This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man.

[AyeYo]

Although this true enough taken alone, it's not relevent to the argument because I have already shown that it's possible, by presenting an existing solution.  Are you twelve?

It's not a solution if it doesn't apply to everyone affected by the problem.

[1713890469]

1713890469

[1713890469]

1713890469

[1713890469]

1713890469

[MoonShadow]

Although this true enough taken alone, it's not relevent to the argument because I have already shown that it's possible, by presenting an existing solution.  Are you twelve?

It's not a solution if it doesn't apply to everyone affected by the problem.

Nothing in life is absolute.  You are tweleve, aren't you?

[em3rgentOrdr]

Real world example #1:

Fantasy Free Market Liberland economics says that if Company A grossly pollutes the environment, consumers will eventually stop purchasing from them and instead purchase from Company B that does not pollute the environment, because most people don't want their environment polluted.

Outside of the Fantasy Free Market Liberland, the consumer has no idea that Company A is a gross polluter and Company B doesn't pollute at all.  That blows this entire idea of "the market will work everything out" right out of the water, and also shows how what you don't know can hurt you.  Uninformed consumers and citizens cannot make truly voluntary decisions because they have no idea where their dollar is going.

In free market landia (where property rights are respected), pollution would be treated as a form of trespass.  Company A will be held legally liable for any damage done to neighboring property owners affected by the pollution.

Alright, now we're getting somewhere!

Who will hold them legally liable?

The private courts/defense/legal/insurance/dispute-resolution agencies (I've heard various names and various formations).

Who will assess damage?

Just recently, my car was involved in a collision.  My insurance company provided me with a list of various collision repair shops which they had selected as meeting their standards for accurate cost estimation of damages.  I then chose one.  Most likely you would see something similar in free-market-landia.  Assuming there would be a large body of past knowledge about the damage done by various pollution factors on various pieces of property and on humans health.  There would be different companies out there who would specialize in measuring and assesing the polution damage.  Your insurance company could then obtain an estimate from them.

Who will put a monetary figure on, say, decreased air quality?

Assuming there is a large body of scientific study on the effect of the pollution on human health, there experts could estimate the damage done to a human's health based on a certain degree of exposure to the pollutants.  (I guess one issue right now is that we simply don't know the effect of many pollutants on humans).  Depending on which insurance company you subscribe to, they  would have a certain rate of payment based on such factors as the number of years your life would be shortened or other damage to your family's health.  Since your insurance company would have to pay monetary damages to your family due to premature death or damage to your health, your insurance company would be inventivized in measuring and minimizing the damage done to you, and would either forbid you to live near dangerous polluters, or if a dangerous polluter attempted to build a factory near your place, they would pursue legal action against the aggressor company.

Real world example #2:

Fantasy Free Market Liberland economics says that if Company A grossly pollutes the environment, consumers will eventually stop purchasing from them and instead purchase from Company B that does not pollute the environment, because most people don't want their environment polluted.

Outside of the Fantasy Free Market Liberland, BOTH Company A and Company B are gross polluters.  There are no other companies in the industry.  Consumers are now forced (there's that word you hate so much) to support the pollution of public resources or go without an entire set of products and/or services offered by this industry. 

In free market landia, Company A and Company B will be shutdown immediately.  The stock owners and the managers responsible for the pollution will be held legally liable for any damages done.  Therefore they must provide restitution.  If not, then the private defense agencies of the homeowners and other property owners affected by the pollution will collaberate to arrest the managers or otherwise forcibly shut down Company A and Company B.

Sounds reasonable and realistic enough.  Just a couple questions...

Again, who sets the value on the damages done when the value is abstract?  Who determines at what point these company's are subject to arrest by these private defense funds?  Pollution is a fact of production.  Who sets the threshold?

Eventually, such a peer-to-peer based legal system would reach precise monetary damage rates and threshold, and possibly a universal damage rate and threshold would arise through the emergent order.  Through a large history of legal precedents, a Common Law may emerge.

If Company A and B are successfully shut down, what happens to their assets?  

What happens to property owners who cannot afford a defense fund, who protects their right to not be poisoned by toxic waste?

Even if you are a homeless nobody, there will still be a legal claim on damage done to you.  This claim can be "homestead" by any lawyer to take to court and receive damage.  Market-anarchist Roderick Long does a great job explaining this in his "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections" under objection ( The Rich Will Rule copied below:

Worries about poor victims who can't afford legal services, or victims who die without heirs — in the case of poor victims, you can do what they did in Medieval Iceland. You're too poor to purchase legal services, but still, if someone has harmed you, you have a claim to compensation from that person. You can sell that claim, part of the claim or all of the claim, to someone else. Actually, it's kind of like hiring a lawyer on a contingency fee basis. You can sell to someone who is in a position to enforce your claim. Or, if you die without heirs, in a sense, one of the goods you left behind was your claim to compensation, and that can be homesteaded.

So under libertarian law, since lawyers can still initiate legal action posthumously representing a homeless nobody, then therefore polluters could still be held legally responsible for damages done to homeless nobodies, and will therefore be incentivized to avoid treading on the nobodies.

How is the scope of affect determined?  If I've got soot on the side of my house and my drinking water tastes like sewage, those are obvious affects.  When all the bees die off and the farmer has nothing to pollenate his crops, who pays for that?

Hmm...I guess this really depends on whether this is an actual scientifically proven correlation and is measurable.  All I can say is that science and accurate measurement is important.  This issue remains the same for both statist and non-statist societies, though.

When food prices go up because of this, who pays for that?

If food prices go up, then the market will incentivize people to purchase less food and grow more food.  Then will reach a new equilibrium, so problem solved.  Just like what happens when there is a drought or massive disaster in some part of the world today.

 Markets are massively linked, how are all the far-reaching affects dealt with so that people who had no voluntary connection to the original issue are not affected by it (or at least compensated for it)?

Hopefully people plan ahead by stocking up on food/emergency supplies and purchasing insurance to handle significant but rare problems that are out of their control.  For instance, once I got into a collision with an uninsured driver.  Fortunately I had enough foresight and included uninsured driver coverage in my insurance plan, so it was not a big deal.

Real world example #3:

AIG et.al. create complex, dangerous finanical instruments.  They market them as something they are not (lack of disclosure due to no regulation, strike one) and sell these instruments to investors as "safe" investments.  The investments aren't safe, but the investors don't know that (access to information disparity, strike two).  These "safe" investments go bust and take down the entire world's economy.  The decisions of just a handful of corporate executives negatively impacted the majority of the developed world's population who had absolutely no say in the decision making, but nevertheless suffered the consequences (the actions of a few affect the lives of many, strike three).

In free market landia, ordinary people will not be forced to use government fiat currencies that are regulated by the FED and banks.  Ordinary people will be able to use bitcoin, a peer-to-peer distributed currencies which makes the entire banking industry obsolete.

I think P2P currencies will be more of a suppliment than a replacement, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Sorry for all the questions, but you seem to the best first person that might actually give me answers instead of dodging them.

No problem.  I used to have these doubts as well.  You just have to realize that people are smart, and if there is a problem that needs to be solved, some entrepreneur will think of a creative way to solve it.  And again, the ideas discussed above are just one possible way to handle such problems.  I don't claim to be able to predict all the massive number of alternatives ways that a libertarian society could handle such problems.

[NghtRppr]

I don't claim to be able to predict all the massive number of alternatives ways that a libertarian society could handle such problems.

Let's assume, arguendo, that there is some awful, terrible problem that can't be solved by a libertarian society. I say too bad. It still doesn't justify putting your hands on other people and their property. This entire exercise in coming up with plausible solutions is pointless and irrelevant. In a libertarian society, the only thing you are forced to do is keep your hands off of other people and their property. I challenge someone to give me an example to the contrary. Otherwise, my point stands and consequences be damned. "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall." -John Quincy Adams

[benjamindees]

Obama: Advanced manufacturing can boost jobs

Now he thinks robots will create jobs.  At this point I just kind of feel sorry for him.

[AyeYo]

Real world example #1:

Fantasy Free Market Liberland economics says that if Company A grossly pollutes the environment, consumers will eventually stop purchasing from them and instead purchase from Company B that does not pollute the environment, because most people don't want their environment polluted.

Outside of the Fantasy Free Market Liberland, the consumer has no idea that Company A is a gross polluter and Company B doesn't pollute at all.  That blows this entire idea of "the market will work everything out" right out of the water, and also shows how what you don't know can hurt you.  Uninformed consumers and citizens cannot make truly voluntary decisions because they have no idea where their dollar is going.

In free market landia (where property rights are respected), pollution would be treated as a form of trespass.  Company A will be held legally liable for any damage done to neighboring property owners affected by the pollution.

Alright, now we're getting somewhere!

Who will hold them legally liable?

The private courts/defense/legal/insurance/dispute-resolution agencies (I've heard various names and various formations).

Sounds reasonable enough at face value, but I question how sustainable it would be.

This is very important... What prevents the massive, large and powerful polluting companies from buying up all the private courts/resolution agencies?

Who will assess damage?

Just recently, my car was involved in a collision.  My insurance company provided me with a list of various collision repair shops which they had selected as meeting their standards for accurate cost estimation of damages.  I then chose one.  Most likely you would see something similar in free-market-landia.  Assuming there would be a large body of past knowledge about the damage done by various pollution factors on various pieces of property and on humans health.  There would be different companies out there who would specialize in measuring and assesing the polution damage.  Your insurance company could then obtain an estimate from them.

Alright, that one I'll buy.  Seems both sound in theory and doable in the real world.

Who will put a monetary figure on, say, decreased air quality?

Assuming there is a large body of scientific study on the effect of the pollution on human health, there experts could estimate the damage done to a human's health based on a certain degree of exposure to the pollutants.  (I guess one issue right now is that we simply don't know the effect of many pollutants on humans).  Depending on which insurance company you subscribe to, they  would have a certain rate of payment based on such factors as the number of years your life would be shortened or other damage to your family's health.  Since your insurance company would have to pay monetary damages to your family due to premature death or damage to your health, your insurance company would be inventivized in measuring and minimizing the damage done to you, and would either forbid you to live near dangerous polluters, or if a dangerous polluter attempted to build a factory near your place, they would pursue legal action against the aggressor company.

Again, reasonable and realistic enough that I'll agree it's possible.

Real world example #2:

Fantasy Free Market Liberland economics says that if Company A grossly pollutes the environment, consumers will eventually stop purchasing from them and instead purchase from Company B that does not pollute the environment, because most people don't want their environment polluted.

Outside of the Fantasy Free Market Liberland, BOTH Company A and Company B are gross polluters.  There are no other companies in the industry.  Consumers are now forced (there's that word you hate so much) to support the pollution of public resources or go without an entire set of products and/or services offered by this industry.  

In free market landia, Company A and Company B will be shutdown immediately.  The stock owners and the managers responsible for the pollution will be held legally liable for any damages done.  Therefore they must provide restitution.  If not, then the private defense agencies of the homeowners and other property owners affected by the pollution will collaberate to arrest the managers or otherwise forcibly shut down Company A and Company B.

Sounds reasonable and realistic enough.  Just a couple questions...

Again, who sets the value on the damages done when the value is abstract?  Who determines at what point these company's are subject to arrest by these private defense funds?  Pollution is a fact of production.  Who sets the threshold?

Eventually, such a peer-to-peer based legal system would reach precise monetary damage rates and threshold, and possibly a universal damage rate and threshold would arise through the emergent order.  Through a large history of legal precedents, a Common Law may emerge.

Same question, who prevents a rich guy/large business from owning this private legal system?  i.e. how are monopolies and conflict of interest ownership controlled, if they're controlled at all?

If Company A and B are successfully shut down, what happens to their assets?  

What happens to property owners who cannot afford a defense fund, who protects their right to not be poisoned by toxic waste?

Even if you are a homeless nobody, there will still be a legal claim on damage done to you.  This claim can be "homestead" by any lawyer to take to court and receive damage.  Market-anarchist Roderick Long does a great job explaining this in his "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections" under objection ( The Rich Will Rule copied below:

Worries about poor victims who can't afford legal services, or victims who die without heirs — in the case of poor victims, you can do what they did in Medieval Iceland. You're too poor to purchase legal services, but still, if someone has harmed you, you have a claim to compensation from that person. You can sell that claim, part of the claim or all of the claim, to someone else. Actually, it's kind of like hiring a lawyer on a contingency fee basis. You can sell to someone who is in a position to enforce your claim. Or, if you die without heirs, in a sense, one of the goods you left behind was your claim to compensation, and that can be homesteaded.

So under libertarian law, since lawyers can still initiate legal action posthumously representing a homeless nobody, then therefore polluters could still be held legally responsible for damages done to homeless nobodies, and will therefore be incentivized to avoid treading on the nobodies.

Reasonable on the surface, but what entity is actually enforcing the fact that Joe Poor Nobody has a claim to compenstation, never mind actually ensures he gets his money?  What's preventing the polluters from telling him to get fucked (they know he has no recourse)?  What's preventing the lawyers from making his claim money disappear into their own pockets without ever notifying him (they know he can't afford to pursue legal action against them)?

How is the scope of affect determined?  If I've got soot on the side of my house and my drinking water tastes like sewage, those are obvious affects.  When all the bees die off and the farmer has nothing to pollenate his crops, who pays for that?

Hmm...I guess this really depends on whether this is an actual scientifically proven correlation and is measurable.  All I can say is that science and accurate measurement is important.  This issue remains the same for both statist and non-statist societies, though.

Good point.

When food prices go up because of this, who pays for that?

If food prices go up, then the market will incentivize people to purchase less food and grow more food.  Then will reach a new equilibrium, so problem solved.  Just like what happens when there is a drought or massive disaster in some part of the world today.

That's beside the point though.  People are now making due with less food at higher prices because of the negligent and/or harmful acts of others that were out of their control (i.e. libertarian lingo "coercion").  What is in place to prevent these market forces from affect people that never agreed to be affected by it (same idea as libertarians complaining about the "zomg I never signed a social contract" in our current society)?

 Markets are massively linked, how are all the far-reaching affects dealt with so that people who had no voluntary connection to the original issue are not affected by it (or at least compensated for it)?

Hopefully people plan ahead by stocking up on food/emergency supplies and purchasing insurance to handle significant but rare problems that are out of their control.  For instance, once I got into a collision with an uninsured driver.  Fortunately I had enough foresight and included uninsured driver coverage in my insurance plan, so it was not a big deal.

Again, that's beside the point.  See above question, how are "coercive" market forces prevented from affecting people that didn't volunteer to be affected by them.

Real world example #3:

AIG et.al. create complex, dangerous finanical instruments.  They market them as something they are not (lack of disclosure due to no regulation, strike one) and sell these instruments to investors as "safe" investments.  The investments aren't safe, but the investors don't know that (access to information disparity, strike two).  These "safe" investments go bust and take down the entire world's economy.  The decisions of just a handful of corporate executives negatively impacted the majority of the developed world's population who had absolutely no say in the decision making, but nevertheless suffered the consequences (the actions of a few affect the lives of many, strike three).

In free market landia, ordinary people will not be forced to use government fiat currencies that are regulated by the FED and banks.  Ordinary people will be able to use bitcoin, a peer-to-peer distributed currencies which makes the entire banking industry obsolete.

I think P2P currencies will be more of a suppliment than a replacement, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Sorry for all the questions, but you seem to the best first person that might actually give me answers instead of dodging them.

No problem.  I used to have these doubts as well.  You just have to realize that people are smart, and if there is a problem that needs to be solved, some entrepreneur will think of a creative way to solve it.  And again, the ideas discussed above are just one possible way to handle such problems.  I don't claim to be able to predict all the massive number of alternatives ways that a libertarian society could handle such problems.

My issue isn't that I have any doubt that people are smart enough to solve problems.  My issues is that the rich and powerful are smart (and powerful) enough to game any system that you manage to put in place, unless that system is equally as powerful as they are and properly protected from their influence.  The weaker you make the system of government and the laxer the regulations, the less hurdles there are for these people to jump over before they can have the run of the place.  Currently, they need to go through all the time and effort of controlling the government before they can control society.  Without government, they can control society directly with even less effort and with absolutely no recourse for the masses short of armed conflict.  That's my worry.

Thanks for actually directly answering my questions though.  Nice to see someone here has a solid enough grasp of what they believe to properly defend it without dishonest debate tactics.

[AyeYo]

Obama: Advanced manufacturing can boost jobs

Now he thinks robots will create jobs.  At this point I just kind of feel sorry for him.

It's not his fault you take what he says out of context in order to support your world view.

[benjamindees]

It's not his fault you take what he says out of context in order to support your world view.

I'm sure you have no idea what my world view is, regardless...

President Barack Obama says technological innovations such as robots can help pump jobs into the economy and spur growth in clean energy and advanced manufacturing.

Does that mean something different to you?

[AyeYo]

It's not his fault you take what he says out of context in order to support your world view.

I'm sure you have no idea what my world view is, regardless...

President Barack Obama says technological innovations such as robots can help pump jobs into the economy and spur growth in clean energy and advanced manufacturing.

Does that mean something different to you?

Nope, but the quote this thread is about sure as hell does, and that's where you're coming up with the idea that he's being inconsistent. 

[benjamindees]

I never said he was inconsistent.  I said he was a retard.

But do you agree that robots create jobs?

[AyeYo]

I never said he was inconsistent.  I said he was a retard.

But do you agree that robots create jobs?

Yes, someone needs to make the robots, someone needs to build the facilities to make the robots, someone needs to design the robots, someone needs to design the facilities, someone needs to bankroll all of this, someone needs to supply the raw materials, etc.

So, yes, in the short run it has the potential to create some jobs.

[benjamindees]

NEWSFLASH: Obama's Latest Plan to Lower Unemployment and End the Great Recession

"In the short run it has the potential to create some jobs," say supporters.

[em3rgentOrdr]

NEWSFLASH: Obama's Latest Plan to Lower Unemployment and End the Great Recession

"In the short run it has the potential to create some jobs," say supporters.

 

It seems like every week since 2008 that Obama announces a new plan to solve the economy. Yay!

[epi 1:10,000]

I never said he was inconsistent.  I said he was a retard.

But do you agree that robots create jobs?

You bet your ass they do.

http://absurdresults.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/obama-stop-the-rise-of-the-machines/

...is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers . . . . If you see it when you go to a bank you use the ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller.

This reminds me of time when people were against lightbulbs because it would put candle workers out of business. I'm sorry you would prefer unskilled production over skilled technicians building our new tomorrow. However, I cannot empathize with your will to destroy wealth creation by making less efficient businesses in the name of putting more people to work in practically useless jobs. You don't like humanity, you don't like meeting needs, you just like putting numbers on paper.

I cannot believe any rational man would nearly advocate the dissolution of technology and wealth in the name of just pure numbers employment. It sickens me.

Thats a bit harsh...   Every president with his speech writing and talking points corps are bound to throw out a stinker every now and then.

[benjamindees]

But do you agree that robots create jobs?

You bet your ass they do.

Please explain how, in explicit detail.

[myrkul]

But do you agree that robots create jobs?

You bet your ass they do.

Please explain how, in explicit detail.

Ain't gonna program, build, maintain, clean, or repair itself, is it?

[benjamindees]

Ain't gonna program, build, maintain, clean, or repair itself, is it?

Net jobs.

(But to answer your question, there's no reason why not.)

[AyeYo]

Ain't gonna program, build, maintain, clean, or repair itself, is it?

Net jobs.

Then you're going to need to tell us what kind of robots.

[myrkul]

Ain't gonna program, build, maintain, clean, or repair itself, is it?

Net jobs.

(But to answer your question, there's no reason why not.)

Can't be elephants all the way down.

[benjamindees]

Then you're going to need to tell us what kind of robots.

You tell me, since I'm the one who asked the question.  What kind of robots create net jobs?  Crappy ones?