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: 9
71
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by hawkiye
The reason manufacturing has gone to Asia is well defined in the OP try reading it.


Maybe you should try reading it yourself and see that it's really a pile of trash.

Manufacturing has gone elsewhere because there were kids in Indonesia willing to sew Nike sneakers for $2 an hour, and there were Chinese workers working in unhealthy conditions at highly polluting factories making plastic for toys etc. Yup, that's something hard to compete with.


Maybe you could take any single point the OP made and explain in detail why it is trash? All this foolish rhetoric and not a single detractor has addressed a single point of why the OP is wrong. Instead we get typical answers from foolish ignoramuses who have no clue what it takes to start a business and sit in their moms basements quoting Idiots like Chomsky... Sigh

Then we have more idiots posting pictures of communist countries and telling us this is what happens with deregulation? Tell me geniuses when hundreds of banks fold monthly except a few big politically connected banks who are "too big to fail" and get bailed out how is that a free market? Are you too stupid to look around you and see regulation is nothing but a tool for politicians to run fair competition out of the market to protect their "too big to fail cronies"?

Government intervention has destroyed the markets now and through out history and that is precisely why companies have gone over seas. Quit quoting good for nothing idiots like Chomsky who has never produced anything in his life has no clue how to run a business and grow up and face reality.... I won't be holding my breath but thanks for illustrating my points perfectly!


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




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Did you just imply that Free Market economic is synonymous with pollution, 'deregulation', and link a photo to a guy in a Kayak in a polluted Chinese river as an example?

Just making sure.


By its very definition, a free market economy has no regulations. In a free market economy, no intervention is taking place, and that includes regulations.


The main reason a free market doesn't work in practice is because:

A) It assumes market players act rationally. We all know that's not the case

B) It assumes all issues will "solve itself" because the market regulates itself. That's also nonsense, and I'll give a good example bellow.

Imagine you had 2 MP3 player producers. One as good as the other, they have the identical functions, brand "image", and catchy design. You can buy the first for $150 because the producer hires children and makes them work 18hr days 7 days a week (on average, they do have some 35hr shifts too) for 30c per hour. The other player costs 23% more because it pays its employees fairly and gives them 2 days off per week, and a few weeks of vacation every year.

Now, according to the free market theory, the market will fix any issue as it "regulates itself". There's basically 2 outcomes here:

1) People are disgusted with the labour conditions of the first company and simply don't buy that product...so company no1 goes out of business. Company 2 makes a lot of money...unless company 1 changes its ways.

2) People don't really care about the working conditions of those employees, and simply want the cheaper product. That would kill of company no2 because they can't lower their costs without paying employees less and exploiting them in the process (btw, those "employees" means you too!!). Company 1 would continue to make a lot of $$$ at the expense of the general workforce.

If there's one thing we know for a FACT, it's that most people don't give a # about how their products are made. They buy Apple products (and I'm typing this on a Macbook...so I'm guilty of that too) even though employees producing their products are prone to killing themselves because of bad working conditions. And don't give me this "it's not that bad" crap! They don't put nets around their buildings to prevent them from jumping to their deaths. All people care about is "image" and even more so PRICE. It has to be cheap. And that's why people simply don't care whether or not some 6 year old Indonesian boy made your shoes during a 20hr shift or not before sniffing some glue to escape that harsh reality.

So think for a second (take 2 damnit) and ask yourself this: Do I really believe a free market would benefit the majority of the population??

The answer is "no"!! It might work if people were ethical, but when money's involved, they aren't. And that's not just when it comes to working conditions, but also the financial industry who caused this most recent economic crisis. It's only because there weren't tough enough regulations in place, and because of the FACT that people overall (you only need a few bad apples tbh) don't act ethically, that this economic crisis could have happened. But at least we had at least some regulations who prevented at least even worse crap...without them, as in a free market economy for example, nothing would have stopped them form screwing up even more.

And yes, that river is a good example of "no regulations" as this is the only reason it's happening. In case you've never been to China's economic centres (not just Shanghai!), that's how devastating deregulation can be.

As for those using the bailouts as an example of why a free market would be better, please go read an economics book!! With proper regulations in place we would have never had to bail out those banks in the first place for crying out loud!! Sadly, the banks paid off politicians who removed the very regulation that could have prevented the entire crisis in the first place. And it wasn't a single president or party who did that, every president since Reagan did so systematically.

The only reason it lasted this long is that people were duped into spending money they didn't have for so much, that they kept the economy running...which made a few select people very very rich. The income of the average American at the same time pretty much stagnated compared to that over the past 25 years or so in relative terms.


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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Hi, my name is Liejunkie and I am a slave to the system.....

I get up early as hell in the morning........and report for duty...........

See, I am a union member, and I am currently paying everybody and their dog, tax this, child support that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I drive for over and hour sometimes two a day, just to get to work.......not including back............

I do it because the alternatives suck.

Paying the man his dues never ends friend............If and when it ever does, this world will be totally different........probably without the human race



With the oil man, laws, big business and whatever the hell else that is wrong with society......

My name is LJ01 and I do not want to be a bum



PS>>>>>>>> I forgot to say............."and my feet hurt".....................all for the man..........
edit on 23-2-2012 by liejunkie01 because: PS



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Did you just imply that Free Market economic is synonymous with pollution, 'deregulation', and link a photo to a guy in a Kayak in a polluted Chinese river as an example?

Just making sure.


By its very definition, a free market economy has no regulations. .



Not quite true.

By definition, within the framework of private property rights, enforced by private contract, private security, and private law courts, the free market enacts its own regulation.

For example, one could not enter someone else's private property and poach endangered species.

One could not pollute the air of their neighbor without consequences.

One could not pollute the water of their neighbor without consequences.

Pollution is a violation of private property rights, and as such, those who are the recipients of the pollution would have every right to make the polluter stop his pollution and pay for damages.

This is in contrast to our current system, which protects polluters from liability through corporate limits of liability imposed by the State. For example, BP was limited in the liability of its oil spill by the State. The State would not allow people to sue BP into bankruptcy. In a free market, BP would have been bankrupted by its recklessness.

Additionally, all of the major banks would have been bankrupted by the free market long long ago. The State loots you and then hands your money to the banks; this is the only reason they are still around today. Without the State, the major financial institutions would have vaporized a long time ago. State regulations keep them in power.

This concept of private property rights can be applied to many more things to enact "regulations" that would be much more stringent than what we have today.


As for the Free Market not benefiting all of humanity, clearly it does. People are FORCED into only producing things that their fellow man wants to purchase. Contrast this with the State, which produces everything that no one wants to purchase.

No one wants an aircraft carrier.

No one wants a nuclear ballistic missile submarine.

No one wants a multi-billion dollar stealth fighter.

No one wants public education - if they did, the State would not have to tax people to provide it. Consider if families had the option of not paying taxes in the amount proportional to public schools, and they could instead use that money to send their kid to a private school. How many parents would chose to send their kids to a public school? - Not many.



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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I'm posting this message without reading any of the threads, because the title "This is Why There are No Jobs in America". Every morning and evening I am surrounded by thousands of commuters heading to and from work...and I live in America. It seem that ATS is really starting to relax the forum standards on decor and rules as of late. What a shame...
-cwm



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 

Great post OP and others... PS sorry for my bad english...

Stupid people, corrupted to the bone are elected. They propose new rules that should never be proposed to begin with. Then the other stupid corrupted elected vote yes. And the new stupidity retardness overpowered tea baggin bill pass.

What america need is the best at transportation do that no matter what is other job might be. The best at health care is in charge of healthcare, etc. Not people who doesnt know a damn thing about the subject get elected cauz they 'won'. Then all the best at what they know are regrouped you get the ultimate governement. Then you make sure they arent in any secret socities or religions. They must be neutral people with great intellect and more. Then your country can start fixing 'the many problems you guys have'- yes im from canada. You will never thrive the way you guys are doing it right now. Your government arent working for you right now, they are against you.

Your country is lieing about many subject, yet you guys still go vote. There should be no rivalry too. No parties of people, government should be neutral of conflicts to begin with. When you pass the requirement to be elected you can go and do your campaign and people can vote for any of the best individuals for every part of the governement. Not will I vote liberal or conservative? Also the president and vice-president or whatever the people who speak to the nation in name of the governement shall never have any word to say. This person elected just to TALK or w/e has no word he is just a spokeperson.

I just hope there is a great disaster coming and everything is reset on earth with only a few survivors then we can cleanse the earth from corrupted evil people and start a true humanity. Hopefully if that happen i will survive or I hope that the survivor will have similar plans.

And yes when i said no secret socities, gangs or religion should be allowed in governments. I dont believe in anything. Im a christian because my parents told me 'it' was good and I 'had' to be that. But now I dont really gives a sh... anymore. There is no god and if there is one its a group of souls not a single individual. That is why when people die they see lights and something appear. God should be everything not something. Just like the government should be.

Intelocracy or Sagecracy should this type of governement be named. Unless there's already something similar that has a name im not aware of.
edit on 23-2-2012 by skywalk because: forgot somethign.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





By definition, within the framework of private property rights, enforced by private contract, private security, and private law courts, the free market enacts its own regulation.

For example, one could not enter private property and poach endangered species. One could not pollute the air of their neighbor without consequences. One could not pollute the water of their neighbor without consequences.


Sure you could. In all cases according to a 100% free market without intervention in the market, only supply/demand would have an impact on your actions as a company when it comes to business. Why? Because everything else would be an outside intervention...which by is prohibited in a free market because you would impact supply and demand of a product. A free market economy doesn't account for externalities such as pollution. Go look it up, it's in every single basic economics textbook. Of course a lot of "economic opinion blogs" conveniently leave out this fact...which makes me think your "5 years of being a self-taught economist" is largely based on such blogs rather than real economic textbooks and proper papers with sourced information.

The problem is that those opinion blogs cherry pick the parts they like, but then completely ignore everything that could possibly put their favoured view in a bad light. Of course if you never really studied this, you won't be able to tell the difference. And I'm not attacking you, or making fun of you. I'm completely clueless when it comes to chemistry for example. If I had to get chemistry information and would simply do a google search, I couldn't tell if a website is legit and presenting unbiased information and stating full theories instead of cherry picking the parts that fit their world view or not. I would have no clue whatsoever...which is why I would go study chemistry if I really had to know about it. Luckily I don't have to.

In short: A free market doesn't account for externalities such as pollution, and the general workforce would not benefit at all as labour laws would impact supply and demand and therefore violate one of that theory's prerequisites. Free market is an "idealized concept" that doesn't work if implemented 100% (which it has to, else it wouldn't be "free"), just like communism is an idealized concept that also doesn't work in reality.

At least we both agree that the current system doesn't work...we simply believe so for different reasons


PS: The OP's link is a GREAT example of an opinion blog that pretends to be factual...when it's really not.
edit on 23-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You are wrong in all your points, and my previous post explained why.

Unless you want to say private property is not inherent in a free market, which would be oxymoronic, then what you just wrote makes no sense at all.

It would be illegal for anyone to pollute another person's land in a free market system. Pollution is a violation of property rights.

If I spread my junk across your land, I have physically violated your property in a tangible and measurable way.

Pollution is another form of vandalism. Pollution is property damage, and as such, it is a clear violation of property rights.

You claim you studied economics for 6 years? I'm finding that harder and harder to believe.

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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
One could not pollute the air of their neighbor without consequences.
One could not pollute the water of their neighbor without consequences.


What would be the limits of admissible pollution? You see, if you as much as fire up your BBQ grill, the neighbors have the right to complain that it's pollution. And it will be a lot worse if it were an asphalt factory... So where do you draw the line?

Should the agricultural producers label their products where they list herbicides and fertilizers used in production? Labels are extra cost. So, should they do it?

But let's get back to the BBQ case, how the hell can one decide that it stinks too much?

You pretty much speaking in abstract and frankly absurd terms. The only way the scheme you suggest can function of there is a set of laws which are pretty damn close to regulation (shock, shudder!). Consider noise pollution to boot. Oh, and by the way, I decided to erect a huge tower on my property that will obstruct the view from your house, but -- tough luck! I'm within my limits and I'm a proud owner of my land, so scr3w you (as a figure of speech).

I really would like you to taste some of your own medicine.

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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
One could not pollute the air of their neighbor without consequences.
One could not pollute the water of their neighbor without consequences.


What would be the limits of admissible pollution?


That is what courts are for.

A plaintiff would have to prove damages to a court and then demonstrate why, and for how much, he should be compensated.

No two pollution cases are identical, so each case must be decided on a case by case basis.



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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


The best example of a "free market" is nature...survival of the fittest. That's the only "true" free market, as no country on earth has a 100% free market. And yes, it works, it's how animals and plants work. Thing is, many of us consider us "above" animals and plants, we are better...or at least would like to think so.

The problem is, if we apply this free market survival of the fittest theory to humans, you have to realize that there's only a few at the top of the food chain. Right now, it's us...and then stuff like lions, sharks, and other stuff that has few natural enemies apart from us. So in an economy like that, this would be the case too. The large majority would be "food". A bird eats like 5 worms or something a day...that's 5 having a pretty #ty existence for 1 guy to live just one day. A free market economy would work the same way...as the only way to prevent that from happening would intervene and destroy the "natural order" where stuff "fixes itself". It does..but at a cost a ton of those opinion blogs don't mention at all.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


The best example of a "free market" is nature...survival of the fittest. .


Survival of the fittest in nature violates property rights.

Civilized societies that act in accordance with free market principles protect property rights.

I can not kill you and eat you, as I would be violating the property of your person. A civilized society would recognize your ownership of your person and protect you from such aggression, unlike raw untamed nature.



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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
One could not pollute the air of their neighbor without consequences.
One could not pollute the water of their neighbor without consequences.


What would be the limits of admissible pollution?


That is what courts are for.

A plaintiff would have to prove damages to a court and then demonstrate why, and for how much, he should be compensated.

No two pollution cases are identical, so each case must be decided on a case by case basis.



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


Riiiiiiight, and everyone has money to pay for that how exactly?


Wanna tell me how those natives living in the Nigerian rainforest should pay for suing Exxon? And even if somehow they get that money, we all know giant corporations have insane amounts of very capable lawyers...that laugh at cases of David vs Goliath because they mostly win those cases.

Again, you are cherry picking the parts you like about "free market" while completely ignoring the downsides. It's an IDEALIZED theory that doesn't work in practice without screwing over a large part of the population.

If you said you like "parts" of the theory that actually work without a downside, you'd have a point. But you are chasing a dream that isn't real.

They had their "free market" in Nigeria and Exxon basically went in and said "FU property rights" (parts adjacent to those refineries are properly owned by those natives!). And even though those natives had property rights, they simply COULDN'T AFFORD to sue them and get compensated. It works great as long as you have money and are rich...not so much if you're poor or even middle class.

If you're rich, and don't care about your fellow citizens...by all means, push for a free market as hard as you can, because it will make your life better.

If you aren't rich, I suggest you insist on regulations that protect you. Because you couldn't afford to sue anyone in a free market where the government isn't allowed to make stuff like dumping toxic waste illegal.
edit on 23-2-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
One could not pollute the air of their neighbor without consequences.
One could not pollute the water of their neighbor without consequences.


What would be the limits of admissible pollution?


That is what courts are for.

A plaintiff would have to prove damages to a court and then demonstrate why, and for how much, he should be compensated.

No two pollution cases are identical, so each case must be decided on a case by case basis.



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


Riiiiiiight, and everyone has money to pay for that how exactly?




Loser pays in private arb courts.

If you have a legit case, then its not your problem.

All courts would be on a loser pays system in a free market because it is the most efficient means of weeding out frivolous law suits.

I'd also like to add that court costs would be an infinitesimal fraction of what they are today in a free market.


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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
One could not pollute the air of their neighbor without consequences.
One could not pollute the water of their neighbor without consequences.


What would be the limits of admissible pollution?


That is what courts are for.

A plaintiff would have to prove damages to a court and then demonstrate why, and for how much, he should be compensated.


It takes years at times to get cancer from pollution, so you propose to wait? What if my kids get a mutation?
What about labels on food products?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
One could not pollute the air of their neighbor without consequences.
One could not pollute the water of their neighbor without consequences.


What would be the limits of admissible pollution?


That is what courts are for.

A plaintiff would have to prove damages to a court and then demonstrate why, and for how much, he should be compensated.


It takes years at times to get cancer from pollution, so you propose to wait? What if my kids get a mutation?
What about labels on food products?


It doesn't take years to detect pollution.

But say someone pollutes your property with a silent poison that causes cancer years later - how would this be any different than the current situation today?

Our current system isn't going to protect you any more than a free market system. People pollute today even with all the laws in place. In a free market system, people would know that if they dump toxic chemicals on someone else's property, they could be hauled before a judge just like today. So there is no effective difference.

The deterrence isn't the law saying you can't pollute, the deterrence is knowing that if you get caught you are going to be held accountable. Accountability is still preserved in a free market system. Even more so!

Just look at the limits to liability BP was granted. In a free market, BP would have been bankrupted over their pollution.




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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
It doesn't take years to detect pollution.


Your statement is irrelevant, because it does take years to develop cancer.


But say someone pollutes your property with a silent poison that causes cancer years later - how would this be any different than the current situation today?


a) if I do get cancer, that's already too late... I though it was obvious

b) because I can call an agency which will send an inspection and verify that the pollution is above the limits that are currently accepted as safe. It doesn't matter whether it's free or not, let's assume I'll pay to get the test done. Even then, what is happening is -- shock, shudder! -- regulation.


Our current system isn't going to protect you any more than a free market system. People pollute today even with all the laws in place.


Oh, so you can imagine what would be going on without such laws!

Now back to the food labels -- should they exist?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
It doesn't take years to detect pollution.


Your statement is irrelevant, because it does take years to develop cancer.


But say someone pollutes your property with a silent poison that causes cancer years later - how would this be any different than the current situation today?


a) if I do get cancer, that's already too late... I though it was obvious

b) because I can call an agency which will send an inspection and verify that the pollution is above the limits that are currently accepted as safe. It doesn't matter whether it's free or not, let's assume I'll pay to get the test done. Even then, what is happening is -- shock, shudder! -- regulation.


Our current system isn't going to protect you any more than a free market system. People pollute today even with all the laws in place.


Oh, so you can imagine what would be going on without such laws!

Now back to the food labels -- should they exist?


So you are assuming that the State keeps you safe from cancer polluters today?

Laws do not prevent murder.

Laws do not prevent rape.

Laws do not prevent pollution.

Laws can only punish after the fact.

In a free market, punishment would still be dealt. And that punishment would be the effective deterrent, not laws that attempt to preemptively control people's behavior. If people know they are going to be held accountable for dumping cancerous materials, that is all that is needed to deter them from doing so.





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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





Loser pays in private arb courts. If you have a legit case, then its not your problem. All courts would be on a loser pays system in a free market because it is the most efficient means of weeding out frivolous law suits. I'd also like to add that court costs would be an infinitesimal fraction of what they are today in a free market.


You have to be kidding!!!

There's sooooooo many cases (some of them already listed) where both parties believe to be right. If I live next to you on my property and every night at 3am I WANT to listen to Icelandic singer Bjoerk through my concert-grade Marshall speakers for an hour (because I work from home at that time and it is required for my work), in a free market without regulations, you could sue me...correct. Problem is, how do you prove it negatively impacts you to a point where you deserve compensation? There are no regulations in place that would prevent me from doing that crap, so you would have to prove how much money I'm costing you.

Good luck proving that without regulations that limit noise. "Too loud" could end up as a completely arbitrary number. You might win the case, you might lose it. Total coinflip as there is no regulation or way to decide what amount of decibels is too much. There's a good reason for us having decibel regulations and restrictions.

Picture yourself getting a Bjoerk fan judge. There's no regulations in place specifying "too loud" in a free market, so it's totally up to him to decide what's "too loud". Maybe he loves me for playing it that loudly because he lives 2 houses down and thinks it's original. Either way, he can totally decide what's an appropriate noise level as he's not bound to any regulations. He can't go:"MrXYZ, you were playing crap at 190 decibel at 3am, the max tolerated level is 50 decibel between 10pm and 6am...pay the other guy $100k, we're done here".

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



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 





Loser pays in private arb courts. If you have a legit case, then its not your problem. All courts would be on a loser pays system in a free market because it is the most efficient means of weeding out frivolous law suits. I'd also like to add that court costs would be an infinitesimal fraction of what they are today in a free market.


You have to be kidding!!!

There's sooooooo many cases (some of them already listed) where both parties believe to be right. If I live next to you on my property and every night at 3am I WANT to listen to Icelandic singer Bjoerk through my concert-grade Marshall speakers for an hour (because I work from home at that time and it is required for my work), in a free market without regulations, you could sue me...correct. Problem is, how do you prove it negatively impacts you to a point where you deserve compensation? There are no regulations in place that would prevent me from doing that crap, so you would have to prove how much money I'm costing you.

Good luck proving that without regulations that limit noise. "Too loud" could end up as a completely arbitrary number. You might win the case, you might lose it. Total coinflip as there is no regulation or way to decide what amount of decibels is too much. There's a good reason for us having decibel regulations and restrictions.



If you "believe" you are right, then bring your case.

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.

Again, I want to reiterate that court fees would be an infinitesimal fraction of what they are today. Everyone could most likely afford them anyways. If poor people can afford cell phones, I'm sure they could pony up for some negligible court fees.


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



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join