It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"This Is Why There Are No Jobs In America", by Porter Stansberry

page: 10
71
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
So you are assuming that the State keeps you safe from cancer polluters today?


But wait -- you are dodging the question. What is my recourse if I suspect that unsafe levels of pollutant are reaching my lungs? I don't have a cancer yet and sure as hell I don't want to get one. What is your answer, for the third time? Pathetic.



Laws do not prevent murder.


This is an insult to intelligence. By putting the assailant behind the bars, the laws reduce the number of potential murderers on the street, I though that was clear to anyone above K level of education.




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
But wait -- you are dodging the question. What is my recourse if I suspect that unsafe levels of pollutant are reaching my lungs? I don't have a cancer yet and sure as hell I don't want to get one. What is your answer, for the third time? Pathetic.


Suspicion is not proof. Just as it is today, you would have to demonstrate proof of damages.

If you can prove it, then you would clearly win a law suit.

I figured you were smart enough to figure this part out on your own.



This is an insult to intelligence. By putting the assailant behind the bars, the laws reduce the number of potential murderers on the street, I though that was clear to anyone above K level of education.


Laws do not prevent murder, as is evidenced by the number of murders that occur in the US.

In a free market, how a murder would be punished is something that the market would have to work out. I never addressed this issue so your comment is totally off base.

In cases of murder, it may very well be that murderers are still put behind bars. Although I suspect alternative methods of punishment that are more effective at keeping people from murdering again would be devised.


edit on 2/23/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





If you lose and you can't pay the court fees, then file bankruptcy. This is no different than today. Again, loser pays. So the courts would hear the case FIRST, even if one of the parties could not afford to lose. In a loser pays system, payment comes AFTER the case, not before. So everyone could still bring their case, even the poor.


Yes, and a gazillion lawyers will be happy to prepare your case for free and spend days and weeks preparing your case while not getting paid. Because that's how long it will take them if they don't have regulations as a frame of reference. And that's even though those lawyers often won't know if they stand a chance at winning given that the outcome is totally arbitrary as no regulations create a frame of reference. They won't spend all that time without getting paid, and it's very naive to believe otherwise.

Many lawsuits would probably take a lot longer too...but yeah, less lawsuits overall because most couldn't afford it.


edit on 23-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





If you lose and you can't pay the court fees, then file bankruptcy. This is no different than today. Again, loser pays. So the courts would hear the case FIRST, even if one of the parties could not afford to lose. In a loser pays system, payment comes AFTER the case, not before. So everyone could still bring their case, even the poor.


Yes, and a gazillion lawyers will be happy to prepare your case for free and spend days and weeks preparing your case while not getting paid. Because that's how long it will take them if they don't have regulations as a frame of reference. And that's even though those lawyers often won't know if they stand a chance at winning given that the outcome is totally arbitrary as no regulations create a frame of reference. They won't spend all that time without getting paid, and it's very naive to believe otherwise.

Many lawsuits would probably take a lot longer too...but yeah, less lawsuits overall because most couldn't afford it.


Most lawsuits would not require a lawyer in a free market.

Lawyers are necessary today because the State adds 70,000 pages of legal code to the books every year.

At any rate, becoming a lawyer in a free market would be much easier and much simpler, leading to less cost in terms of fees. Lawyers would be like any other class of worker - abundant and cheap.

The free market increases efficiency. The loser pays system would drastically reduce the number of cases brought before a judge. This would lead to much faster resolution times. People would only file suit if they REALLY felt they could win it.

In a free market, contracts would decide the majority of cases.


edit on 2/23/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Also:


Additionally, all of the major banks would have been bankrupted by the free market long long ago.


You really have to stop using that argument, it makes no sense. The only reason those bailouts were done in the first place is because there weren't enough regulations in place to prevent the financial industry from sinking the entire economy. I'm not even a fan of the bailouts, but they are not what caused this crisis. What caused this crisis is allowing those financial institutions to take reckless bets that jeopardized the entire economy and millions of people totally unrelated to those banks. THAT'S what killed the economy, and everything afterwards (good or bad) is kinda irrelevant if the source problem was that a lack of regulations caused this mess in the first place.
edit on 23-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by buddhasystem
But wait -- you are dodging the question. What is my recourse if I suspect that unsafe levels of pollutant are reaching my lungs? I don't have a cancer yet and sure as hell I don't want to get one. What is your answer, for the third time? Pathetic.


Suspicion is not proof. Just as it is today, you would have to demonstrate proof of damages.
If you can prove it, then you would clearly win a law suit.


So for the fourth time, your suggestion is that I should wait till my 3 year old daughter gets cancer or an infection, and watch her painfully die, then go to court? Are you half serious?


Laws do not prevent murder, as is evidenced by the number of murders that occur in the US.


Do you have a reference point where the murderers are not punished for their crime? Actually yes, there are armed gangs in various parts of the world WHERE THE LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCED who murder people. Do you get that?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Also:


Additionally, all of the major banks would have been bankrupted by the free market long long ago.


You really have to stop using that argument, it makes no sense. The only reason those bailouts were done in the first place is because there weren't enough regulations in place to prevent the financial industry from sinking the entire economy. I'm not even a fan of the bailouts, but they are not what caused this crisis. What caused this crisis is allowing those financial institutions to take reckless bets that jeopardized the entire economy and millions of people totally unrelated to those banks. THAT'S what killed the economy, and everything afterwards (good or bad) is kinda irrelevant if the source problem was that a lack of regulations caused this mess in the first place.
edit on 23-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


It makes perfect sense.

Bailouts would not have occurred in a free market. Ergo, all the major banks would be bankrupt.

Further, the Ponzi fractional reserve scheme is a form of institutionalized fraud. Fractional reserve lending would not be allowed as it is a contract violation. Lending out more notes than a bank has in reserves is fraud.

The banks would face a two pronged attack:

1. The courts would rule in favor of plantiffs claiming fraud.

and

2. People would pull their money out of a bank that engaged in such practices, leading to its bankruptcy.

Without the FDIC or Fed to bailout the banks, people would not store their money at a bank that lent out above its reserves. This is precisely the reason why bank runs occurred prior to the Fed and FDIC.


edit on 2/23/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
So for the fourth time, your suggestion is that I should wait till my 3 year old daughter gets cancer or an infection, and watch her painfully die, then go to court? Are you half serious?


You can not sue if you can not prove damages. This is no different than today.

If you can demonstrate that you were adversely effected by someone dumping pollutants, then you can win a lawsuit. This is no different than today. This does not mean you have to wait until your daughter gets cancer, it means you have to have proof that someone dumped cancer causing chemicals on to your property.

Dumping chemicals on to someone else's property is a property rights violation.



Do you have a reference point where the murderers are not punished for their crime? Actually yes, there are armed gangs in various parts of the world WHERE THE LAWS ARE NOT ENFORCED who murder people. Do you get that?


In a free market, people and private property would be protected by private security and private courts. The law would be enforced quite efficiently. In fact it would be much more efficiently enforced than it is today.



edit on 2/23/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





So for the fourth time, your suggestion is that I should wait till my 3 year old daughter gets cancer or an infection, and watch her painfully die, then go to court? Are you half serious?


I'm afraid so. Because even if some other girl died and there's precedented, they would still have to quantify how much pollution affected the other girl. And for how long. Which means they're quantifying the tolerable level, which is...wait for it...waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait for it...A REGULATION THAT IMPACTS YOUR BUSINESS. Which isn't allowed in a free market if it impacts your business.

And the whole bankruptcy is easy thing is silly too, as it would result in 2 possible scenarios:

1) People sue like mad...if going bankrupt when losing is really no issue.
2) People are scared from suing if they aren't 100% sure they will win...which they can't be as no regulations provide a frame of reference in business matters.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





So for the fourth time, your suggestion is that I should wait till my 3 year old daughter gets cancer or an infection, and watch her painfully die, then go to court? Are you half serious?


I'm afraid so. Because even if some other girl died and there's precedented, they would still have to quantify how much pollution affected the other girl. And for how long. Which means they're quantifying the tolerable level, which is...wait for it...waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait for it...A REGULATION THAT IMPACTS YOUR BUSINESS. Which isn't allowed in a free market if it impacts your business.

And the whole bankruptcy is easy thing is silly too, as it would result in 2 possible scenarios:

1) People sue like mad...if going bankrupt when losing is really no issue.
2) People are scared from suing if they aren't 100% sure they will win...which they can't be as no regulations provide a frame of reference in business matters.


Pollution would not have to be quantified in the case of cancer causing chemicals. If a violation of property rights can be proven, a lawsuit can be won.

I assume that damages would be set in accordance with the risk involved. If the chemicals rendered the property uninhabitable, then the plaintiff would win damages in accordance with the entire value of the property and any other associated costs.

This is pretty common sense stuff, which is how a private law system would work.

Common sense.



edit on 2/23/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





If you can demonstrate that you were adversely effected by someone dumping pollutants, then you can win a lawsuit. This is no different than today. This does not mean you have to wait until your daughter gets cancer, it means you have to have proof that someone dumped cancer causing chemicals on to your property.


No...today you can sue because long term exposure could lead to future issues. In a free market, you cannot do that as the only way we can quantify what "too much" exposure is by putting a number on it (as in: that much xxx will kill you if there's 0.00002mg in your water and you drink 5 cups per day)...which again, is a REGULATION. There can't be any regulations.

You are completely ignoring all cases where something might not have an effect now, but definitely in the future.

Just like the lack of regulations controlling the financial industry didn't cause the crisis over night, it took years to build up this # storm.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





If you can demonstrate that you were adversely effected by someone dumping pollutants, then you can win a lawsuit. This is no different than today. This does not mean you have to wait until your daughter gets cancer, it means you have to have proof that someone dumped cancer causing chemicals on to your property.


No...today you can sue because long term exposure could lead to future issues. In a free market, you cannot do that as the only way we can quantify what "too much" exposure is by putting a number on it (as in: that much xxx will kill you if there's 0.00002mg in your water and you drink 5 cups per day)...which again, is a REGULATION. There can't be any regulations.

You are completely ignoring all cases where something might not have an effect now, but definitely in the future.

Just like the lack of regulations controlling the financial industry didn't cause the crisis over night, it took years to build up this # storm.


In a free market, if you can prove a property rights violation, the judge is going to rule in your favor.

I'm not sure where you come up with this stuff.

It doesn't matter if someone sprayed your lawn with cancerous materials or if they sprayed it with non-cancerous materials that caused damage. A property rights violation is a property rights violation.



edit on 2/23/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by buddhasystem
So for the fourth time, your suggestion is that I should wait till my 3 year old daughter gets cancer or an infection, and watch her painfully die, then go to court? Are you half serious?


You can not sue if you can not prove damages. This is no different than today.


That's why suing for damages simply doesn't work in cases like this. Gotcha.


If you can demonstrate that you were adversely effected by someone dumping pollutants, then you can win a lawsuit. This is no different than today. This does not mean you have to wait until your daughter gets cancer, it means you have to have proof that someone dumped cancer causing chemicals on to your property.


Just read carefully what you wrote, you are contradicting yourself! Proving that someone dumped carcinogen near my house has nothing to do with proving actual damages. Read it again. You are contradicting yourself. There is no sense in what you wrote.

Oh and by the way, I'm married to an environmental lawyer, she's going to have a good laugh when she reads this nonsense of yours.


In a free market, people and private property would be protected by private security and private courts. The law would be enforced quite efficiently. In fact it would be much more efficiently enforced than it is today.


Once again, you demonstrate just how far you are divorced from reality. Please go visit Ciudad Juárez, where there are problems with enforcing the laws. Call me when (and if) you get back. It's the murder capital of the world, precisely because of lack of enforcement.

Oh God, what fantasy...

Just how many people can afford private security detail?

ROTFLMAO



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Suing for damages works just fine if you can demonstrate they violated your property and caused damages.

Dumping cancerous materials on to your property is a clear property rights violation.

This is not rocket science.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





Pollution would not have to be quantified in the case of cancer causing chemicals. If a violation of property rights can be proven, a lawsuit can be won. I assume that damages would be set in accordance with the risk involved. If the chemicals rendered the property uninhabitable, then the plaintiff would win damages in accordance with the entire value of the property and any other associated costs. This is pretty common sense stuff, which is how a private law system would work. Common sense.


No, common sense would tell you that you're completely ignoring anything that might only have horrible effects some point in the future.


Essentially advocating for only being able to sue when after the negative event actually affected you.

Example:

I build a factory next to your house and you drink from some lake of which I own half, and you the other half. Thing is, every day I dump 1mg of some random poison that develops from my production into that lake. So every day you drink a bit of that poison. But no worries, it's perfectly ok for 20 years or so. However, after that, your left leg will fall off. It's because your body can only take around 2mg of that crap life time. So the sensible thing would be to prevent anyone from taking too much of that crap by limiting the output of factories through REGULATIONS.

If all you could do was sue right now, you might totally lose because right now, you haven't been negatively affected since only long term exposure is harmful.

Law is complex, you can't just dumb it down...and even though a lot of laws are idiotic and pointless, there's is an insane amount that is 100% necessary for the functioning of the economy.

And can we stop with the property rights nonsense? You don't own the air on your property...speaking of common sense for crying out loud

edit on 23-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Dumping toxic chemicals on to someone else's property without their permission is a property rights violation.

Again, this is not rocket science. You are making this out to be way more difficult to understand than it is.

If you violate someone's property in a free market system, there will be legal consequences.

If I can prove your chemical pollutants violated my property in some way, I have a case against you.

It doesn't matter if I realize you are polluting my property now, or at some point in the future. As soon as I understand that you have violated my property, I can bring a case against you.

If I see that your pollution will eventually interfere with my property if action is not taken, then I can bring an injunction to make you stop and clean up before it impacts my property.


edit on 2/23/2012 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


Ah! A fellow AnCap AND obviously a fan of my favorite economist, Mr. Rothbard.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Dumping toxic chemicals on to someone else's property without their permission is a property rights violation.

Again, this is not rocket science. You are making this out to be way more difficult to understand than it is.

If you violate someone's property in a free market system, there will be legal consequences.



Again: YOU DON'T OWN THE AIR ON YOUR PROPERTY!! Just like nobody can go "my cloud, I own it", at least not as a business or private person. I don't even have to dump anything onto your property, I might just release some gas into the air that never ends up on your property...just the air.

So you might also wanna look up how real estate works



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
Dumping cancerous materials on to your property is a clear property rights violation.


There is nothing clear in the world of law and its application.

Wait, who defines "cancerous" and how much of that is considered "dangerous"? The smoke of your BBQ grill is in fact carcinogenic to a degree. Should your neighbor sue? Now you decided to cover the fence in asbestos just in case. No damage just yet (hopefully). What now?

I feel that you know that your position here is not tenable. Whatever.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Dumping toxic chemicals on to someone else's property without their permission is a property rights violation.

Again, this is not rocket science. You are making this out to be way more difficult to understand than it is.

If you violate someone's property in a free market system, there will be legal consequences.



Again: YOU DON'T OWN THE AIR ON YOUR PROPERTY!!


says who?

If its on my property, I own it.

If your pollution impacts my air, water, soil, whatever, I have a case.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join