Libbies don't watch....

[Seth]

, they can't just take it without paying for it.

does that mean coal producers can't use the atmosphere and water table as a sewer and not pay for it????

No, that's not what it means. Exported harm such as you mention is an initiation of force and/or fraud by the producer and is therefore subject to the rights of those affected to put a stop to such wrongdoing.

seems they don't, seems you don't mind that at all.
Seems both require regulation...

Oh but I do mind. In Libertarian philosophy the victims of force or fraud initiated by a coal company polluting a water table that extends beyond their property line have the right to compensation for that exported harm up to and including seizing ALL of the assets of the offender and ejecting him from the community.

If a coal producer wants to bulldoze the tops of every mountain and fill every valley he owns to get to the coal he's entitled to do so, but if one drop of water pollution or one cubic foot of air pollution leaves the boundaries of his property and harms others, he's personally and the company and its employees collectively are fully, completely and absolutely liable for any and all harm that occurs.

Governments are not bound by that "no exported harm" principle and routinely pollute and destroy private property with impunity under the rationale that the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few. The federal government is the single largest polluter in America, and it does so as it pleases and without restraint because it is not liable for that damage.

[piscator]

, they can't just take it without paying for it.

does that mean coal producers can't use the atmosphere and water table as a sewer and not pay for it????

No, that's not what it means. Exported harm such as you mention is an initiation of force and/or fraud by the producer and is therefore subject to the rights of those affected to put a stop to such wrongdoing.

seems they don't, seems you don't mind that at all.
Seems both require regulation...

Oh but I do mind. In Libertarian philosophy the victims of force or fraud initiated by a coal company polluting a water table that extends beyond their property line have the right to compensation for that exported harm up to and including seizing ALL of the assets of the offender and ejecting him from the community.

If a coal producer wants to bulldoze the tops of every mountain and fill every valley he owns to get to the coal he's entitled to do so, but if one drop of water pollution or one cubic foot of air pollution leaves the boundaries of his property and harms others, he's personally and the company and its employees collectively are fully, completely and absolutely liable for any and all harm that occurs.

Governments are not bound by that "no exported harm" principle and routinely pollute and destroy private property with impunity under the rationale that the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few. The federal government is the single largest polluter in America, and it does so as it pleases and without restraint because it is not liable for that damage.

They didn't know Hannford was going to be like that. There was a war on...


The EPA pays thousands of private sector environmental engineers and remediation contractors billions to clean up the toxic mess the US private sector has generated since about 1900. Can't go after the original polluters, they're long gone and their assets are scattered to the four winds. In fact, that's how big mines and big oil and coal companies do things today: the original entity that signs the agreements and gets the tax breaks and digs the hole and uses the arsenic and mercury and dumps the fly ash and vinyl chloride to make money fractures into hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller entities who change hands and sell off parts of their environmental liability to other less-interested parties. Pretty soon, it takes billions of dollars to track down who's financially responsible for the arsenic and vcm that's getting into everyone's wells and spiking the local incidence of cancers and fish kills.
The original shareholders make out, if they don't have to pay for a lot of golden parachutes when the original consortium blows out on schedule. I'd imagine a lot of them are quite pleased to be able to internalize profit and externalize (Socialize) their liability, but what's a corporation for?


Would there be Libertarian corporations in a Libertarian future?

[Hermit]

And you think that only government can perform this act?

Yes. Shareholders keep baying for their dividends.

So what? [snipped the rest of the rubbish]

Why am I not surprised that you'd reply with evasions and ideologically driven twaddle? What'll come next? Oh, I know. The D-K poster boy's routine from your boilerplate text collection. Go ahead, Seth. My scroll wheel is ready for it.

[Seth]

, they can't just take it without paying for it.

does that mean coal producers can't use the atmosphere and water table as a sewer and not pay for it????

No, that's not what it means. Exported harm such as you mention is an initiation of force and/or fraud by the producer and is therefore subject to the rights of those affected to put a stop to such wrongdoing.

seems they don't, seems you don't mind that at all.
Seems both require regulation...

Oh but I do mind. In Libertarian philosophy the victims of force or fraud initiated by a coal company polluting a water table that extends beyond their property line have the right to compensation for that exported harm up to and including seizing ALL of the assets of the offender and ejecting him from the community.

If a coal producer wants to bulldoze the tops of every mountain and fill every valley he owns to get to the coal he's entitled to do so, but if one drop of water pollution or one cubic foot of air pollution leaves the boundaries of his property and harms others, he's personally and the company and its employees collectively are fully, completely and absolutely liable for any and all harm that occurs.

Governments are not bound by that "no exported harm" principle and routinely pollute and destroy private property with impunity under the rationale that the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few. The federal government is the single largest polluter in America, and it does so as it pleases and without restraint because it is not liable for that damage.

They didn't know Hannford was going to be like that. There was a war on...

No excuse.

The EPA pays thousands of private sector environmental engineers and remediation contractors billions to clean up the toxic mess the US private sector has generated since about 1900.

Yup.

Can't go after the original polluters, they're long gone and their assets are scattered to the four winds.

Yup.

In fact, that's how big mines and big oil and coal companies do things today: the original entity that signs the agreements and gets the tax breaks and digs the hole and uses the arsenic and mercury and dumps the fly ash and vinyl chloride to make money fractures into hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller entities who change hands and sell off parts of their environmental liability to other less-interested parties. Pretty soon, it takes billions of dollars to track down who's financially responsible for the arsenic and vcm that's getting into everyone's wells and spiking the local incidence of cancers and fish kills.

That's easy. Doing that is initiation of fraud with the intent to escape liability, which places the personal and corporate assets and corpus of EVERYONE who participated in that fraud, from the top down, including the lawyers and anyone else who knowingly participated in the activities, including employees, at risk for total seizure and distribution of their assets to those who are harmed by the violation. As I said, there is no insulating yourself from participating in force or fraud in Libertarianism, none at all.

The original shareholders make out, if they don't have to pay for a lot of golden parachutes when the original consortium blows out on schedule. I'd imagine a lot of them are quite pleased to be able to internalize profit and externalize (Socialize) their liability, but what's a corporation for?

Would there be Libertarian corporations in a Libertarian future?

No. Libertarianism doesn't permit anyone to "externalize" or escape personal liability for initiation of force or fraud that they benefit from. Ever. Therefore in a Libertarian society, "corporations" would not exist as they do today. They might be called that, but they would be nothing more than an organizational structure and would confer no asset protection against liability at all.

This encourages individuals to always act in their rational self interest by strenuously avoiding any group action that might involve the initiation of force or fraud. It encourages every individual to exercise their inherent police power to prevent others from doing so, particularly in their name. It gives victims access to everything a violator owns, right down to his underwear, as compensation for the injury.

It helps keep society honest and honorable.

[Seth]

And you think that only government can perform this act?

Yes. Shareholders keep baying for their dividends.

So what? [snipped the rest of the rubbish]

Why am I not surprised that you'd reply with evasions and ideologically driven twaddle? What'll come next? Oh, I know. The D-K poster boy's routine from your boilerplate text collection. Go ahead, Seth. My scroll wheel is ready for it.

It's all farm-fresh exegesis, all the time. Completely organic and good for you.

Speaking of evasions, I see you've resorted to your typical methodology of ad hominem attack when you run out of rational arguments.

And thus the flame war begins....

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

That's easy. Doing that is initiation of fraud with the intent to escape liability, which places the personal and corporate assets and corpus of EVERYONE who participated in that fraud, from the top down, including the lawyers and anyone else who knowingly participated in the activities, including employees, at risk for total seizure and distribution of their assets to those who are harmed by the violation. As I said, there is no insulating yourself from participating in force or fraud in Libertarianism, none at all.

That's an unreal fantasy, not current reality in the modern corporate world. The profit motive has no concern for the current or future environmental damage caused. Large corporations can use their enormous financial clout to keep governments and legal systems at bay, at least to an extent; they would be even more easily able to negate sanctions by your imagined libertarian apparatus (never actually described...)

Try thinking of things which could actually make a difference in the real world, not the libby paradise of your over-heated imagination...

[piscator]

Are the courts private under Libertarianism? Seems like they will bear the brunt of governance.

[JimC]

Are the courts private under Libertarianism? Seems like they will bear the brunt of governance.

Everybody will be suing everybody else!

[Hermit]

Speaking of evasions, I see you've resorted to your typical methodology of ad hominem attack

Let's see now. I described your post as evasions and ideologically driven twaddle and expected your next one to be of the D-K poster boy's type routine. As far as I can tell I have described your posts, not your character.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

That's easy. Doing that is initiation of fraud with the intent to escape liability, which places the personal and corporate assets and corpus of EVERYONE who participated in that fraud, from the top down, including the lawyers and anyone else who knowingly participated in the activities, including employees, at risk for total seizure and distribution of their assets to those who are harmed by the violation. As I said, there is no insulating yourself from participating in force or fraud in Libertarianism, none at all.

That's an unreal fantasy, not current reality in the modern corporate world.

We are discussing a hypothetical Libertarian society, so what's your point?

The profit motive has no concern for the current or future environmental damage caused.

That depends on many factors including the type of commodity being created. A farmer has a profit motive of selling agricultural products for a profit, and for him to produce crops year after year he must steward the land properly or risk ruining it.

Large corporations can use their enormous financial clout to keep governments and legal systems at bay, at least to an extent; they would be even more easily able to negate sanctions by your imagined libertarian apparatus (never actually described...)

So what? That's just criminal obstruction. The Libertarian philosophy remains intact in spite of some particular corporation's ability to scam the system. You're conflating the way things work now with how they would work in a Libertarian society.

Try thinking of things which could actually make a difference in the real world, not the libby paradise of your over-heated imagination...

[/quote]

This is a philosophical discussion, not a work session for fixing everything. Try thinking of valid objections and not thinking about insulting me. If you can't do that and participate in what was a rational and polite discussion, then perhaps you should just refrain from commenting.

[Seth]

Are the courts private under Libertarianism? Seems like they will bear the brunt of governance.

Yes and no. Most contractual disputes would be resolved through private arbitration while criminal acts (force or fraud) would go through a court system much like we have now.

In the end however, each individual would retain their right to take direct action to defend against force or fraud using whatever force is required to prevent the harm.

[Seth]

Are the courts private under Libertarianism? Seems like they will bear the brunt of governance.

Everybody will be suing everybody else!

As if they aren't already.

[mistermack]

Is there some sort of advantage in raising a barn in less than four minutes? Would it matter if it took ten minutes, or half a day?
Fuckin Amish have got bugger-all to do anyway. I doubt if their time is all that critical.

[Seth]

Is there some sort of advantage in raising a barn in less than four minutes? Would it matter if it took ten minutes, or half a day?
Fuckin Amish have got bugger-all to do anyway. I doubt if their time is all that critical.

Time is money.

[pErvinalia]

Try thinking of things which could actually make a difference in the real world, not the libby paradise of your over-heated imagination...

This is a philosophical discussion, not a work session for fixing everything. Try thinking of valid objections and not thinking about insulting me. If you can't do that and participate in what was a rational and polite discussion, then perhaps you should just refrain from commenting.

Seth, you are a self-confessed troll. YOU don't get to decide when people should pay you respect and when we should dismiss you. Suck it up, princess.