The most they can do is jail me for doing it, after the fact.
To stop it from happening, people must control themselves, and a lawsuit for damages is as good of a reason as anything else.
And if it goes beyond property damage, and poisons or kills people, then more severe penalties than monetary damage judgments may be in order.

absolutely correct

farmer's observation about inadequate penalties (or outright subsidies) for heavy campaign contributors is also apt.

Basically it comes down to No Trespassing:
Nobody has the right to poison his neighbor or his neighbor's property simply by virtue of living up hill, up wind, or up stream of him.

Gaea Vindice

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Something definitely needs to be added here...

That is that the "penalties" are usually designed so that they don't apply to the most grievous violators. And this problem is even worse in a non-free (fascist) situation, like what we have now. Think about it.

Also, I am going to post something above.

Heavy fines and jail terms,

Heavy fines and jail terms, and impose tariffs so it's not feasible to just move operations overseas and import.

When government gets involved it sets standards for pollution.

This means that they allow a certain amount of pollution, and the law is constructed to prevent people from seeking damages when the corporations pollute the allowable amount. There are other legal roadblocks set up to prevent people from seeking damages for corporate pollution. Government fines are a joke, and do not compensate the people offended; they just raise more money for government to use to destroy our lives.

So the way to deal with it is to remove these legal roadblocks and minimum allowable levels of pollution, and let people deal with it through the courts to be compensated for their damages. A lot needs to be done to get good courts like maybe just having a set of laws which can be enforced in private courts (arbitration).

And in extreme cases, the mob may just attack and destroy the polluting facilities and use as their defense against prosecution the self defense theory and let a jury then decide their fate.

The free market develops all sorts of possibilities.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Tragedy of the Commons--- is a key concept you need to learn

Then, you need to learn that the answer to the Tragedy of the Commons is private property.... specifically new private property rights in areas that have not been imagined or developed or written before.

In Peace & Liberty,
Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Well then, the lesson is that everything that can possibly be

owned privately should be owned and managed privately with only the minimum of "commons" left.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

check out mises.org

they have addressed this topic in depth.

No -- You must be careful at Mises.org -- They argue all the tim

It's Mises vs Rothbard over there.

Right now the Rothbardians are in control of the institute.

Mises and Rothbard disagreed over the most important economic and philosophic point -- who's the individual.

Austrian Theory always protects the individual first and ONLY -- so the definition is crucial.

Mises argued the Individual is the Consumer

Rothbard argued the Individual is the Property Owner

Rothbard's notion leads to ever stronger gov't -- "to force property right and thus advantage toward the property owner" -- and away from the "worker" (non-owner).

Mises notion leads to the protection of all classes of individuals -- Because all people consume (24/7): The Worker, The Owner, The Bum, The Student, The Elderly, and The Infirm.

In Rothbard's world the "power" is to protect possession -- part of his philosophy is good because it's protection of "self" (self-ownership). The other part -- the MAIN part by sheer volume of writing is in regard to property rights (tools, means of production, land, toys, buildings, et al).

Since Rothbard does not call for Minarchism as a transition (for any reason) He will not resolve property-disputes before entering his anarchism and thus people will protect property by force of gun and by mercenaries-for-hire.

Ron Paul and Mises both call for a Minarchist transition.
----Consumer-Minarchism then eventually Consumer-Individualism

Octobox

I was wondering how your

I was wondering how your comment relates to this thread on pollution then recalled that an article you recommend, "Rothbard on Consumer Sovereignty and His Implicit Rejection of Mises’s Economics", by Patrick Gunning, does refer to problems these thinkers methodologies face when dealing with pollution, if for no other reason than their writings don't address every possible problem that may arise - hardly a fair criticism. With respect to Rothbard, I found Gunnings criticism of Rothbards's approach to pollution that he provides no method of dealing with "contestable" property rights to be nonsense. Contra Gunning, there would be little difficulty in determining whose rights are being violated by pollution.

Nevertheless, I doubt there is an issue over who the individual is. We are all individuals. Rather, the Rothbardian/Misesian dispute you refer to has to do with whether, when analyzing economic issues the standard for determining what policy should be followed is whether or not property rights are being violated, per Rothbard or the contrasting Misesian sort of utilitarian cost-benefit approach, referred to in the above referenced article as the Principle of the Harmony of Rightly Understood Interests.

More accurately, perhaps you should refer to Rothbard and Mises as looking at individuals in their roles as consumers or property owners pursuant to their respective methodologies.

You say, "Rothbard's notion leads to ever stronger gov't" - quite a curious statement considering Rothbard was an anarchist. Perhaps you consider that enforcement of property rights requires government but you are too well read to believe that so I honestly cannot see the basis for your statement.

I get the impression you believe the ideal legal systems of Mises and Rothbard would strongly differ based upon a perceived distinction between Mises "consumer sovereignty" and Rothbvard's property rights focus. That is, that where consumer sovereignty is the standard against which policy proposals are measured would allow for government intervention that Rothbard's property rights would not. I don't see this as the case. First, Mises was outspokenly opposed to intervention. Second, Rothbard accepted consumer sovereignty in the sense that in a free market consumers are king. Entrepreneurs that fail to satisfy consumers go out of business. The fact that Rothbard sees propety rights as an essential framework within which consumers can exercise their choice should not be seen as a shortcoming in his thought.

Finally, you say, "Since Rothbard does not call for Minarchism as a transition (for any reason) He will not resolve property-disputes before entering his anarchism and thus people will protect property by force of gun and by mercenaries-for-hire."

Yes, Rothbard was an anarchist but that did not mean he rejected a transition period. If so, how do you explain his many years of being actively involved in political campaigns, of being one of the first people pushing the Libertarian Party. His writings are clear that courts are necessary for sorting out disputes thus your accusation that people will be forced to protect themselves by gun or "mercenaries" is without merit. Free market protective services will provide security though of course there is nothing wrong with people protecting themselves "by force of gun", as you put it, or by using free market police who you disparage as "mercenaries-for-hire".

marlow

marlow

That's an interesting take

That's an interesting take on the debate. I am not sure that Mises explicitly said those thing(though he very well could have), but its an interesting attempt to reconcile the supposed "statism" of Mises. There is no question that the classical liberal state is more about the consumer/individual than the property-centric Rothbardian society(which guarantees absolutely no worth to the individual).

By the way, this is like the 5th or 6th post of yours I've read and I think I migth finally get it :) I don't agree with ALL of your analysis, and probably MOST of your solutions(although they are clever), but I like how you got into the whole Austro-libertarian ideological movement without parroting every line verbatim and actually thinking critically and comprehensively, unlike too many of the people here.

Ventura 2012

I've been a part of the liberty movement for years

Fortunately, (I think) I have managed to avoid getting sucked into the Rothbard v. the world (mises etc) debate.

Aside from rejecting Rand (Ayn that is) because I rejected all aristotelian logic...I have found it most enlightening to avoid the philosophical rabbit trails in the philosophy of liberty. This is because it is real simple. Either you can do shit you want without harming others or you can't. When you can't something is oppressing you.

That something may be law & the violence of law, religion, or cultural taboo.

How we got there is academic. Too much focus on why I should be able to do the shit I want as long as it does not hurt anyone...either ends up dismissing my right to do this shit or some masterbatory liberty discussion side show.

Just my .02

Also remember the US government is the biggest polluter...

in the world.... and primarily the Department of Defense.. real tort laws as mentioned below are important so people can keep companies liable... and private property rights and everything else Ron Paul says is right on....

Last thing is that environmentalism is propagandized so governments can gain more control.

Another interesting video someone sent me:
"States of Fear: Science or Politics?" - Bruce Ames
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5811970262253299997...

"to promote a free and responsible society"
theLibertyClub.org

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Good ?, good answer.1. The US Constitution deals only w/

For some reason, we're expected to know every law that exists in America & in our state so we don't break it. We're supposed to know this when we're 18. There's no litmus test for them, as in the 10 commandments or rhyme or reason. C.U.R.E.

federal gov't & lets the states make their own decisions, according to their Constitutions, of course. I don't believe pollution ought to be a crime b/c the state profits off it when it creates fines for crimes, basically paying for permission to do something & I think very few things ought to be crimes, even though I am intolerant of something doesn't mean it ought to be a crime, whenever you create a crime, you remove a productive person from society, even if all they're doing is buying their grandmother groceries at $50/ month.

1st of all, Lets keep in mind that there is competition in every industry, not so in gov't. If I don't like the cashier at a store or the hours at a store, I can go to another place, or another church, another gas station, but I have no choice but to face the clerk at the courthouse, the registrar at the elections board, the judge in court, the superintendent of schools, you get my drift.

If, therefore, an industry is being environmentally irresponsible, truly, than they will naturally receive public shame, which is enough to shape everybody up & the best way that happens is through the independent press. There would be nothing wrong w/ creating a law that says, if you pollute, you clean up or you give a donation to such & such an organization, but that doesn't happen, when you break the law, the state makes $ & that's it. Your committing a crime makes the state able to steal your property, b/c you're otherwise unwilling to give it to them, so they're created by natural human tendency. There's nothing wrong w/ taking anybody to court for your losses, but there are much better ways to handle corporate pollution than laws. Pollution is otherwise called property damage, so if somebody can prove that, but then again, you have to assess, would you rather deal w/ the pollution & keep what the company makes. Its very difficult to say this is the Fed's responsibility, since it would have to apply to all 50 states & the same factories don't operate in all 50 states. I agree there are some companies which are very environmentally irresponsible, but the natural remedy for this is for their competitors to bring it to everybody's attn. & they will be forced to make it stop.

For some reason, we're expected to know every law that exists in America & in our state so we don't break it. We're supposed to know this when we're 18. There's no litmus test for them, as in the 10 commandments or rhyme or reason. C.U.R.E.

Elimination of the Vote and of Lobbying

These are the profit drivers in politics.

Politics according to Dr. Paul is what creates the Business Cycle -- The B-cycle causes more lobbying. It never ends, because of the profit motive.

You must eliminate the right to abdicate self-rule or to take anothers -- thus eliminate voting and lobbying.

Without Gov't recourse Corporations must please the consumer -- Thus a higher sensativity to consumer disatisfaction.

If the courts are based on mediation of voluntary contracts -- then in a Consumer-Minarchism property rights are easy to protect -- from a consumer standpoint (ability to "transform" - "use up" - "or waste / diminish") -- If the latter is hampered than a fine / penalty is placed on the offender.

Of course the latter can only exist in a Minarchist society -- Never a 100% Voluntary one. Voluntarism is "non-Force."

A Consumer-Minarchism could rest closer to a Voluntary Society than could a Capitalist-Minarchism.

Mises (over) Rothbard

Octobox

no lobby = no free speech

How can you petition your government? Be a full time activist? Wouldn't you want a lawyer or someone who understands procedure to guide you? You want that illegal?

Letmapeoplego: You need to meditate on Misesian Philosophy

If you take Consumer-Sovereignty (a Mises axiom)

If you take "Harmony of interest" (a Mises axiom)

If you take Mises arguments on how to maintain a free-society once you have it.

In a Free-Society one does not have the right (priviledge) to Vote-Away Self-Rule nor the Theft of anothers Self-Rule.

Definition of Voting: To Abdicate Self-Rule -or- Steal the Self-Rule of Another

Definition of Lobbying: To over-ride Consumer-Will -or- To over-ride the Voters-Will

Both bring Perpetual-War (American has been in a two-party war and in physical wars overseas every single year since it's inception).

Perpetual War is Perpetual Revolution -- The latter is a Trotskyan and Marxist Axiom; the most important one.

......therefore ;-)

Octobox