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.
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.
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.
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. .
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
The best example of a "free market" is nature...survival of the fittest. .
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)
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?
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.
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?
Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
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.
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?
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.
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.