No Taxation...Donation!

[Birdy]

Like, in this case, the fireman. He would have the expertise to judge how much suffering would be inflicted upon him by putting out the fire. Perhaps that is why he set his fees the way he did, do you think? That the fees would compensate him for that suffering? And to force him to put out a fire against his will - and without paying the fees - would be to add suffering to that, wouldn't it? Would it not be just as fair to point the gun at the homeowner, and make him pay?

But without laws he is also able to exploit the situation.
He has the same monpoly on power that you hate, because he is the only one able to do something.

That ones easy.  Don't go meddling in other people's countries.  Leave them alone and they will most likely leave you alone.

I didn't state the terrorist was from another country, did I?

I have some questions for you, too:

Currently it's more profitable to ruin the environment than to sustain it, how do you prevent this?
If everyone is able to do what he wants, the ones that ruin the environment will outdo their competition.

[1714911327]

1714911327

[1714911327]

1714911327

[myrkul]

Currently it's more profitable to ruin the environment than to sustain it, how do you prevent this?

While I'm waiting for you to answer my question, I'll answer yours. The reason it is more profitable is because politicians are cheaper to buy than land. If you had to pay the landowners damages for polluting their land, it would be much more expensive.

[Birdy]

Currently it's more profitable to ruin the environment than to sustain it, how do you prevent this?

While I'm waiting for you to answer my question, I'll answer yours. The reason it is more profitable is because politicians are cheaper to buy than land.

Already answered (edited the last post).

If you had to pay the landowners damages for polluting their land, it would be much more expensive.

How do you do that? It's nearly impossible to measure damage done to you by pollution.
Who controls it? Who tells you how much you have to pay?

If I destroy a forest, because I've bought that land and I produce something with it (->paper or whatever->profit), who is able to measure the damage done to the environment and will have me pay for it?
Do you count per animal art gone extinct or by cms the sea level has risen? Who was responsible for this in the first place?

[Ekaros]

Currently it's more profitable to ruin the environment than to sustain it, how do you prevent this?

While I'm waiting for you to answer my question, I'll answer yours. The reason it is more profitable is because politicians are cheaper to buy than land. If you had to pay the landowners damages for polluting their land, it would be much more expensive.

Next question: Who forces you to pay the damages to landowners?

There is likely always someone who don't care about pollution, specially if you have access to international markets...

[Mike Christ]

Next question: Who forces you to pay the damages to landowners?

There is likely always someone who don't care about pollution, specially if you have access to international markets...

Private security businesses and arbitrators (which take the place of police and the justice system.)  This video can explain it quite well.

Edit:  Whups, goofed up on the URL

[Birdy]

Next question: Who forces you to pay the damages to landowners?

There is likely always someone who don't care about pollution, specially if you have access to international markets...

Private security businesses and arbitrators (which take the place of police and the justice system.)  This [urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0]video[/url] can explain it quite well.

Ok, how do you prevent those firms from working together?
Agglomeration of power is profitable for those who do it and thus creating a new monopoly.
You would end up with a state-like structure again (could be even a dictatorship-like one).

[myrkul]

Answered (edited the last post).

Like, in this case, the fireman. He would have the expertise to judge how much suffering would be inflicted upon him by putting out the fire. Perhaps that is why he set his fees the way he did, do you think? That the fees would compensate him for that suffering? And to force him to put out a fire against his will - and without paying the fees - would be to add suffering to that, wouldn't it? Would it not be just as fair to point the gun at the homeowner, and make him pay?

But without laws he is also able to exploit the situation.
He has the same monopoly on power that you hate, because he is the only one able to do something.

Why should he not gain as much benefit as he can from providing that service? As you point out, there are other people who could be helping to put out the fire. He has the fire truck though, and so he has the most efficient means. This is far from a "monopoly," just a better service that he should be better compensated for. And which he is not obligated to provide without that compensation.

If you had to pay the landowners damages for polluting their land, it would be much more expensive.

How do you do that? It's nearly impossible to measure damage done to you by pollution.
Who controls it? Who tells you how much you have to pay?

If I destroy a forest, because I've bought that land and I produce somethign with it (->paper or whatever->profit), who is able to measure the damage done to the environment and will have me pay for it?

You already have, by buying the forest. And the damages from other forms of pollution, such as dumping, or emissions, can best be judged by those actually affected by it, ie the landowners downstream or downwind from the polluter.

[Birdy]

You already have, by buying the forest.

Ok, I'm done with this forest and made a really good profit.
I'm, buying the next ones.
Now you could say, but they get scarcer in the long run, so they will be more expensive.
But at that point it's already lost and too late.

You could also say, then there will be people replanting forests.
But you cannot rebuild everything in nature yet and it also takes a lot of time to do so.

[myrkul]

You already have, by buying the forest.

Ok, I'm done with this forest and made a really good profit.
I'm, buying the next ones.
Now you could say, but they get scarcer in the long run, so they will be more expensive.
But at that point it's already lost and too late.

Have you really made a good profit? Wouldn't buying the next forest cut into that profit? Wouldn't it be wiser to maintain the forest you have, so that you can continue to make paper without buying more land?

And we haven't even discussed the consumer element. After all, in order to actually make that profit, you have to sell your paper. Would you, Birdy, buy from a paper producer who was just clearcutting entire forests and moving on?

[TomUnderSea]

Reading through this I realize that the clarity of maritime law is not familiar to large numbers of people.

Vessel A is in distress.  A sends out a distress signal.

Vessel B receives the distress signal.  B has a _moral_ not _legal_ obligation to acknowledge the signal and at least pass it along.

B is not obligated to provide any assistance at any time.  B's reputation will be effected by his peers for his action or inaction but there are no legal effects on that point.  Of course standing by and watching people die is likely to make it hard for you to show your face in public again.

If B chooses to render assistance, it can be voluntary, with no strings attached or B can request salvor rights on the property.  These rights confer some degree of interest in the saved property.  A can accept assistance with the salvor rights obligation or turn down that assistance.

To further muddy the waters....

Where I live, the government coast guard _is_ obligated to act in the event of loss of life or excessive property damage BUT they are prohibited from acting if there is a commercial salvor on-scene who is handling the problem.

There are of course, more intricate descriptions of how these relationships work but the general idea is provided.


Now, as a boat owner, it is in my interest to enter into a contract with a provider of vessel assistance if the cost of that contract is less on a time period basis than on a point of sale per incident basis.  Essentially an annual fee that is reasonable is a better deal than an event fee that could equal half the cost of the property.

BTW, the provider of vessel assistance in the region is granted periodically renewing exclusive contract for the region.  At renewal, the contract is up for bid to lowest bidder with proven response capability.  This keeps the cost low while avoiding disputes between two salvor vessels arriving on scene at the same time.

It is reasonable to envision similar public / private mixes for almost any service.  Essentially, the public part of the service is the bare minimum needed to protect society as a whole, while the private part is that which is needed by the individual member of society.  Individuals can chose what degree of service they require down to the point where their choice impacts their neighbors.

[Birdy]

You already have, by buying the forest.

Ok, I'm done with this forest and made a really good profit.
I'm, buying the next ones.
Now you could say, but they get scarcer in the long run, so they will be more expensive.
But at that point it's already lost and too late.

Have you really made a good profit? Wouldn't buying the next forest cut into that profit? Wouldn't it be wiser to maintain the forest you have, so that you can continue to make paper without buying more land?

And we haven't even discussed the consumer element. After all, in order to actually make that profit, you have to sell your paper. Would you, Birdy, buy from a paper producer who was just clearcutting entire forests and moving on?

The ocean is one of the most unregulated markets on earth right now.
Oh yeah, I can clearly see how good it works out for the fishs.
People prefer short profit over a long time profit. Also the paper will sell, as long as paper is needed.
Don't believe me? Take a look how ivory is still sold, there isn't even a real need for it.

Also people like things that are rare, if you have the last forest of a tree which is said to be the best one to build furniture, they will throw money at you.

[myrkul]

You already have, by buying the forest.

Ok, I'm done with this forest and made a really good profit.
I'm, buying the next ones.
Now you could say, but they get scarcer in the long run, so they will be more expensive.
But at that point it's already lost and too late.

Have you really made a good profit? Wouldn't buying the next forest cut into that profit? Wouldn't it be wiser to maintain the forest you have, so that you can continue to make paper without buying more land?

And we haven't even discussed the consumer element. After all, in order to actually make that profit, you have to sell your paper. Would you, Birdy, buy from a paper producer who was just clearcutting entire forests and moving on?

The ocean is one of the most unregulated markets on earth right now.
Oh yeah, I can clearly see how good it works out for the fishs.
People prefer short profit over a long time profit. Also the paper will sell, as long as paper is needed.
Don't believe me? Take a look how ivory is still sold, there isn't even a real need for it.

Who owns the fish?
Who owns the elephants?
And I take that response to mean that you would buy from a paper producer who was clearcutting?
So much for your principles.

[Birdy]

The ocean is one of the most unregulated markets on earth right now.
Oh yeah, I can clearly see how good it works out for the fishs.
People prefer short profit over a long time profit. Also the paper will sell, as long as paper is needed.
Don't believe me? Take a look how ivory is still sold, there isn't even a real need for it.

Who owns the fish?
Who owns the elephants?
And I take that response to mean that you would buy from a paper producer who was clearcutting?
So much for your principles.

So you are saying it's okay because nobody owns them?

Everybody has to take a shit and doing so without paper is a real hassle, so I guess I would, because I'm no holy men - I'm not able to stand for my principles everytime, even if I wish to.
And even if I did withstand it or find a company that could offer a sustainable option, there would be enough who wouldn't care about this, because this is just my principle, not that of everyone. People have different opinions.

[myrkul]

The ocean is one of the most unregulated markets on earth right now.
Oh yeah, I can clearly see how good it works out for the fishs.
People prefer short profit over a long time profit. Also the paper will sell, as long as paper is needed.
Don't believe me? Take a look how ivory is still sold, there isn't even a real need for it.

Who owns the fish?
Who owns the elephants?
And I take that response to mean that you would buy from a paper producer who was clearcutting?
So much for your principles.

So you are saying it's okay because nobody owns them?

No, I'm saying that it happens because nobody owns them. Where is the largest breeding population of scimitar horned oryx?

Everybody has to take a shit and doing so without paper is a real hassle, so I guess I would, because I'm no holy men - I'm not able to stand for my principles everytime, even if I wish to.
And even if I did withstand it or find a company that could offer a sustainable option, there would be enough who wouldn't care about this, because this is just my principle, not that of everyone. People have different opinions.

So, you're saying that:
Because not enough people support sustainable paper production to make it more profitable than non-sustainable production, we must pass laws (I assume democratically) to make non-sustainable paper production illegal?

[Birdy]

No, I'm saying that it happens because nobody owns them. Where is the largest breeding population of scimitar horned oryx?

I did a quick search "extinct in the wild", I cannot approve this at all.
So you want to distribute all species to people?
Ok, tell me who is gonna own midges/mosquitos and what they are gonna do with their population.

So, you're saying that:
Because not enough people support sustainable paper production to make it more profitable than non-sustainable production, we must pass laws (I assume democratically) to make non-sustainable paper production illegal?

No I'm saying that even if 90% of people agree on this (remember this will only be the case once it's a problem), the 10% others are free to buy what they want and will destroy the rest.

[myrkul]

No, I'm saying that it happens because nobody owns them. Where is the largest breeding population of scimitar horned oryx?

I did a quick search "extinct in the wild", I cannot approve this at all.
So you want to distribute all species to people?
Ok, tell me who is gonna own midges/mosquitos and what they are gonna do with their population.

No, I'm saying distribute all the land/sea to people. People could then protect the animals on their property. For instance, all scimitar oryx breeding populations are on private hunting reserves. As for midges and mosquitoes, whoever wants 'em is welcome to them.

So, you're saying that:
Because not enough people support sustainable paper production to make it more profitable than non-sustainable production, we must pass laws (I assume democratically) to make non-sustainable paper production illegal?

No I'm saying that even if 90% of people agree on this (remember this will only be the case once it's a problem), the 10% others are free to buy what they want and will destroy the rest.

So, you're saying that clearcutting and selling the resultant paper to 10% of the population would be more profitable than responsible use and selling to 90% of the population?

[Ekaros]

Next question: Who forces you to pay the damages to landowners?

There is likely always someone who don't care about pollution, specially if you have access to international markets...

Private security businesses and arbitrators (which take the place of police and the justice system.)  This video can explain it quite well.

Edit:  Whups, goofed up on the URL

So from one force to an other, but this time private one... I'm not really sure it's preferable situation, as the size of companies isn't limited. The system presented in video seems scary...

[myrkul]

The system presented in video seems scary...

Why?

[Ekaros]

The system presented in video seems scary...

Why?

I see dystopian future of mega corporations, corporate war, lack of regulation and slavery.

I don't trust in free market, eventually some player will grow to be too large and it's too late for collective incentive to go against it... Really just think how many people go for the cheapest option, not regarding other cost involved. Corporations or large entities aren't moral, they are out for their own good and can be rather short sighted...

[Mike Christ]

So from one force to an other, but this time private one... I'm not really sure it's preferable situation, as the size of companies isn't limited. The system presented in video seems scary...

Would you rather have competing services for security, who you use and pay for on a voluntary basis, or a single, all-powerful monopoly on the security service industry, which you must pay for involuntarily?  Personally, I wouldn't like it if McDonalds was the only burger joint in the nation, of which I had to pay them every time they set up a new store, or risk jail time; they could then charge 20$ a burger and take their time filling out orders at the drive thru--I mean, where else are you gonna go for fast food?

I think, when it boils down to it, people are always willing to pay for security, so there may as well be competition to provide the best service possible.  As in the case of the monostatism, they can essentially do what they want without fear that another government will out perform them.  They can provide a terrible service and charge out the butt to use it; since they own the military, they can also force you to pay for their service, whether you want it or not.  It's a pretty ugly system that we have now, if you ask me, full of bullying and corruption.