60 Things NOT To Do If You Hate The Free Market

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ProvidencePlant, Dec 5, 2011.

  1. Because pollution, in most cases, is not limited to the area that they own. For example a corporation that burns fossil fuels is doing the polluting on their own private property but the pollution itself spreads throughout the atmosphere. Another example is groundwater. The wastes that people bury underground on their own private property effect the aquifers which in turn effects everyone.
     
  2. Which other people now have a right to take action due to an infringe[FONT=&quot]ment on their private property.
    [/FONT]
     
  3. I did state that if the pollution effects other individuals property (I didn't explain this thoroughly enough, my mistake; but it should extend to ground water, smog, etc) then the polluter in question can be brought to court. Say we had a Fukushima type meltdown in the US, the specific radiation that penetrates through the earth into the water supply would in fact be pollution of other peoples property, which the company would be tried for in court.

    I think the disregard and lack of understanding for property rights has in fact enabled polluters.
     
  4. But who tests and decides the levels of acceptable pollution? The average person is not going to go out and test their local river/stream for pollutants and then form a lawsuit based on this information. There needs to be some sort of organization in place to keep an eye on companies to efficiently monitor pollution

    But what about common property? Such as the atmosphere?
     
  5. Your dream agency is not going to effectively monitor pollution, nor will it inhibit pollution. The end result will be a pay to play scheme, akin to the carbon tax scam, where you pay to pollute. This inhibits the majority of companies, whereas the big guys can afford to pay the extra fee, after all it puts their competitors out of business, gives them a greater market share, now they get to jack up prices on the consumer.

    The only real way to deal with pollution is a market based solution, particularly in the energy sector. We subsidize oil companies at the expense of other alternative fuels. Given a level playing ground, no special benefits for any form of energy, (cleaner) alternatives will be developed, and they will find the one that is cheapest and most efficient.

    If this does not suit you, you could still implement a EPA styled agency on a state level as opposed to the federal level, in accordance with the 10th amendment.

    There is nothing inhibiting this, except for power and money hungry bureaucrats in DC who get pay increases for maximum inefficiency.
     
  6. No one resembles evangelicals more than fiscal libertarian. All you guys do is tell everyone the worlds going to hell unless they embrace the free market for salvation. But there's no actual evidence of a pure free market working anywhere in the world but when you point that out they shout at you theoretics from their libertarian apostles.

    and when anyone brings up the messiah Ron Paul they get the Holy Ghost and start speaking in tongue about being close to capitalist heaven. :D
     
  7. #67 xmaspoo, Dec 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 7, 2011
    Pot calling the kettle black.

    State laws allow for variance of governing, federal laws don't.
    [​IMG]
     

  8. It doesn't matter there there are no examples of 100% free markets functioning. It leads to neither the conclusion that they work, or that they fail, since it really hasn't been fully implemented.

    What we can do, the only thing we can do, is to look at periods of time and place in which capitalism was more free or less free, and periods when the state was more or less in control of the economy. By doing so it's extremely clear that free market capitalism is what works, and any government intervention in the economy only serves to weaken and degrade what capitalism has built. Places and times that have a very high degree of freedom are accompanied with prosperity, and the converse is true for periods of high control by the state. Seeing this, it naturally leads to the logical conclusion that prosperity is most efficiently achieved by reducing government involvement in the economy as much as possible, which requires a very small government.
     
  9. Well thats pretty damn lame. I thought you free marketeers were all about letting people do what they want, and now your telling me what not to do.
     
  10. If you hate the freemarket, live in the USA....

    Quest complete
     
  11. I hate all market, instead believe a resource based economy is where it`s at.
    Does that mean I can`t do anything in this world apart from survive off my remaining body fatÉ

    Come on, lets hear what you got

    I mean, why can`t everyone benefit freely and equaly from innovation
     

  12. Because there is no implied contract between you and I that says you are entitled to anything I create or produce.

    Train/educate yourself, get your own job and be the person that takes care of you. Or, better yet, find a system that enables you to live the way you want to live and be a part of it, just don't force others to be a part of it.

    The big issue with statists vs nonstatists is the use of force. An anarcho society would be tolerant of a group of people who wanted to form their own state system so long as it was entirely voluntary. A statist system doesn't support anything but a statist system. Why not at least go where you have the most options?
     

Share This Page