Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Laissez-faire capitalism and the environment

Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:36:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
How does a free market prevent resource exploitation or pollution that would result in environmental destruction? For example, say I own a box-making factory. What incentive do I have to not pollute the air while expelling waste into the Mississippi River?

I've heard vague references to "the tragedy of the commons" and how property rights prevent would prevent environmental exploitation, but I would like to know how exactly that would work. Google isn't being very helpful at the moment.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 12:36:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:36:56 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
How does a free market prevent resource exploitation or pollution that would result in environmental destruction? For example, say I own a box-making factory. What incentive do I have to not pollute the air while expelling waste into the Mississippi River?

I've heard vague references to "the tragedy of the commons" and how property rights prevent would prevent environmental exploitation, but I would like to know how exactly that would work. Google isn't being very helpful at the moment.

Well, take the tragedy of the commons. Let's say each farmer owned their own plot of the land instead of all sharing the same land. Each farmer would want to maximize the use of the land he owns.

If you can clarify property rights like this, you can internalize a lot of the negative externalities. Let's say I make boxes, but I not only own the box company, I "own" the surrounding air and land. That means that when I pollute my surroundings I am hurting my own profit margin. That means under laissez-faire capitalism the most efficient answer would be less damaging to the environment.

The problem is that you can't translate this "clarification" into real world terms very easily. Carbon caps are an attempt to do this.

If a company has to pay in some manner for polluting, they will be incentivized to not pollute. The most efficient form of "pay" is the sense of pollution leading to the company's asset degrading without government intervention. That is, if you pollute your land, it becomes worthless.
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 12:57:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 12:36:50 PM, Wnope wrote:

Well, take the tragedy of the commons. Let's say each farmer owned their own plot of the land instead of all sharing the same land. Each farmer would want to maximize the use of the land he owns.

If you can clarify property rights like this, you can internalize a lot of the negative externalities. Let's say I make boxes, but I not only own the box company, I "own" the surrounding air and land. That means that when I pollute my surroundings I am hurting my own profit margin. That means under laissez-faire capitalism the most efficient answer would be less damaging to the environment.

The problem is that you can't translate this "clarification" into real world terms very easily. Carbon caps are an attempt to do this.

If a company has to pay in some manner for polluting, they will be incentivized to not pollute. The most efficient form of "pay" is the sense of pollution leading to the company's asset degrading without government intervention. That is, if you pollute your land, it becomes worthless.

Let's say my house is a mile from the box factory. The air I "own" (if that's even possible) that's over my house is extremely polluted thanks to the nearby factory. Do my property rights extend to my right not to breathe dirty air? Could I sue the box-making company for it?

And what about the sludge the company keeps dumping into the river that's now leeching into my soil? Can I take action against the company on those grounds?

Bottom line, do I have a "right" to not breathe filthy air or drink polluted water in a laissez faire society?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 1:04:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 12:36:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/8/2011 9:36:56 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
How does a free market prevent resource exploitation or pollution that would result in environmental destruction? For example, say I own a box-making factory. What incentive do I have to not pollute the air while expelling waste into the Mississippi River?

I've heard vague references to "the tragedy of the commons" and how property rights prevent would prevent environmental exploitation, but I would like to know how exactly that would work. Google isn't being very helpful at the moment.

Well, take the tragedy of the commons. Let's say each farmer owned their own plot of the land instead of all sharing the same land. Each farmer would want to maximize the use of the land he owns.

If you can clarify property rights like this, you can internalize a lot of the negative externalities. Let's say I make boxes, but I not only own the box company, I "own" the surrounding air and land. That means that when I pollute my surroundings I am hurting my own profit margin. That means under laissez-faire capitalism the most efficient answer would be less damaging to the environment.

The problem is that you can't translate this "clarification" into real world terms very easily. Carbon caps are an attempt to do this.

If a company has to pay in some manner for polluting, they will be incentivized to not pollute. The most efficient form of "pay" is the sense of pollution leading to the company's asset degrading without government intervention. That is, if you pollute your land, it becomes worthless.

That's not really a problem to companies that aren't using the value of the land, or air or water (most manufacturing), that only really applies to farming industries (where taking care of the land is vital to their survival).

Polluting land makes that land worth less, except to those that are not interested in high quality land (many manufacturers are not going to want prestine expensive land for their factories, they want cheap and close to transportation lines).

We've actually seen this happen with the Dust Bowl back in the 1930's. Farmers were over grazing their land and not rotating their crops or live stock, and it essentually killed the top soil.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 5:03:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:36:56 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
How does a free market prevent resource exploitation or pollution that would result in environmental destruction? For example, say I own a box-making factory. What incentive do I have to not pollute the air while expelling waste into the Mississippi River?:

No private individuals or organizations own the river. If it can be proven that a company is polluting the river and thereby unduly affecting the livelihood of others, most laissez-faire proponents would agree that a neutral authority can step in to stop it.

Laissez-faire doesn't equal total anarchism. Some govnerment is seen as a way to mediate between disputes, referee between social contracts, etc.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 12:13:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's not really a problem to companies that aren't using the value of the land, or air or water (most manufacturing), that only really applies to farming industries (where taking care of the land is vital to their survival).

Right, it's not a problem for the companies. What I am describing is a way that laissez faires capitalism would lead to environmental clean-ups.

And what about the sludge the company keeps dumping into the river that's now leeching into my soil? Can I take action against the company on those grounds?

Nope.

Bottom line, do I have a "right" to not breathe filthy air or drink polluted water in a laissez faire society?

"Laissez faire" isn't a system of government. You have no "rights" past a right to property.

You will ask: then how do I know what is the companies property and what is mine?

That's the whole problem. As long as property rights aren't sorted out carefully, companies can take all of their pollution costs and push it onto others (negative externalities). Of course, they can do this anyway with money, but we're talking environmentally.

The whole debate, then, is what is one's property rights? Do I own air I breathe? Does a company own it's waste once the waste flushes into the ocean? Answered correctly, companies would be incentivized to clean up their own waste. Again, I point to carbon caps as a way of internalizing pollution costs.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 2:08:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:36:56 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
What incentive do I have to not pollute the air while expelling waste into the Mississippi River?

Other than being sued into bankruptcy? Torts cover this sort of thing.
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 6:31:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 10:06:51 PM, seraine wrote:
Isn't there something about "if you are found harming others, you will be held accountable"?

That's what I've been wondering. Do property rights extend to the "air" over your property?
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 9:14:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 6:31:20 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
At 8/9/2011 10:06:51 PM, seraine wrote:
Isn't there something about "if you are found harming others, you will be held accountable"?

That's what I've been wondering. Do property rights extend to the "air" over your property?

My view is that if you harm someone, you should be held accountable.

In addition if a company is polluting, boycott ftw.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 11:18:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 2:08:46 AM, Puck wrote:
At 8/8/2011 9:36:56 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
What incentive do I have to not pollute the air while expelling waste into the Mississippi River?

Other than being sued into bankruptcy? Torts cover this sort of thing.

You won't be sued into bankruptcy. Like with oil spills, the worst is that you'll be charged with the cost of clean up. And that is assuming the courts can even argee on that.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 2:18:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
With oil spills there is a legislative limitation of liability as a subsidy, existing for Keynesian reasons. In other words, tort law is specifically prevented from doing its thang.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:09:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 2:18:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
With oil spills there is a legislative limitation of liability as a subsidy, existing for Keynesian reasons. In other words, tort law is specifically prevented from doing its thang.

Tort Law (which requires a government or some overseeing body to have a "Law") allows for people to be paid based on damages done by a liable party. The compensation to match the damages. In other words, if you drive by my house, dump toxic waste and contaminate my land, reducing its value from $800,000 to $200,000, I can't (successfully) sue you for $500 million. I can only get the value of the damages (plus court costs and lawyer fees and possible any costs associated to the incident).

The fact that there are limits (which aren't Keynesian) doesn't change anything.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:52:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:09:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 2:18:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
With oil spills there is a legislative limitation of liability as a subsidy, existing for Keynesian reasons. In other words, tort law is specifically prevented from doing its thang.

Tort Law (which requires a government or some overseeing body to have a "Law") allows for people to be paid based on damages done by a liable party. The compensation to match the damages. In other words, if you drive by my house, dump toxic waste and contaminate my land, reducing its value from $800,000 to $200,000, I can't (successfully) sue you for $500 million. I can only get the value of the damages (plus court costs and lawyer fees and possible any costs associated to the incident).
In the case of oil spills, you can get far less than the value of the damages, because the legislature overrode common law rules specifically.


The fact that there are limits (which aren't Keynesian)
They exist so the government can stimulate business. Whatever they are, they ain't capitalist.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 4:07:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:52:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:09:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 2:18:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
With oil spills there is a legislative limitation of liability as a subsidy, existing for Keynesian reasons. In other words, tort law is specifically prevented from doing its thang.

Tort Law (which requires a government or some overseeing body to have a "Law") allows for people to be paid based on damages done by a liable party. The compensation to match the damages. In other words, if you drive by my house, dump toxic waste and contaminate my land, reducing its value from $800,000 to $200,000, I can't (successfully) sue you for $500 million. I can only get the value of the damages (plus court costs and lawyer fees and possible any costs associated to the incident).
In the case of oil spills, you can get far less than the value of the damages, because the legislature overrode common law rules specifically.

That's besides the point. If the cost is $X dollars (actual cost of damages) or $Y dollars (cap on the limit of the cost), it is potential that it is more profitable to damage others and pay for those damages than to never damage them in the first place.



The fact that there are limits (which aren't Keynesian)
They exist so the government can stimulate business. Whatever they are, they ain't capitalist.

Different debate, and I don't think we disagree on that too much to argue (since I don't believe that they are capitalist policies either).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 4:18:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 4:07:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:52:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:09:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 2:18:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
With oil spills there is a legislative limitation of liability as a subsidy, existing for Keynesian reasons. In other words, tort law is specifically prevented from doing its thang.

Tort Law (which requires a government or some overseeing body to have a "Law") allows for people to be paid based on damages done by a liable party. The compensation to match the damages. In other words, if you drive by my house, dump toxic waste and contaminate my land, reducing its value from $800,000 to $200,000, I can't (successfully) sue you for $500 million. I can only get the value of the damages (plus court costs and lawyer fees and possible any costs associated to the incident).
In the case of oil spills, you can get far less than the value of the damages, because the legislature overrode common law rules specifically.

That's besides the point. If the cost is $X dollars (actual cost of damages) or $Y dollars (cap on the limit of the cost), it is potential that it is more profitable to damage others and pay for those damages than to never damage them in the first place.
Far better than just leaving people uncompensated, which is the result of the status quo, the presently proffered alternative, no?

(and in the case of oil spills, unlikely).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 4:28:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 4:18:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:07:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:52:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:09:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 2:18:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
With oil spills there is a legislative limitation of liability as a subsidy, existing for Keynesian reasons. In other words, tort law is specifically prevented from doing its thang.

Tort Law (which requires a government or some overseeing body to have a "Law") allows for people to be paid based on damages done by a liable party. The compensation to match the damages. In other words, if you drive by my house, dump toxic waste and contaminate my land, reducing its value from $800,000 to $200,000, I can't (successfully) sue you for $500 million. I can only get the value of the damages (plus court costs and lawyer fees and possible any costs associated to the incident).
In the case of oil spills, you can get far less than the value of the damages, because the legislature overrode common law rules specifically.

That's besides the point. If the cost is $X dollars (actual cost of damages) or $Y dollars (cap on the limit of the cost), it is potential that it is more profitable to damage others and pay for those damages than to never damage them in the first place.
Far better than just leaving people uncompensated, which is the result of the status quo, the presently proffered alternative, no?

(and in the case of oil spills, unlikely).

Yes it is better than the Status Quo, a lot of things are better than the status quo. I think it is a fair assumption that most socialists are not capitalists (right?), and most socialists (and progressives and liberals in general) support removing caps of corporate liability limits. The people that got those limits put on in the first place were corporate lobbyists (or more accurately, politicans being bought out by corporate lobbyists).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 6:27:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 4:18:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:07:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:52:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:09:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 2:18:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
With oil spills there is a legislative limitation of liability as a subsidy, existing for Keynesian reasons. In other words, tort law is specifically prevented from doing its thang.

Tort Law (which requires a government or some overseeing body to have a "Law") allows for people to be paid based on damages done by a liable party. The compensation to match the damages. In other words, if you drive by my house, dump toxic waste and contaminate my land, reducing its value from $800,000 to $200,000, I can't (successfully) sue you for $500 million. I can only get the value of the damages (plus court costs and lawyer fees and possible any costs associated to the incident).
In the case of oil spills, you can get far less than the value of the damages, because the legislature overrode common law rules specifically.

That's besides the point. If the cost is $X dollars (actual cost of damages) or $Y dollars (cap on the limit of the cost), it is potential that it is more profitable to damage others and pay for those damages than to never damage them in the first place.
Far better than just leaving people uncompensated, which is the result of the status quo, the presently proffered alternative, no?

(and in the case of oil spills, unlikely).

I'm not savvy with law, but it might actually still be worse. Most throughout the spill zone have been compensated with a 20 million dollar escrow account through federal mandate, while the victims of the Exxon Valdez spill took forever just to obtain minor compensation (as far as I know). The same fate might be prominent when left to the courts in a Capitalist society.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 6:56:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 4:28:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:18:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:07:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:52:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:09:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 2:18:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
With oil spills there is a legislative limitation of liability as a subsidy, existing for Keynesian reasons. In other words, tort law is specifically prevented from doing its thang.

Tort Law (which requires a government or some overseeing body to have a "Law") allows for people to be paid based on damages done by a liable party. The compensation to match the damages. In other words, if you drive by my house, dump toxic waste and contaminate my land, reducing its value from $800,000 to $200,000, I can't (successfully) sue you for $500 million. I can only get the value of the damages (plus court costs and lawyer fees and possible any costs associated to the incident).
In the case of oil spills, you can get far less than the value of the damages, because the legislature overrode common law rules specifically.

That's besides the point. If the cost is $X dollars (actual cost of damages) or $Y dollars (cap on the limit of the cost), it is potential that it is more profitable to damage others and pay for those damages than to never damage them in the first place.
Far better than just leaving people uncompensated, which is the result of the status quo, the presently proffered alternative, no?

(and in the case of oil spills, unlikely).

Yes it is better than the Status Quo, a lot of things are better than the status quo. I think it is a fair assumption that most socialists are not capitalists (right?), and most socialists (and progressives and liberals in general) support removing caps of corporate liability limits. The people that got those limits put on in the first place were corporate lobbyists (or more accurately, politicans being bought out by corporate lobbyists).

When the government controls the economy, lobbying is necessary, and the marginal cost of lobbying for corruption reduces.

Among other costs.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 7:01:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 6:56:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:28:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:18:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:07:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:52:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:09:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 2:18:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
With oil spills there is a legislative limitation of liability as a subsidy, existing for Keynesian reasons. In other words, tort law is specifically prevented from doing its thang.

Tort Law (which requires a government or some overseeing body to have a "Law") allows for people to be paid based on damages done by a liable party. The compensation to match the damages. In other words, if you drive by my house, dump toxic waste and contaminate my land, reducing its value from $800,000 to $200,000, I can't (successfully) sue you for $500 million. I can only get the value of the damages (plus court costs and lawyer fees and possible any costs associated to the incident).
In the case of oil spills, you can get far less than the value of the damages, because the legislature overrode common law rules specifically.

That's besides the point. If the cost is $X dollars (actual cost of damages) or $Y dollars (cap on the limit of the cost), it is potential that it is more profitable to damage others and pay for those damages than to never damage them in the first place.
Far better than just leaving people uncompensated, which is the result of the status quo, the presently proffered alternative, no?

(and in the case of oil spills, unlikely).

Yes it is better than the Status Quo, a lot of things are better than the status quo. I think it is a fair assumption that most socialists are not capitalists (right?), and most socialists (and progressives and liberals in general) support removing caps of corporate liability limits. The people that got those limits put on in the first place were corporate lobbyists (or more accurately, politicans being bought out by corporate lobbyists).

When the government controls the economy, lobbying is necessary, and the marginal cost of lobbying for corruption reduces.

Among other costs.

Actually, Lobbying isn't necessary. It's only really necessary when politicans micro-manage the economy (goverment =/= politicans).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 4:01:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 7:01:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 6:56:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

When the government controls the economy, lobbying is necessary, and the marginal cost of lobbying for corruption reduces.

Among other costs.

Actually, Lobbying isn't necessary. It's only really necessary when politicans micro-manage the economy (goverment =/= politicans).

Is it even necessary at the point? I don't see how lobbying is at all "necessary". It just happens because it's legal, and businesses like handouts and advantages, while politicians like campaign donations and pleasant advertisements.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 6:25:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 7:01:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 6:56:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:28:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:18:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:07:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:52:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:09:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 2:18:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
With oil spills there is a legislative limitation of liability as a subsidy, existing for Keynesian reasons. In other words, tort law is specifically prevented from doing its thang.

Tort Law (which requires a government or some overseeing body to have a "Law") allows for people to be paid based on damages done by a liable party. The compensation to match the damages. In other words, if you drive by my house, dump toxic waste and contaminate my land, reducing its value from $800,000 to $200,000, I can't (successfully) sue you for $500 million. I can only get the value of the damages (plus court costs and lawyer fees and possible any costs associated to the incident).
In the case of oil spills, you can get far less than the value of the damages, because the legislature overrode common law rules specifically.

That's besides the point. If the cost is $X dollars (actual cost of damages) or $Y dollars (cap on the limit of the cost), it is potential that it is more profitable to damage others and pay for those damages than to never damage them in the first place.
Far better than just leaving people uncompensated, which is the result of the status quo, the presently proffered alternative, no?

(and in the case of oil spills, unlikely).

Yes it is better than the Status Quo, a lot of things are better than the status quo. I think it is a fair assumption that most socialists are not capitalists (right?), and most socialists (and progressives and liberals in general) support removing caps of corporate liability limits. The people that got those limits put on in the first place were corporate lobbyists (or more accurately, politicans being bought out by corporate lobbyists).

When the government controls the economy, lobbying is necessary, and the marginal cost of lobbying for corruption reduces.

Among other costs.

Actually, Lobbying isn't necessary. It's only really necessary when politicans micro-manage the economy (goverment =/= politicans).
When the government runs things, politicians run them. Politicians are "The people who seek to run stuff in government."

Is it even necessary at the point? I don't see how lobbying is at all "necessary". It just happens because it's legal, and businesses like handouts and advantages
Businesses dislike regulation that targets them. Handouts are usually something you tack onto your lobbying when you already have lobbyists anyway to try to keep regulation from absolutely destroying your business. "Extra credit" if you will.

If you are in an industry which receives political attention, lobbying is necessary to stay there.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 6:36:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 6:25:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 7:01:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 6:56:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:28:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:18:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:07:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:52:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:09:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2011 2:18:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
With oil spills there is a legislative limitation of liability as a subsidy, existing for Keynesian reasons. In other words, tort law is specifically prevented from doing its thang.

Tort Law (which requires a government or some overseeing body to have a "Law") allows for people to be paid based on damages done by a liable party. The compensation to match the damages. In other words, if you drive by my house, dump toxic waste and contaminate my land, reducing its value from $800,000 to $200,000, I can't (successfully) sue you for $500 million. I can only get the value of the damages (plus court costs and lawyer fees and possible any costs associated to the incident).
In the case of oil spills, you can get far less than the value of the damages, because the legislature overrode common law rules specifically.

That's besides the point. If the cost is $X dollars (actual cost of damages) or $Y dollars (cap on the limit of the cost), it is potential that it is more profitable to damage others and pay for those damages than to never damage them in the first place.
Far better than just leaving people uncompensated, which is the result of the status quo, the presently proffered alternative, no?

(and in the case of oil spills, unlikely).

Yes it is better than the Status Quo, a lot of things are better than the status quo. I think it is a fair assumption that most socialists are not capitalists (right?), and most socialists (and progressives and liberals in general) support removing caps of corporate liability limits. The people that got those limits put on in the first place were corporate lobbyists (or more accurately, politicans being bought out by corporate lobbyists).

When the government controls the economy, lobbying is necessary, and the marginal cost of lobbying for corruption reduces.

Among other costs.

Actually, Lobbying isn't necessary. It's only really necessary when politicans micro-manage the economy (goverment =/= politicans).
When the government runs things, politicians run them. Politicians are "The people who seek to run stuff in government."

run =/= micro managed. And even owned =/= run. Government can own something, and hire someone else to run it (just like how big companies are owned by thousands of people and they choose a single person to run them). And if they pick the right person, they just have to sit back and let the money roll in (like stock holders can just sit back and let the money roll in if they pick the right person).


Is it even necessary at the point? I don't see how lobbying is at all "necessary". It just happens because it's legal, and businesses like handouts and advantages
Businesses dislike regulation that targets them. Handouts are usually something you tack onto your lobbying when you already have lobbyists anyway to try to keep regulation from absolutely destroying your business. "Extra credit" if you will.

But they love regulation that targets their competition. Ironically, most economic theories regarding the free market require sufficient competition, while companies hate competition, they would love for all of their competitors to close up their doors.


If you are in an industry which receives political attention, lobbying is necessary to stay there.

Only in the status quo.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 7:50:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 6:36:49 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
When the government runs things, politicians run them. Politicians are "The people who seek to run stuff in government."

run =/= micro managed. And even owned =/= run. Government can own something, and hire someone else to run it (just like how big companies are owned by thousands of people and they choose a single person to run them).
Not just like-- politicians have different hiring incentives.

Is it even necessary at the point? I don't see how lobbying is at all "necessary". It just happens because it's legal, and businesses like handouts and advantages
Businesses dislike regulation that targets them. Handouts are usually something you tack onto your lobbying when you already have lobbyists anyway to try to keep regulation from absolutely destroying your business. "Extra credit" if you will.

But they love regulation that targets their competition.
That's one of those types of handout. Again, "Extra credit." Marginal transaction costs to get it increase dramatically when you don't need a lobbyist anyway to survive regulation targeted at you.



If you are in an industry which receives political attention, lobbying is necessary to stay there.

Only in the status quo.
That's not a coherent response when you aren't pushing an alternative model that deals with the causes.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:18:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:36:56 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
How does a free market prevent resource exploitation or pollution that would result in environmental destruction? For example, say I own a box-making factory. What incentive do I have to not pollute the air while expelling waste into the Mississippi River?

I've heard vague references to "the tragedy of the commons" and how property rights prevent would prevent environmental exploitation, but I would like to know how exactly that would work. Google isn't being very helpful at the moment.

"How does a free market prevent resource exploitation or pollution that would result in environmental destruction? "

It doesn't and can't. Only capitalist societies with moral scruples can. Capitalism can't work without god in the equation. Get rid of god and you get rid of all morals and any sense of right and wrong. Moral relativism (liberalism ,socialism, Marxism, communism) takes over and corrupts everything. The once virtuous are demonized and the wicked (Govt) are held up and worshiped as gods and saviors. Predicted 2000 years ago.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 3:34:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 6:25:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Businesses dislike regulation that targets them. Handouts are usually something you tack onto your lobbying when you already have lobbyists anyway to try to keep regulation from absolutely destroying your business. "Extra credit" if you will.

If you are in an industry which receives political attention, lobbying is necessary to stay there.

Yeah, it might be necessary for companies to fight for profitability/existence, but it's not necessary in the sense that government inherently creates a lobbying process, or at least not one to the degree that lobbyists write business legislation, such as in the US.

Judges are examples where lobbying hardly plays a role because any possibility of bias demands recusal or legal repercussions.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 3:35:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 9:18:21 PM, sadolite wrote:

It doesn't and can't. Only capitalist societies with moral scruples can. Capitalism can't work without god in the equation. Get rid of god and you get rid of all morals and any sense of right and wrong. Moral relativism (liberalism ,socialism, Marxism, communism) takes over and corrupts everything. The once virtuous are demonized and the wicked (Govt) are held up and worshiped as gods and saviors. Predicted 2000 years ago.

Lol...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 4:06:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 3:34:22 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 8/12/2011 6:25:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Businesses dislike regulation that targets them. Handouts are usually something you tack onto your lobbying when you already have lobbyists anyway to try to keep regulation from absolutely destroying your business. "Extra credit" if you will.

If you are in an industry which receives political attention, lobbying is necessary to stay there.

Yeah, it might be necessary for companies to fight for profitability/existence, but it's not necessary in the sense that government inherently creates a lobbying process, or at least not one to the degree that lobbyists write business legislation, such as in the US.

Judges are examples where lobbying hardly plays a role because any possibility of bias demands recusal or legal repercussions.

I think you might mean something different by "lobbying" than what it actually means. Strictly speaking, what lawyers do could easily be called lobbying. It doesn't take a professional called a "lobbyist" to give someone money you know.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 6:45:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 3:35:07 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 8/12/2011 9:18:21 PM, sadolite wrote:

It doesn't and can't. Only capitalist societies with moral scruples can. Capitalism can't work without god in the equation. Get rid of god and you get rid of all morals and any sense of right and wrong. Moral relativism (liberalism ,socialism, Marxism, communism) takes over and corrupts everything. The once virtuous are demonized and the wicked (Govt) are held up and worshiped as gods and saviors. Predicted 2000 years ago.


Lol...

You lauagh and right before your very eyes you see the result of eliminating god. But you think it is something else. Corrupt godless scum are responsible for all the fiscal ills of this nation. If it isn't that then what is it? Unqualified people making poor business decicisions? Not liklely.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%