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: 11
71
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.


My neighbor certainly could bring a suit. - but remember, its loser pays.

So he has to be certain that the judge isn't going to rule this case as frivolous before he brings it.

On a case by case basis, I highly doubt a judge would let that suit stand.

It would only stand if I was using my BBQ in some unreasonable way that was clearly effecting his property to a degree that caused measurable damage.



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




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
If its on my property, I own it.


Unless you seal yourself in a hermetic container (which I strongly suggest you do), this is clearly not the case. Your fart (also your property, by the way) can travel afar and be enjoyed by many neighbors of yours. They likewise are sharing their treasures with you. What about the sounds you make?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
If its on my property, I own it.


Unless you seal yourself in a hermetic container (which I strongly suggest you do), this is clearly not the case. Your fart (also your property, by the way) can travel afar and be enjoyed by many neighbors of yours. They likewise are sharing their treasures with you. What about the sounds you make?


It's fun watching you have a breakdown on here.

Yes, I have an answer to every argument.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.


My neighbor certainly could bring a suit. - but remember, its loser pays.


Law suit based on what exactly? There are science papers saying that substance ABC is deadly, but the judge it not a scientist. You've been told already that having pollution norms helps here and that it means regulation. You refuse to accept it and continue to take this untenable position.


It would only stand if I was using my BBQ in some unreasonable way that was clearly effecting his property to a degree that caused measurable damage.


If someone is playing loud music at 1:30 am in the neighborhood, how would you quantify damage?

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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

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.



Right now you have a case...because we have REGULATIONS that quantify how much of a pollutant is too much over how long. We quantify it, and put regulations in place that limit output. Without those regulations that quantify it, you don't have a case


And again, you are completely ignoring all cases that only have an impact after long term exposure...nice dodging that one

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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Law suit based on what exactly? There are science papers saying that substance ABC is deadly, but the judge it not a scientist.


The judge doesn't need to be a scientist. As you pointed out, scientists have already determined that some specific class of chemicals is cancerous, which is the only thing the judge needs to know. If those chemicals were dumped on to someone's property against their consent, then a property rights violation has occurred. Ergo, that is all the judge needs to know in order to make a decision on the matter.



If someone is playing loud music at 1:30 am in the neighborhood, how would you quantify damage?


I would say that repeated disturbances such as that would be a viable lawsuit. I assume that excessive and unreasonable noise pollution would be something that courts would take into consideration.

This may be something that is defined by contract as well. When you purchase a home, it may be written into the contract that you will not disturb the peace of your neighbors. Alternatively, this clause also might be defined in your insurance contract. If you do it, the insurance might pull your coverage.

This might be defined not only in your home insurance, but also in your security insurance. Since there would be no police, you would most likely have a contract with a private security agency to protect your home. I'm sure they would have a clause to prevent you from disturbing the peace.


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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





I would say that repeated disturbances such as that would be a viable lawsuit. I assume that excessive and unreasonable noise pollution would be something that courts would take into consideration.


Free market > no regulations > no quantified limit of what's considered "excessive noise pollution" > no case.

If you can't objectively state how much is "too much", you simply don't have a case. And you can only do this with set limits...which guess what, are regulations


You're going in circles



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





I would say that repeated disturbances such as that would be a viable lawsuit. I assume that excessive and unreasonable noise pollution would be something that courts would take into consideration.


Free market > no regulations > no quantified limit of what's considered "excessive noise pollution" > no case.

If you can't objectively state how much is "too much", you simply don't have a case. And you can only do this with set limits...which guess what, are regulations


You're going in circles


case by case basis.

Nothing need be absolute.

The markets will work out a mechanism to ensure this is dealt with appropriately. As I pointed out, such actions would also most likely cause a contract violation of some sort.



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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





This may be something that is defined by contract as well. When you purchase a home, it may be written into the contract that you will not disturb the peace of your neighbors.


If you buy property, why on earth would the seller (you know, the guy you have a contract with) care about whether or not you piss off the neighbours in the future? Comon', please at least make an effort to make sense.

Same goes for your insurance company example



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





This may be something that is defined by contract as well. When you purchase a home, it may be written into the contract that you will not disturb the peace of your neighbors.


If you buy property, why on earth would the seller (you know, the guy you have a contract with) care about whether or not you piss off the neighbours in the future? Comon', please at least make an effort to make sense.

Same goes for your insurance company example


Because your insurance or security service might dump you, in addition to being the potential subject of a lawsuit.

Your neighbors might file a complaint with YOUR security service, in which case they might dump your coverage, raise your rates, or sue you for a contract violation. Your security service would be motivated to do this because they wouldn't want to lose potential customers due to having a bad reputation in the market.

In a free society, reputation is king.

Hell, your neighbors might simply contact your boss and tell him what you are up to.

If you own your own company, they might post negative things about you on the web or on reputation sites.



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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





case by case basis. Nothing need be absolute.


Yeah, that will cut down on bureaucracy





The markets will work out a mechanism to ensure this is dealt with appropriately.


It simply can't. As was posted over and over again, there are a ton of things free market economics can't solve, and even makes worse...especially at the expense of the average work force.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





case by case basis. Nothing need be absolute.


Yeah, that will cut down on bureaucracy





The markets will work out a mechanism to ensure this is dealt with appropriately.


It simply can't. As was posted over and over again, there are a ton of things free market economics can't solve, and even makes worse...especially at the expense of the average work force.



It would definitively cut down on bureaucracy. There would be no State legislature or judiciary.

Sure it can. I just pointed out how contracts or private law courts could solve this problem.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





Because your insurance or security service might dump you, in addition to being the potential subject of a lawsuit.


Why would they dump you? They just wouldn't insure you against whatever could get them into too much trouble...as long as you pay your insurance premium. And hell, unless you REGULATE it by forcing some types of insurance on business, they could simply take down unrelated 3rd party in the process if things go wrong. But again, in a free market you wouldn't be allowed to insist on regulations that could prevent that.

100% free market doesn't work. You would have a point if you said you like some parts (and I do like certain parts), but insisting a 100% free market would work is naive. There's a very good reason no country on earth had the guts to do that yet.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Law suit based on what exactly? There are science papers saying that substance ABC is deadly, but the judge it not a scientist.


The judge doesn't need to be a scientist. As you pointed out, scientists have already determined that some specific class of chemicals is cancerous, which is the only thing the judge needs to know. If those chemicals were dumped on to someone's property against their consent, then a property rights violation has occurred. Ergo, that is all the judge needs to know in order to make a decision on the matter.


No, it's not. There are 5 conflicting papers on this subject and the actual concentrations matter. The judge won't be able to make any sort of decision w/o relying on an officially established panel.




If someone is playing loud music at 1:30 am in the neighborhood, how would you quantify damage?


I would say that repeated disturbances such as that would be a viable lawsuit.


Ah, but you are contradicting yourself again! There is no damage you can prove. So there.

Sorry, none of your arguments hold water.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





case by case basis. Nothing need be absolute.


Yeah, that will cut down on bureaucracy





The markets will work out a mechanism to ensure this is dealt with appropriately.


It simply can't. As was posted over and over again, there are a ton of things free market economics can't solve, and even makes worse...especially at the expense of the average work force.



It would definitively cut down on bureaucracy. There would be no State legislature or judiciary.

Sure it can. I just pointed out how contracts or private law courts could solve this problem.



Riiiiiiiight. Because simply imposing a regulation that says "no noise above 50 decibel" is more bureaucratic than having a gazillion "case by case lawsuits". Do you read your posts before you hit "reply"?

You can say certain things don't need to be regulated, or not to some certain extent...but to simply say "nope, no regulation whatsoever" is silly and naive. Sadly, that's what 100% free market is.
edit on 23-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


LOL a good answer.

If a written promise to be a model citizen is required to qualify for a house purchase, that's nothing short of fascism. Not the first time this stubborn fact surfaces.

Just hilarious.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
If its on my property, I own it.


Unless you seal yourself in a hermetic container (which I strongly suggest you do), this is clearly not the case. Your fart (also your property, by the way) can travel afar and be enjoyed by many neighbors of yours. They likewise are sharing their treasures with you. What about the sounds you make?


It's fun watching you have a breakdown on here.
Yes, I have an answer to every argument.


I'm not having a breakdown of any sort. You keep piling up nonsense like you own the air above you backyard, what can I say... When the wind blows, do you sue your neighbors for breathing that air that is clearly your property?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
No, it's not. There are 5 conflicting papers on this subject and the actual concentrations matter. The judge won't be able to make any sort of decision w/o relying on an officially established panel.


What you're proposing is some form of central planning who has an official monopoly on knowledge/science, which is nonsense.

The judge is being paid to judge and thus active research would be part of his responsibilities to provide the customer with better services for fear of losing out to competition with better educated staff. Then, if a judge decides wrongly and the customer doesn't agree with the judgment then the customer has two choices: he can abide by the judgment or leave. It would depend on the contractual agreements ahead of time. If the person breaks their contract i.e. doesn't abide by the judge's decisions, then the court in question can punish the person by barring him from their services, etc.,



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 



Originally posted by dadgad
reply to post by DrinkYourDrug
 




You seem a long way from holding anything close to resembling anarchist values.

Hm... you know me so well huh? Please elaborate.

All the opinions you have presented thus far are in favor of more government involvement rather than less.



That is exactly my point. Their government, in trying to protect them, has put them in a far worse situation than if they were free to make their own choices.


No your government in pretending to help them has put them in a far worse situation. Don't twist the facts here.

Same thing. I maintain they would be better off with less governance.



It amazes me that in these times charitable donations and voluntarily helping fellow humans is commonly viewed as being "savage", while theft at gunpoint to achieve the same means is viewed as being civil and righteous.


Why should people be left to charity tell me? Who generates the wealth used for charity? Who produced it, who's sweat is in there? The Church? I don't think so. All the Church does is give away donation money. All wealth is produced by workers, and workers only.
And the Church only gives charity to Christians. Church charity is barbaric.

People should be left to charity because it is more moral to ask for something you need than steal it at gunpoint. As a tax payer I would also feel really good about voluntarily helping those in need, rather than resentment at having large portions of my income stolen under the threat of violence.

The same people who generate the wealth used for taxation generate the wealth used for charity. I don't see the point you are trying to make with that question. Churches are also only one small facet of charity, and I make my donations to alternative organizations. Because the government currently maintains all but a monopoly in national welfare distribution, the absence of taxes would see more efficient charities established to achieve the same purpose.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by buddhasystem
No, it's not. There are 5 conflicting papers on this subject and the actual concentrations matter. The judge won't be able to make any sort of decision w/o relying on an officially established panel.


What you're proposing is some form of central planning who has an official monopoly on knowledge/science, which is nonsense.


For the decision of the court to be respected, the court in each and every case can indeed hire experts and the judge can ask them to present their expert knowledge. I agree that's possible. However, there will be cases where this will prevent effective execution of the law, because for each case you'll have to summon a panel of experts and have them speak before the jury. It simply doesn't scale. So, in some cases these responsibilities are deputized to a group of people who keep track of the issue and are able to aid judgement.

EDIT TO ADD:
and of course there is that case of noise pollution, which would be impossible to handle without _reasonable_ norms on noise level.

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




top topics



 
71
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join