Topic: How does ancap deal with an oil spill? - page 4. (Read 5935 times)

See the above post by me. Decide if you know enough about the world. Don't be one of those persons who think understanding human behavior is all it takes to slap together a system for society.

No company could afford to bribe or defeat the hundreds/thousands of opposing protection agencies. Any protection agency that allowed its customers to get killed or accepted bribes would go out of business.

Everyone,

In this thread ( https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ecosystems-edge-effects-and-related-environmental-issues-92952 ), I've got a good start at laying down some fundamentals on where everything starts (and ends). It's the environment. The biosphere. Everything resides there. Life. Us. Undiscovered knowledge and information. Resources. Complexity. Beauty.

Everything.

Anyone so much as daring to pontificate on economics, social structures, and laws needs to start right there. Nowhere else. If you don't understand it, why it's important, and what's really going on in the environment from the bottom up, then you're just not qualified to tackle the big issues of society.

I see so much damned ignorance about free markets, resources, and auto self regulating societies in this forum. It is truly pathetic.

You cannot construct a society built only upon philosophical ideas about how humans should treat one another. You need knowledge. Knowledge about deep down things. You need knowledge about the systems and the foundations upon which all of humanity is built upon.

The kind of thinking that goes on here in this forum might have had some application back when there were only one million people on the planet. That's not the case now. We've arrived at a time when you had better be informed.

Very well, I shall explain why you are wrong here, so you can then explain to me how you are wrong in the first part.

First, ask yourself how the mafia makes it's money. (This article on Slate might help you figure that out) Without government (and thus laws against prostitution, drugs, and other victimless crimes), their competition, the honest businessmen, who don't kill their potential customers, and whose employees don't get shot at as a matter of daily business, and thus can be paid less, or at least have less turnover rate, will be able to outcompete them.

And while once, it might have been profitable to screw one place over completely and then move on, global communication, the very network which we are using to discuss this issue, has made that much more difficult. And size does not shield a company from responsibility. No matter how big you are, if you fuck enough people, suddenly, you're not so big any more.

So, care to answer the questions Jackie is asking, up there?

No, it is much cheaper to kill the victims or bribe the protection agencies. Even enslave the victims for labor on the next oil rig.

Sounds similar to my views on property, I should read Thomas Paine, can you tell me in which book I find that?

What a convenient response .... Reply to the rest of the post first, then I'll explain that part to you in baby-steps ...

Who is going to protect this company from responsibility ?  Why is corporate welfare better ?

How did you get from "give him a job, then he can pay you back" to "life-long slavery"?
How did you get from "Corporate warfare is costly, fixes nothing, and makes nobody happy" to "random wars and conflicts"?

Seriously, what alternate universe are you reading this in?

Exactly in the way I've outlined in the rest of my post, don't be willingly obtuse ...

As for the rest of your replies, they are just childishly postponing the final conclusion; ancap is horribly inadequate in dealing with major problem like an oil-spill.

By introducing lifelong servitude and other forms of slavery and random wars and conflicts as "solutions" to serious problems it should be clear that ancap is at best some armchair ideal which instead of seeing it's fault tries to mask them with ridiculous solutions not even fit for serious consideration. [/rant]

But to see more clearly the futility of what you are actually proposing, you just have to think about one thing; ... the mafia. What you are actually proposing is the ideal breeding ground for well organised corruption. Does the mafia care about bad publicity? Does the mafia ever have problem funding their private army? Does the mafia care that the warfare is costly? Fucking people over is incredibly profitable.

The bottom line is, that yeah, sometimes is better for business the "do the right thing" but many times is better just to say fuck it, whack a couple of guy's, maybe face a retaliation (not even that if you are strong and big enough compared to the people you're fucking over) Leave others with the mess you've made, wait for the people to be forgetful, let the worst of it blow over (again optional if you're powerful enough) ... and do it all again. And if things get REALLY bad, just move to another city, country, continent, and find some new suckers to drench in oil because of your negligence.

How so?


No, that would be slavery, or at best, indentured servitude. Payments, my friend. Payments. It extends the timeframe more, but puts the incentives correct: the homeless person gets a job, and the damaged person (eventually) gets paid back the damages. [Russian accent]Everybody happy![/accent]


Which is exactly why corporate warfare will be so rare: it's costly, it fixes nothing, and makes nobody happy.


And how, exactly, are they going to pay that private army? Even the biggest multinational is still ultimately dependent on the consumers of their products. Causing an environmental disaster is seriously bad publicity, refusing to pick up the mess is even worse. There is plenty of historical evidence of companies going out of their way to cultivate a good public image (Dawn's campaign about being the soap used to clean up animals in the gulf spill, for instance).

But all the incentives for all the people are completely wrong! And in the meanwhile nothing gets solved, damaging the "victims" even more.

Why the hell would the homeless guy even bother getting a job now? I didn't have one, and now that (at least!) his first dozen paychecks will hardly benefit him at all he's sure as hell not going to get one now.

Corporate warfare ... that really helpful, during that time nothing gets solved (or cleaned up in case of an oil-spill) Lot's of people will be dead after a while, (including undoubtedly a lot of innocent people) and when that's all over, nothing even remotely resembling justice has been done, the damage has been much greater than when it all kicked off, and on top of that the oil spill has worsened and now there isn't even anyone left to who could be held responsible. If there were other companies willing to stick out their neck and pick up the bill in the meantime, hoping they would get something back in the long run, they sure as hell won't lift a finger now.

Then there is also the problem that there are plenty of other examples besides this one where it would be cheaper for large corporations to go into some kind of corporate war, instead of cleaning up some disaster. As long as the victims are few/weak/underrepresented/poor it would be a no-brainer for some multinational to think "bring it on, my corporate army is waiting!".

I just addressed this...


Basically, if you want to get your damages out of the company, or the drunk homeless guy, you have to take some over time. In the case of the homeless guy, you might have to improve his life somewhat, give him a job, and get the damages out of him from the proceeds of that job.

There are plenty of scenarios where the damage done far outweighs the capital of all the companies and people responsible. From a drunk homeless guy destroying your brand new car, to an oil company having a worst-case-disaster oil-spill during a hurricane, near a priceless nature reserve. Then what?

Well, firstly, the fishing company and the shipping company aren't going to buy the waterspace in partnership with the oil company without knowing that something like this might happen (that you are able to predict the possibility makes that quite clear). So, they'd have a contract requiring damages to be paid in the event of an accident (This contract would go both ways, of course - should the shipping company run into the oil platform, or the fishing company tangle something up with their nets, they would be required to pay damages, too).

Even without that agreement, the oil company surely realizes that literal corporate warfare is much more expensive than dealing with problems peacefully, and so they have an agreement that any disputes they have with other people would be handled by arbiters. In arbitration, the two parties come to an agreement, with the help of the arbiter, and the settlement is decided that way.

If the company decides that paying out settlements will indeed break them, and they refuse, and also refuse arbitration, then yes, it might indeed come to corporate warfare. Innocent lives might indeed be lost. Both sides know this fact, though, so it gives them incentive not to push it that far. The damaged parties might take smaller settlements, or split it up into payments, so that they get them, rather than running the company into the ground.

Violently extracting payments from people who have damaged you is inefficient and dangerous, and everyone knows this, so it's not too likely to happen. It might, but it's far from the first option.


Well, you bring up a good point. You can't really do much to "mix your labor" with the sea to get something new, which you own. You can, however, mark it off, and there's always the seabed that you can transform, in almost every way you can transform dry land. And just like in dry land, you can claim ownership of the livestock on that land - or in this case, the sea - and mark off the range with buoys. The water is, in this way, similar to the air above your land - if you could walk up into the air and fly around, and so could your cows.

This is a little off-topic, but I think a relevant question:

How do oceans come into private ownership?

The Enlightenment view (or at least according to my reading of the works of Thomas Paine) of property is that initially the world's land and resources are in the commons. However, property comes into being when labor is used with land/resources. For a basic example, in the beginning of the world this forest belongs to no one human being, but if I chop down an area of the forest and build a house, that part of the land comes into the ownership of me because it was my labor that transformed that land.

This definiton works pretty well for claiming land, but how does this apply to the ownership claims of oceans in anarcho-capitalism?

This explains it well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

Sorry it's long'ish.

Adding to that, if came down to corporate warfare, you have corporations extracting money with the barrel of a gun... If they have to capabilities of actually getting restitution this way, what's to stop them from extorting money from anyone, anytime?

But in a voluntary system, the oil company does not have to pay for anything. Say the company does not pay, it was the company's property and it was just trying to make a profit. Why should they care about the fish, the fishermen, the workers, and the surrounding environment?

That seems like a pretty big injustice to everyone affected. Since their is no government to ensure that justice is done, does it really go to what theymos suggested? (Literal) corporate warfare? Heads will roll? Potentially innocent people will die?

How would the victims' protection agency attack the company, specifically? And how is this victim's protection agency formed/funded?

Nobody would be forced to pay. The price of ocean property would fall and people would eat steak instead of lobster tail. No problem. In fact it would be a good idea to get rid of those sharks that kill surfers. Besides fracking turned out to be a good thing because it adds free fuel to our drinking water and who doesn't want free fuel amirite? Freedom is great for everyone!