Author

Topic: How does ancap deal with an oil spill? (Read 5904 times)

hero member
Activity: 950
Merit: 1001
July 26, 2012, 04:06:42 PM
#87
There's a speech the author of The Dominant Animal gives. I haven't listened to it yet, (but for the first few minutes), but I'm willing to bet it's relevant. Isn't it odd that after he is introduced, he almost immediately uses the phrase "How the world works", and goes on to say the importance of understanding that.

Anyway, here's the speech: http://longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/

I have now had a chance to listen to the first hour of the speech. He really gives a good synopsis of the issues. The book will then give you detail on each of those things, with facts, examples, data, etc.

He does address the importance of understanding and knowledge, and he does address the main question Explodicle is asking. Listen to the speech.

Oh OK, I'll just watch that first. I was having trouble finding a PDF of The Dominant Animal, and the Mao quote on page 140 made me not want to pay for it. Tongue Maybe the speech will change my mind.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 26, 2012, 03:01:48 PM
#86
There's a speech the author of The Dominant Animal gives. I haven't listened to it yet, (but for the first few minutes), but I'm willing to bet it's relevant. Isn't it odd that after he is introduced, he almost immediately uses the phrase "How the world works", and goes on to say the importance of understanding that.

Anyway, here's the speech: http://longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/

I have now had a chance to listen to the first hour of the speech. He really gives a good synopsis of the issues. The book will then give you detail on each of those things, with facts, examples, data, etc.

He does address the importance of understanding and knowledge, and he does address the main question Explodicle is asking. Listen to the speech.
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 26, 2012, 02:07:44 PM
#85
It's actually you claiming ten minutes spent reading a document provides all the answers.

Read it, then we'll talk.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 26, 2012, 01:53:57 PM
#84
There's a speech the author of The Dominant Animal gives. I haven't listened to it yet, (but for the first few minutes), but I'm willing to bet it's relevant. Isn't it odd that after he is introduced, he almost immediately uses the phrase "How the world works", and goes on to say the importance of understanding that.

Anyway, here's the speech: http://longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 26, 2012, 01:30:05 PM
#83
Awesome. Post whichever source best answers my question.

There you go: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1007405

That's several sources. Since I'm assuming you aren't just hiding behind a huge reading list to discourage anyone from questioning you, which on in particular best answers the following question?
How do you suggest we ensure that the most informed people are in a position to set policy? You don't support the status quo, you don't support AnCap, so I really want to hear your idea.

Page numbers would be helpful too.

The first book on the list. Pages 140 - 435. ( www.amazon.com/The-Dominant-Animal-Evolution-Environment/dp/1597260975/ )

But I think you would understand the information in that book better if you read the second book on the list as well.

EDIT: I meant the third book as a way to augment the first book. But you should probably read the second book as well.
hero member
Activity: 950
Merit: 1001
July 26, 2012, 01:21:52 PM
#82
Awesome. Post whichever source best answers my question.

There you go: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1007405

That's several sources. Since I'm assuming you aren't just hiding behind a huge reading list to discourage anyone from questioning you, which on in particular best answers the following question?
How do you suggest we ensure that the most informed people are in a position to set policy? You don't support the status quo, you don't support AnCap, so I really want to hear your idea.

Page numbers would be helpful too.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 26, 2012, 12:55:07 PM
#81
Awesome. Post whichever source best answers my question.

There you go: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1007405
hero member
Activity: 950
Merit: 1001
July 26, 2012, 12:49:20 PM
#80
So how? How do you suggest we ensure that the most informed people are in a position to set policy? You don't support the status quo, you don't support AnCap, so I really want to hear your idea.

Let's start by having you (and anyone you know) getting informed. How does that sound? Is that too much? Obviously it doesn't go against what I have been saying. Tell me when you're ready, and I'll recommend sources for you to gain knowledge of things you don't know. From there, you can make further decisions on your position regarding AnCap.

Ok, then I'm ready. Post a source to this thread that explains your answer to the question I just asked. I will expect you to actually defend the position taken by this source.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Einstein

I didn't provide an answer to your question. I suggested that you (that means you - not someone else) should gain more knowledge before promoting AnCap.
No shit.

Quote
However, the material which I might suggest you read does offer suggestions regarding your question, but more to the point, it will increase your knowledge to the point that it would probably cause you to seriously challenge your ideals.
Awesome. Post whichever source best answers my question.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 26, 2012, 12:35:29 PM
#79
So how? How do you suggest we ensure that the most informed people are in a position to set policy? You don't support the status quo, you don't support AnCap, so I really want to hear your idea.

Let's start by having you (and anyone you know) getting informed. How does that sound? Is that too much? Obviously it doesn't go against what I have been saying. Tell me when you're ready, and I'll recommend sources for you to gain knowledge of things you don't know. From there, you can make further decisions on your position regarding AnCap.

Ok, then I'm ready. Post a source to this thread that explains your answer to the question I just asked. I will expect you to actually defend the position taken by this source.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Einstein

I didn't provide an answer to your question. I suggested that you (that means you - not someone else) should gain more knowledge before promoting AnCap. However, the material which I might suggest you read does offer suggestions regarding your question, but more to the point, it will increase your knowledge to the point that it would probably cause you to seriously challenge your ideals.
hero member
Activity: 950
Merit: 1001
July 26, 2012, 12:27:19 PM
#78
So how? How do you suggest we ensure that the most informed people are in a position to set policy? You don't support the status quo, you don't support AnCap, so I really want to hear your idea.

Let's start by having you (and anyone you know) getting informed. How does that sound? Is that too much? Obviously it doesn't go against what I have been saying. Tell me when you're ready, and I'll recommend sources for you to gain knowledge of things you don't know. From there, you can make further decisions on your position regarding AnCap.

Ok, then I'm ready. Post a source to this thread that explains your answer to the question I just asked. I will expect you to actually defend the position taken by this source.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Einstein
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 26, 2012, 12:03:13 PM
#77
So how? How do you suggest we ensure that the most informed people are in a position to set policy? You don't support the status quo, you don't support AnCap, so I really want to hear your idea.

Let's start by having you (and anyone you know) getting informed. How does that sound? Is that too much? Obviously it doesn't go against what I have been saying. Tell me when you're ready, and I'll recommend sources for you to gain knowledge of things you don't know. From there, you can make further decisions on your position regarding AnCap.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 26, 2012, 12:00:39 PM
#76
Regardless, I understand where you are coming from. I too once believed there was an answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. Some day you may realize Government causes more trouble than it will ever solve. When you do, you will stop trying to figure out how one can enforce prosperity.

It's actually you claiming ten minutes spent reading a document provides all the answers.
hero member
Activity: 950
Merit: 1001
July 26, 2012, 11:50:31 AM
#75
(This post assumes you haven't clicked my ignore button, and thus agree to actually address what I'm saying instead of condescendingly suggesting another year of study.)

So back on topic... first you say the status quo doesn't stop me from driving electric cars. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and explained why it does. Then you say oh I don't support the status quo,
I personally want intelligence and knowledge coupled with long term thinking.

So how? How do you suggest we ensure that the most informed people are in a position to set policy? You don't support the status quo, you don't support AnCap, so I really want to hear your idea.
sr. member
Activity: 247
Merit: 250
July 26, 2012, 11:41:17 AM
#74
What happens? Who pays to clean up? Who pays reparations to all of the people affected (e.g. fishermen who just lost their jobs)? Would their be any concern for all of the life destroyed?

Why wouldn't it be in the oil company's best interest to cap the well?  If I'm losing money every day because of it, I'm going to repair it ASAP so I can continue making money off of it.  Even if my company is too broke, I'd sell it to another company for a price that would make it worth salvaging.  An oil spill is also bad press.  I don't want people to stop using my product because I've ruined their beaches.  There are a lot of incentives for the company to fix it as soon as possible.

Assuming the explosion makes it unsalvageable and I don't care about my reputation because my company is broke or I'm in a remote area, then there is a higher likelihood the problem would not be fixed.  But the citizens of the beaches that are affected could come together and donate money to an operation to try & cap the well or filter the water coming into the beach.  Or companies could buy the beaches, filter the water, and charge a fee to use it.  I believe natural oil spills occur as well where there is no one to blame & the same problems would arise.
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 26, 2012, 10:49:26 AM
#73
It's mighty pompous of me to suggest that knowledge is better than ignorance? It's mighty pompous of me to think that a ten minute read of a document isn't enough to address so many of the complex issues involving resource depletion, exploitation and collateral destruction that we see in the world today? Okay.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Your arrogance is astounding.

Regardless, I understand where you are coming from. I too once believed there was an answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. Some day you may realize Government causes more trouble than it will ever solve. When you do, you will stop trying to figure out how one can enforce prosperity.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 26, 2012, 03:12:58 AM
#72
...mind filled with more knowledge than it currently stores, you can reevaluate the notion of your political beliefs.

What could it hurt? Stop insisting your political ideology is golden, and instead, just study the depth of the world's problems. Who knows what you'll discover?

You look like a complete idiot arguing "knowledge" and "beliefs" with an ancap. You pretend you can know enough to predict outcomes. It's mighty pompous of you. You want someone to spend a year, when you wont take 10 minutes to read the most profound speech on economics ever given. Yeah, good luck with that.

It's mighty pompous of me to suggest that knowledge is better than ignorance? It's mighty pompous of me to think that a ten minute read of a document isn't enough to address so many of the complex issues involving resource depletion, exploitation and collateral destruction that we see in the world today? Okay.
full member
Activity: 189
Merit: 100
July 26, 2012, 03:06:01 AM
#71
The work in particular that I was referencing was a short pamphlet called Agrarian Justice (1797), which supported property taxes funding a universal basic income.

The work is based on the contention that in the state of nature, "the earth, in its natural uncultivated state... was the common property of the human race"; the concept of private ownership arose as a necessary result of the development of agriculture, since it was impossible to distinguish the possession of improvements to the land from the possession of the land itself. Thus Paine views private property as necessary, but that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.

You can probably find a free e-book of it (and his more popular works) but I really like this hardcover collection: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Paine-Collected-Writings-Pamphlets/dp/1883011035/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1342679094&sr=8-4&keywords=thomas+paine

Thanks, I'm going to read it. Though it's disappointing that he proposes property taxes. Perhaps a better solution would be to consider only man made things property, like houses, cars, factories, etc. The rest should be available to everyone. I think American Indians thought like this.
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 20, 2012, 04:51:54 PM
#70
...mind filled with more knowledge than it currently stores, you can reevaluate the notion of your political beliefs.

What could it hurt? Stop insisting your political ideology is golden, and instead, just study the depth of the world's problems. Who knows what you'll discover?

You look like a complete idiot arguing "knowledge" and "beliefs" with an ancap. You pretend you can know enough to predict outcomes. It's mighty pompous of you. You want someone to spend a year, when you wont take 10 minutes to read the most profound speech on economics ever given. Yeah, good luck with that.
hero member
Activity: 950
Merit: 1001
July 20, 2012, 04:50:38 PM
#69
Oh ok I thought you were saying the current system prevented more oil spills than AnCap would, my mistake.

I think your mistake is putting the cart before the horse. Why don't you take a year off from slapping your favorite pet political ideology on everything you see, and just educate yourself? When you come back from your sabbatical, with a fresh and newly primed mind filled with more knowledge than it currently stores, you can reevaluate the notion of your political beliefs.

I already DID take time to reevaluate my beliefs and it led me from socialism to here. What makes you think I won't make the same mistakes again? Uneducated empty-minded idealogues like myself reach the wrong conclusions on their own, so I need environmental/political/philosophical experts like you to set me straight.

If this activity is below you, my ignore button is to the left of the page.

What could it hurt?
If you're right, then it wouldn't hurt anyone.
If I'm right, then a better world will come an hour later and someone will die because of my failure to act.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 20, 2012, 04:08:32 PM
#68
It's a waste of time arguing with statist trolls. I'm just gonna ignore them from now on.

FirstAscent is the only one I haven't bludgeoned to death with sense and logic... Primarily because he's yet to nail down his position. He just whines about ours.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
July 20, 2012, 01:32:26 PM
#67
Remember when DOW had that plant explode in India? Lots of outrage, but no reparations were made.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 20, 2012, 01:04:34 PM
#66
Oh ok I thought you were saying the current system prevented more oil spills than AnCap would, my mistake.

I think your mistake is putting the cart before the horse. Why don't you take a year off from slapping your favorite pet political ideology on everything you see, and just educate yourself? When you come back from your sabbatical, with a fresh and newly primed mind filled with more knowledge than it currently stores, you can reevaluate the notion of your political beliefs.

What could it hurt? Stop insisting your political ideology is golden, and instead, just study the depth of the world's problems. Who knows what you'll discover?
hero member
Activity: 950
Merit: 1001
July 20, 2012, 12:55:47 PM
#65
Really? You're an idiot. The government is giving money to Tesla Motors and others. Sorry, you libertarian clown (and I mean that collectively), as usual, your one line retorts are neither indicative of thought, knowledge or research, but as usual, knee jerk reactions.

[idiot]
It's a good thing there isn't a big militaristic government out there that
  • invades country after country to control the oil supply,
  • forces everyone to exchange oil using their currency, and
  • protects oil-using polluters from retaliation
... All at taxpayer expense, and by "taxpayer" I mean everyone who trades using their currency, which is quite a few because every country needs at least some oil.
[/idiot]

I personally don't wish to trade one set of idiots (American War Machine) for another (Libertarians).

I personally want intelligence and knowledge coupled with long term thinking.

I get neither with the former, and neither with the latter.

Oh ok I thought you were saying the current system prevented more oil spills than AnCap would, my mistake.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 20, 2012, 12:21:22 PM
#64
Really? You're an idiot. The government is giving money to Tesla Motors and others. Sorry, you libertarian clown (and I mean that collectively), as usual, your one line retorts are neither indicative of thought, knowledge or research, but as usual, knee jerk reactions.

[idiot]
It's a good thing there isn't a big militaristic government out there that
  • invades country after country to control the oil supply,
  • forces everyone to exchange oil using their currency, and
  • protects oil-using polluters from retaliation
... All at taxpayer expense, and by "taxpayer" I mean everyone who trades using their currency, which is quite a few because every country needs at least some oil.
[/idiot]

I personally don't wish to trade one set of idiots (American War Machine) for another (Libertarians).

I personally want intelligence and knowledge coupled with long term thinking.

I get neither with the former, and neither with the latter.
hero member
Activity: 950
Merit: 1001
July 20, 2012, 12:12:19 PM
#63
Really? You're an idiot. The government is giving money to Tesla Motors and others. Sorry, you libertarian clown (and I mean that collectively), as usual, your one line retorts are neither indicative of thought, knowledge or research, but as usual, knee jerk reactions.

[idiot]
It's a good thing there isn't a big militaristic government out there that
  • invades country after country to control the oil supply,
  • forces everyone to exchange oil using their currency, and
  • protects oil-using polluters from retaliation
... All at taxpayer expense, and by "taxpayer" I mean everyone who trades using their currency, which is quite a few because every country needs at least some oil.
[/idiot]
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 20, 2012, 11:53:59 AM
#62
Isn't the answer to this obvious? The government!
Really? You're an idiot. The government is giving money to Tesla Motors and others. Sorry, you libertarian clown (and I mean that collectively), as usual, your one line retorts are neither indicative of thought, knowledge or research, but as usual, knee jerk reactions.
Character assassination? I would expect nothing less!

Here's some information I was able to find within a few minutes (do note that I have not actively researched this area):
http://rense.com/general72/oinvent.htm
http://www.broandrew.com/suppression.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfj1O45qZ5U

Please tell me about Frederick Seitz, the tobacco companies, and the oil companies, if you wish to get some insights into how certain organizations operate and who the real instigators might be.
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 20, 2012, 11:50:03 AM
#61
Really? You're an idiot. The government is giving money to Tesla Motors and others. Sorry, you libertarian clown (and I mean that collectively), as usual, your one line retorts are neither indicative of thought, knowledge or research, but as usual, knee jerk reactions.

Fucking Statist. Your condescending replies are indicative of your pretense of knowledge.
donator
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
July 20, 2012, 11:46:24 AM
#60
Isn't the answer to this obvious? The government!
Really? You're an idiot. The government is giving money to Tesla Motors and others. Sorry, you libertarian clown (and I mean that collectively), as usual, your one line retorts are neither indicative of thought, knowledge or research, but as usual, knee jerk reactions.
Character assassination? I would expect nothing less!

Here's some information I was able to find within a few minutes (do note that I have not actively researched this area):
http://rense.com/general72/oinvent.htm
http://www.broandrew.com/suppression.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfj1O45qZ5U
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 20, 2012, 11:35:03 AM
#59
(I'm the oil company)

Fuck you and your fish. I'm not paying jack shit. I'm going to continue raping the earth because it makes me filthy fucking rich. You want me to fix everything and pay those bleeding-heart fag-loving commy hippies on the beach, wiping off the black, slimy, baby seagulls with baby wipes and a motherly touch? Sorry. That doesn't make me money.
Fuck you and your oil. I'll drive electric.

Why aren't we all doing that right now? What stopped Mr. AnCap, the entrepreneur, from already making that happen?
Isn't the answer to this obvious? The government!

Really? You're an idiot. The government is giving money to Tesla Motors and others. Sorry, you libertarian clown (and I mean that collectively), as usual, your one line retorts are neither indicative of thought, knowledge or research, but as usual, knee jerk reactions.
donator
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
July 20, 2012, 11:17:09 AM
#58
(I'm the oil company)

Fuck you and your fish. I'm not paying jack shit. I'm going to continue raping the earth because it makes me filthy fucking rich. You want me to fix everything and pay those bleeding-heart fag-loving commy hippies on the beach, wiping off the black, slimy, baby seagulls with baby wipes and a motherly touch? Sorry. That doesn't make me money.
Fuck you and your oil. I'll drive electric.

Why aren't we all doing that right now? What stopped Mr. AnCap, the entrepreneur, from already making that happen?
Isn't the answer to this obvious? The government!
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 20, 2012, 11:12:45 AM
#57
(I'm the oil company)

Fuck you and your fish. I'm not paying jack shit. I'm going to continue raping the earth because it makes me filthy fucking rich. You want me to fix everything and pay those bleeding-heart fag-loving commy hippies on the beach, wiping off the black, slimy, baby seagulls with baby wipes and a motherly touch? Sorry. That doesn't make me money.
Fuck you and your oil. I'll drive electric.

Why aren't we all doing that right now? What stopped Mr. AnCap, the entrepreneur, from already making that happen?

What's that? you don't like it? You are paying a private agency to attack my offshore rigs with guns and boats? I'm filthy fucking rich. My guns are louder, dick longer, boats bigger.
Hmm... No, your dick is not bigger than my aerial bombardment. We can climb this tree, if you want, or we can negotiate peacefully. Your choice.

That's real good for the environment when the well head starts gushing. Not a solution, Mr. AnCap dreamer.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
July 20, 2012, 03:16:07 AM
#56
(I'm the oil company)

Fuck you and your fish. I'm not paying jack shit. I'm going to continue raping the earth because it makes me filthy fucking rich. You want me to fix everything and pay those bleeding-heart fag-loving commy hippies on the beach, wiping off the black, slimy, baby seagulls with baby wipes and a motherly touch? Sorry. That doesn't make me money.
Fuck you and your oil. I'll drive electric.
What's that? you don't like it? You are paying a private agency to attack my offshore rigs with guns and boats? I'm filthy fucking rich. My guns are louder, dick longer, boats bigger.
Hmm... No, your dick is not bigger than my aerial bombardment. We can climb this tree, if you want, or we can negotiate peacefully. Your choice.
What's that? You want to start your own rigs and run me out of business because consumers hate me and would rather buy your hippie fair-trade certified oil? Too bad, because the entry is too damn expensive. No, you know what? I'll let you waste millions to get your kickstarter funded rig up and running. Then I'll lower prices, because I can, because I paid off these rigs 20 years ago. I will drive you into the dirt.
/devilsadvocate
Hey, sure. But my hippy-friendly oil rig is paid off, and my payroll account is good for a year, because the people really fucking hate you. My kickstarter campaign tripled my goal. Free gas for everyone! How long can you keep that up, and the defense of your rig(s)?

Lol! Good points here.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 20, 2012, 02:58:03 AM
#55
(I'm the oil company)

Fuck you and your fish. I'm not paying jack shit. I'm going to continue raping the earth because it makes me filthy fucking rich. You want me to fix everything and pay those bleeding-heart fag-loving commy hippies on the beach, wiping off the black, slimy, baby seagulls with baby wipes and a motherly touch? Sorry. That doesn't make me money.
Fuck you and your oil. I'll drive electric.
What's that? you don't like it? You are paying a private agency to attack my offshore rigs with guns and boats? I'm filthy fucking rich. My guns are louder, dick longer, boats bigger.
Hmm... No, your dick is not bigger than my aerial bombardment. We can climb this tree, if you want, or we can negotiate peacefully. Your choice.
What's that? You want to start your own rigs and run me out of business because consumers hate me and would rather buy your hippie fair-trade certified oil? Too bad, because the entry is too damn expensive. No, you know what? I'll let you waste millions to get your kickstarter funded rig up and running. Then I'll lower prices, because I can, because I paid off these rigs 20 years ago. I will drive you into the dirt.
/devilsadvocate
Hey, sure. But my hippy-friendly oil rig is paid off, and my payroll account is good for a year, because the people really fucking hate you. My kickstarter campaign tripled my goal. Free gas for everyone! How long can you keep that up, and the defense of your rig(s)?
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
July 20, 2012, 02:39:26 AM
#54
These "Protection agencies" would, for all intents and purposes, become governing bodies. They would have to decide on sets of "rules" for members to be bound by in arbitration... which would effectively become laws. You would pay these "Protection agencies" a "membership fee", which would effectively be a tax. They would fulfill all the useful roles of government, without out all the bloat. The most significant difference is we would all have a choice. Protection Agency A, Protection Agency B, Protection Agency z, no protection agency, etc....

The most honest answer to any of these "How does ancap deal with..." questions is "I don't know, and it doesn't matter". The point is not how we can force everyone to live a "better" life, but how naturally we can't force anyone to do anything. The government is an evil corporate monopoly, and should be put down.

Except that the defining factor of a tax is that it is compulsory. The modern tax system, as well, is designed so that it's nearly impossible for the individual to figure out how much, if anything, they owe. So the fees which one would pay to a protection agency, which are completely voluntary, and necessarily quite simple to understand, are nothing like taxes.

I can't agree. I know exactly what I owe and it's not hard to understand what is going on.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
July 20, 2012, 02:35:24 AM
#53
(I'm the oil company)

Fuck you and your fish. I'm not paying jack shit. I'm going to continue raping mother earth because it makes me filthy fucking rich. You want me to fix everything and pay those bleeding-heart fag-loving commy hippies on the beach, wiping off the black, slimy, baby seagulls with baby wipes and a motherly touch? Sorry. That doesn't make me money.

What's that? you don't like it? You are paying a private agency to attack my offshore rigs with guns and boats? I'm filthy fucking rich. My guns are louder, dick longer, boats bigger.

What's that? You want to start your own rigs and run me out of business because consumers hate me and would rather buy your hippie fair-trade certified oil? Too bad, because the entry is too damn expensive. No, you know what? I'll let you waste millions to get your kickstarter funded rig up and running. Then I'll lower prices, because I can, because I paid off these rigs 20 years ago. I will drive you into the dirt.
/devilsadvocate

This is anarcho-capitalism.

So what happens next? millions of people form a consensus that this is evil, and form an alliance to overthrow the oilmongers. (this is what we call democracy). Government is a meaningless label. Power exists and always will. Whether it's a company, a cartel, a king, or a consensus; people will be "governed" regardless.

hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 20, 2012, 01:50:28 AM
#52
Ignorance and agendas unique to an individual or entity will generally ensure that full property rights are not a long term solution (nor a short term solution) to resources which undergo transformation when processed for consumption, or resources which receive collateral damage due to other processes.
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 19, 2012, 06:20:00 PM
#51
A link to the definition of communism is rather tiresome.

But it's so complicated! You can jerk your mind off all incessantly and it still wont work.

So? Who wants communism?

FirstAscent want's something to mentally masterbate to. Ancap ain't it. That's the point he is missing. READ THE HAYEK!
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 19, 2012, 06:16:22 PM
#50
A link to the definition of communism is rather tiresome.

But it's so complicated! You can jerk your mind off all incessantly and it still wont work.

So? Who wants communism?
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 19, 2012, 06:14:07 PM
#49
A link to the definition of communism is rather tiresome.

But it's so complicated! You can jerk your mind off all incessantly and it still wont work.

Read the Hayek speech, then we'll talk. It's was the link I was referring to.
hero member
Activity: 950
Merit: 1001
July 19, 2012, 06:13:27 PM
#48
Disclaimer: I'm not an AnCap myself and what follows is still science fiction.

The OP describes an externality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
Oil spills are no different, they could be handled with Coasian bargaining.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_Theorem

This requires strong property rights, rational actors, and very low transaction costs. Strong property and low transaction costs are already in the works: for example, Namecoin has strong property rights, and a digital cash server with an open API (like Open Transactions) could be automated for very low transaction costs. Rational actors are beyond science fiction and in the realm of fantasy, but large groups (like oil spill victims) approach rational behavior when viewed collectively.

I'm of the opinion that the only reason the world hasn't advanced to anarchy is because we haven't built all the necessary tools yet. But we're close.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 19, 2012, 05:53:28 PM
#47
Why don't you summarize it for me instead?

1) Read the link.
2) Reread my posts.
3) You're welcome.

A link to the definition of communism is rather tiresome. It indicates your level of thinking has attained a high school level of political maturity. Thank you for proving my point.

Congratulations! You clicked a link! Good job!

Do you need some ice for that finger?

Now... click on that Mises one, and this time, try actually reading more than the title.

Maybe you'll even get a cookie!
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 19, 2012, 05:44:34 PM
#46
Why don't you summarize it for me instead?

1) Read the link.
2) Reread my posts.
3) You're welcome.

A link to the definition of communism is rather tiresome. It indicates your level of thinking has attained a high school level of political maturity. Thank you for proving my point.
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 19, 2012, 05:17:35 PM
#45
Why don't you summarize it for me instead?

1) Read the link.
2) Reread my posts.
3) You're welcome.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 19, 2012, 04:46:28 PM
#44
It's good that you are still waiting. Patience. And yes, you can't solve the world's problems in a vacuum of knowledge. Who would think otherwise?

I know something you would love! http://tinyurl.com/9a6at

Why don't you summarize it for me instead?

Oh yes, god forbid you click a link and read an article. Way too much work.

 Roll Eyes
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 19, 2012, 04:41:42 PM
#43
It's good that you are still waiting. Patience. And yes, you can't solve the world's problems in a vacuum of knowledge. Who would think otherwise?

I know something you would love! http://tinyurl.com/9a6at

Why don't you summarize it for me instead?

Back to the issue at hand: economics and political theory need to factor in the fact that there are 7 billion people on this planet, not one million. The fact that you're arguing with me on this indicates a certain obtuseness on your part coupled with what I suspect is a somewhat starry eyed view of your political ideology.

Sorry, but I suggest you stop being an advocate for your own ignorance.
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 19, 2012, 04:29:54 PM
#42
It's good that you are still waiting. Patience. And yes, you can't solve the world's problems in a vacuum of knowledge. Who would think otherwise?

I know something you would love! http://tinyurl.com/9a6at
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 19, 2012, 04:29:20 PM
#41
You can't propose solutions to problems which you don't have knowledge of.

You didn't actually read that speech I linked to, did you?

Let's try this again...

http://mises.org/daily/3229

Let's not.
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 19, 2012, 04:28:01 PM
#40
You can't propose solutions to problems which you don't have knowledge of.

You didn't actually read that speech I linked to, did you?

Let's try this again...

http://mises.org/daily/3229
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 19, 2012, 04:27:18 PM
#39
A good indication that you're out of your league would be if you are also not factoring in the following topics:

A good indication you have completely missed the point is that you are even trying to factor those topics. Read this: http://mises.org/daily/3229

It applies to more than just economics... in fact, there is very little it doesn't apply to.

Sorry, dude, but you're the one who doesn't get it. Discussion of AnCap and it's applicability to human society is nothing but philosophical masturbation by the sterile. You can't propose solutions to problems which you don't have knowledge of.

Still waiting on you to enlighten us in that other thread... Or are you too busy masturbating with us?

It's good that you are still waiting. Patience. And yes, you can't solve the world's problems in a vacuum of knowledge. Who would think otherwise?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 19, 2012, 04:13:02 PM
#38
A good indication that you're out of your league would be if you are also not factoring in the following topics:

A good indication you have completely missed the point is that you are even trying to factor those topics. Read this: http://mises.org/daily/3229

It applies to more than just economics... in fact, there is very little it doesn't apply to.

Sorry, dude, but you're the one who doesn't get it. Discussion of AnCap and it's applicability to human society is nothing but philosophical masturbation by the sterile. You can't propose solutions to problems which you don't have knowledge of.

Still waiting on you to enlighten us in that other thread... Or are you too busy masturbating with us?
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 19, 2012, 04:08:06 PM
#37
A good indication that you're out of your league would be if you are also not factoring in the following topics:

A good indication you have completely missed the point is that you are even trying to factor those topics. Read this: http://mises.org/daily/3229

It applies to more than just economics... in fact, there is very little it doesn't apply to.

Sorry, dude, but you're the one who doesn't get it. Discussion of AnCap and it's applicability to human society is nothing but philosophical masturbation by the sterile. You can't propose solutions to problems which you don't have knowledge of.
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 19, 2012, 03:30:22 PM
#36
A good indication that you're out of your league would be if you are also not factoring in the following topics:

A good indication you have completely missed the point is that you are even trying to factor those topics. Read this: http://mises.org/daily/3229

It applies to more than just economics... in fact, there is very little it doesn't apply to.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 19, 2012, 02:59:07 PM
#35
These "Protection agencies" would, for all intents and purposes, become governing bodies. They would have to decide on sets of "rules" for members to be bound by in arbitration... which would effectively become laws. You would pay these "Protection agencies" a "membership fee", which would effectively be a tax. They would fulfill all the useful roles of government, without out all the bloat. The most significant difference is we would all have a choice. Protection Agency A, Protection Agency B, Protection Agency z, no protection agency, etc....

The most honest answer to any of these "How does ancap deal with..." questions is "I don't know, and it doesn't matter". The point is not how we can force everyone to live a "better" life, but how naturally we can't force anyone to do anything. The government is an evil corporate monopoly, and should be put down.

Does everyone think discussion of protection agencies addresses the real issues here? It's like trying to design a 747 by discussing lavatory specs. A good indication that you're out of your league would be if you are also not factoring in the following topics:

- A total quantification of the damage done by an oil spill
- The real drivers behind oil consumption
- The safety protocols employed by oil companies
- Future projected oil demand due to the aspiring populations of certain nations
- Assessments of environmentally important areas
- Ocean currents
- Fish populations and food chains
- The range of fish (migration)
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 19, 2012, 02:57:38 PM
#34
These "Protection agencies" would, for all intents and purposes, become governing bodies. They would have to decide on sets of "rules" for members to be bound by in arbitration... which would effectively become laws. You would pay these "Protection agencies" a "membership fee", which would effectively be a tax. They would fulfill all the useful roles of government, without out all the bloat. The most significant difference is we would all have a choice. Protection Agency A, Protection Agency B, Protection Agency z, no protection agency, etc....

The most honest answer to any of these "How does ancap deal with..." questions is "I don't know, and it doesn't matter". The point is not how we can force everyone to live a "better" life, but how naturally we can't force anyone to do anything. The government is an evil corporate monopoly, and should be put down.

Except that the defining factor of a tax is that it is compulsory. The modern tax system, as well, is designed so that it's nearly impossible for the individual to figure out how much, if anything, they owe. So the fees which one would pay to a protection agency, which are completely voluntary, and necessarily quite simple to understand, are nothing like taxes.
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 19, 2012, 02:39:55 PM
#33
These "Protection agencies" would, for all intents and purposes, become governing bodies. They would have to decide on sets of "rules" for members to be bound by in arbitration... which would effectively become laws. You would pay these "Protection agencies" a "membership fee", which would effectively be a tax. They would fulfill all the useful roles of government, without out all the bloat. The most significant difference is we would all have a choice. Protection Agency A, Protection Agency B, Protection Agency z, no protection agency, etc....

The most honest answer to any of these "How does ancap deal with..." questions is "I don't know, and it doesn't matter". The point is not how we can force everyone to live a "better" life, but how naturally we can't force anyone to do anything. The government is an evil corporate monopoly, and should be put down.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 19, 2012, 12:56:32 PM
#32
Next, simply replace federal funding with "protection agency" or "state" funding. I believe that paints an accurate picture of how the oil spill is funded.

Ehhh.... More like "private donations". Protection agencies don't, themselves, fulfill all the functions that governments typically take unto themselves, just the defense and a little bit of the enforcement of justice aspects.

But other than that, I'd say you have the right idea.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
July 19, 2012, 12:50:21 PM
#31
(My take on this; note that I don't support ancap.)

When confronted with an issue that is presented in the form "What would ancap do if...", I tend to apply a simple strategy. First, answer the question "What would an American (could be replaced with any) society do if...". In this case, if an oil spill occurs, the cost is shared among many parties:

BP Oil Spill
BP: $37.2 B (some mandated, others willingly for image)
EPA (federal): ~$10 M
Pepsi, Dawn, etc. (commercial donations for image): $5.3 M
WWF, environmental organizations: $4.0 M

Next, simply replace federal funding with "protection agency" or "state" funding. I believe that paints an accurate picture of how the oil spill is funded.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 19, 2012, 11:06:16 AM
#30
I'll make this simple. I will resolve all disputes in exchange for 25% 10% of all your wealth and earnings. It is bargain. Of course I just know that one of you will undercut my generous offer by taking only 9%. But really, would you want such a cut-rate service? Act now, this offer is for a litmited time only.

I'll do it for a low, set fee. Wink
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
July 19, 2012, 10:41:09 AM
#29
I'll make this simple. I will resolve all disputes in exchange for 25% 10% of all your wealth and earnings. It is bargain. Of course I just know that one of you will undercut my generous offer by taking only 9%. But really, would you want such a cut-rate service? Act now, this offer is for a litmited time only.
sr. member
Activity: 292
Merit: 250
July 19, 2012, 02:32:00 AM
#28
Quote from: grantbdev
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.
Sounds similar to my views on property, I should read Thomas Paine, can you tell me in which book I find that?

The work in particular that I was referencing was a short pamphlet called Agrarian Justice (1797), which supported property taxes funding a universal basic income.

The work is based on the contention that in the state of nature, "the earth, in its natural uncultivated state... was the common property of the human race"; the concept of private ownership arose as a necessary result of the development of agriculture, since it was impossible to distinguish the possession of improvements to the land from the possession of the land itself. Thus Paine views private property as necessary, but that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.

You can probably find a free e-book of it (and his more popular works) but I really like this hardcover collection: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Paine-Collected-Writings-Pamphlets/dp/1883011035/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1342679094&sr=8-4&keywords=thomas+paine
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 19, 2012, 01:37:53 AM
#27
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.

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.

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.
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
July 19, 2012, 01:18:12 AM
#26
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.

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.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 19, 2012, 12:45:03 AM
#25
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.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 18, 2012, 11:24:22 PM
#24
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.

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?
full member
Activity: 189
Merit: 100
July 18, 2012, 11:04:14 PM
#23
Quote from: theymos
The company pays because if it doesn't the victims' protection agencies will attack the company.
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.

Quote from: grantbdev
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.
Sounds similar to my views on property, I should read Thomas Paine, can you tell me in which book I find that?
sr. member
Activity: 353
Merit: 251
July 18, 2012, 11:02:25 PM
#22
But all the incentives for all the people are completely wrong! And in the meanwhile nothing gets solved, damaging the "victims" even more.

How so?

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]



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?

What a convenient response .... Reply to the rest of the post first, then I'll explain that part to you in baby-steps ...
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
July 18, 2012, 10:47:02 PM
#21
Who is going to protect this company from responsibility ?  Why is corporate welfare better ?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 18, 2012, 10:39:18 PM
#20
But all the incentives for all the people are completely wrong! And in the meanwhile nothing gets solved, damaging the "victims" even more.

How so?

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]



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?
sr. member
Activity: 353
Merit: 251
July 18, 2012, 10:27:12 PM
#19
But all the incentives for all the people are completely wrong! And in the meanwhile nothing gets solved, damaging the "victims" even more.

How so?

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.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 18, 2012, 08:47:42 PM
#18
But all the incentives for all the people are completely wrong! And in the meanwhile nothing gets solved, damaging the "victims" even more.

How so?

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.

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]

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.

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

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!".

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).
sr. member
Activity: 353
Merit: 251
July 18, 2012, 08:21:18 PM
#17
The company pays because if it doesn't the victims' protection agencies will attack the company.

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?

I just addressed this...

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.

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.

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!".

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 18, 2012, 06:57:41 PM
#16
The company pays because if it doesn't the victims' protection agencies will attack the company.

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?

I just addressed this...

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.

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.
sr. member
Activity: 353
Merit: 251
July 18, 2012, 06:44:48 PM
#15
The company pays because if it doesn't the victims' protection agencies will attack the company.

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?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 18, 2012, 06:08:58 PM
#14
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?

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.

How do oceans come into private ownership?

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.
sr. member
Activity: 292
Merit: 250
July 18, 2012, 05:31:49 PM
#13
Oceans can, and would be, owned just like land is. A large area like the center of the gulf would probably be owned by a large company, or perhaps jointly by several, each using the sea for one type of activity or another. Let's say the patch where the oil rig was is owned by the oil company, a fishing company, and a shipping company. Each uses a different part of the waters, so nobody really gets in anyone's way, and they have a pretty happy partnership.

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?
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 18, 2012, 05:05:55 PM
#12
How would the victims' protection agency attack the company, specifically? And how is this victim's protection agency formed/funded?

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

Sorry it's long'ish.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
July 18, 2012, 05:05:36 PM
#11
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?
sr. member
Activity: 292
Merit: 250
July 18, 2012, 04:52:54 PM
#10
Now for the big question: Who pays? The oil company will pay for cleanup, and for any damages done by the oil. Those damages would include any marine life harmed, for instance, to the fishing company that shared the oil rig's waters, as well as lost wages to the fishermen, not to mention death benefits to anyone who didn't make it off the rig.

It's likely that the oil company goes out of business, paying all this, and everyone up the chain of command from the safety inspector at the rig (assuming he didn't pay the ultimate price) up to the CEO would probably go broke, paying restitution. Pretty big incentive for safety.

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?
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
July 18, 2012, 04:11:47 PM
#9
How would the victims' protection agency attack the company, specifically? And how is this victim's protection agency formed/funded?
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
July 18, 2012, 03:37:01 PM
#8
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!
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
July 18, 2012, 03:16:39 PM
#7
The company pays because if it doesn't the victims' protection agencies will attack the company.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 18, 2012, 03:16:07 PM
#6
Let's make a hypothetical. Imagine a completely anarcho-capitalist world. I guess all the oceans and seas have been somehow privatized (how?).

A firm is operating an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and it explodes.

What happens? Who pays to clean up? Who pays reparations to all of the people affected (e.g. fishermen who just lost their jobs)? Would their be any concern for all of the life destroyed?

Oceans can, and would be, owned just like land is. A large area like the center of the gulf would probably be owned by a large company, or perhaps jointly by several, each using the sea for one type of activity or another. Let's say the patch where the oil rig was is owned by the oil company, a fishing company, and a shipping company. Each uses a different part of the waters, so nobody really gets in anyone's way, and they have a pretty happy partnership.

Until the oil rig goes BOOM. Now, the oil is spilling into the fishing company's waters, possibly mucking up the motors of the shipping company, and that's just it's immediate neighbors. As the oil reaches the shore, more and more people are affected by the spill.

Now for the big question: Who pays? The oil company will pay for cleanup, and for any damages done by the oil. Those damages would include any marine life harmed, for instance, to the fishing company that shared the oil rig's waters, as well as lost wages to the fishermen, not to mention death benefits to anyone who didn't make it off the rig.

It's likely that the oil company goes out of business, paying all this, and everyone up the chain of command from the safety inspector at the rig (assuming he didn't pay the ultimate price) up to the CEO would probably go broke, paying restitution. Pretty big incentive for safety.

This is a somewhat sensible post. Certainly the best I've seen from the Libertarian camp regarding ocean ownership. At least it beats the absurdities proposed by others, which have included nets in the ocean to demarcate property borders, and the laughable concept of herding whales. A thumbs up to myrkul for not exploring such ridiculous ideas when compelled to address private ownership of the oceans.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
July 18, 2012, 03:13:50 PM
#5
Let's make a hypothetical. Imagine a completely anarcho-capitalist world. I guess all the oceans and seas have been somehow privatized (how?).

A firm is operating an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and it explodes.

What happens? Who pays to clean up? Who pays reparations to all of the people affected (e.g. fishermen who just lost their jobs)? Would their be any concern for all of the life destroyed?

Oceans can, and would be, owned just like land is. A large area like the center of the gulf would probably be owned by a large company, or perhaps jointly by several, each using the sea for one type of activity or another. Let's say the patch where the oil rig was is owned by the oil company, a fishing company, and a shipping company. Each uses a different part of the waters, so nobody really gets in anyone's way, and they have a pretty happy partnership.

Until the oil rig goes BOOM. Now, the oil is spilling into the fishing company's waters, possibly mucking up the motors of the shipping company, and that's just it's immediate neighbors. As the oil reaches the shore, more and more people are affected by the spill.

Now for the big question: Who pays? The oil company will pay for cleanup, and for any damages done by the oil. Those damages would include any marine life harmed, for instance, to the fishing company that shared the oil rig's waters, as well as lost wages to the fishermen, not to mention death benefits to anyone who didn't make it off the rig.

It's likely that the oil company goes out of business, paying all this, and everyone up the chain of command from the safety inspector at the rig (assuming he didn't pay the ultimate price) up to the CEO would probably go broke, paying restitution. Pretty big incentive for safety.

And when that still doesn't cover it (or they refuse to pay since there is no state to enforce payment) heads will roll.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
July 18, 2012, 03:11:18 PM
#4
Let's make a hypothetical. Imagine a completely anarcho-capitalist world. I guess all the oceans and seas have been somehow privatized (how?).

A firm is operating an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and it explodes.

What happens? Who pays to clean up? Who pays reparations to all of the people affected (e.g. fishermen who just lost their jobs)? Would their be any concern for all of the life destroyed?

Oceans can, and would be, owned just like land is. A large area like the center of the gulf would probably be owned by a large company, or perhaps jointly by several, each using the sea for one type of activity or another. Let's say the patch where the oil rig was is owned by the oil company, a fishing company, and a shipping company. Each uses a different part of the waters, so nobody really gets in anyone's way, and they have a pretty happy partnership.

Until the oil rig goes BOOM. Now, the oil is spilling into the fishing company's waters, possibly mucking up the motors of the shipping company, and that's just it's immediate neighbors. As the oil reaches the shore, more and more people are affected by the spill.

Now for the big question: Who pays? The oil company will pay for cleanup, and for any damages done by the oil. Those damages would include any marine life harmed, for instance, to the fishing company that shared the oil rig's waters, as well as lost wages to the fishermen, not to mention death benefits to anyone who didn't make it off the rig.

It's likely that the oil company goes out of business, paying all this, and everyone up the chain of command from the safety inspector at the rig (assuming he didn't pay the ultimate price) up to the CEO would probably go broke, paying restitution. Pretty big incentive for safety.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
July 18, 2012, 02:38:53 PM
#3
I guess all the oceans and seas have been somehow privatized (how?).

You should not attempt privatization of fluid and complex interdependent resources which have great extent.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
July 18, 2012, 02:21:58 PM
#2
Let's make a hypothetical. Imagine a completely anarcho-capitalist world. I

 guess all the oceans and seas have been somehow privatized (how?).

A firm is operating an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and it explodes.

What happens? Who pays to clean up? Who pays reparations to all of the people affected (e.g. fishermen who just lost their jobs)? Would their be any concern for all of the life destroyed?

Heads would roll.
sr. member
Activity: 292
Merit: 250
July 18, 2012, 02:19:14 PM
#1
Let's make a hypothetical. Imagine a completely anarcho-capitalist world. I guess all the oceans and seas have been somehow privatized (how?).

A firm is operating an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and it explodes.

What happens? Who pays to clean up? Who pays reparations to all of the people affected (e.g. fishermen who just lost their jobs)? Would their be any concern for all of the life destroyed?
Jump to: