How does ancap deal with an oil spill?

[Bitcoin Oz]

Who is going to protect this company from responsibility ?  Why is corporate welfare better ?

[Equilux]

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 ...

[Stardust]

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.

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?

[myrkul]

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?

[FirstAscent]

Everyone,

In this thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92952.0 ), 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.

[theymos]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[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

[cbeast]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[dree12]

(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.

[myrkul]

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.

[CoinDiver]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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)

[CoinDiver]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[myrkul]

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?

[FirstAscent]

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?

[CoinDiver]

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