Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Arrian]

Back up a few pages, and read my post about how society at large ends up paying for the costs of pollution anyway.

Look, if we make companies internalize their pollution costs (both of us share this goal), the end result will be higher prices for the consumer anyway. Corporate profits may dip here and there, but by & large the result will be tranferred to the consumer no matter what. The cheap goods we enjoy are in part the result of allowing companies to pollute (especially cheap-o products from overseas in places where pollution laws are a joke). In that sense, we are all complicit.

So the costs are borne by society one way or another. This isn't a question of "us" (the innocent people) versus "them" (the oh-so-evil corporations). We're all in this. Ok, then, so the goal is to minimize pollution and clean up the rest. My solution to the problem is a moderate one desiged at getting us there without:

1) Crashing the economy
2) Poisoning the relationship between government and business

The weakness in my plan at this point is actually corporate flight overseas.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Flubber
On the consent issue, society consents to certain levels of pollution through regulations limiting it to certain levels. The fact that a proportion of people don't agree with that level is irrelevant. In ANY society there may be decisions that certain members of that society don't agree with but this makes those decisions no less binding on that society.

It's completely relevent. Will of the majority does not justify harming others without their consent under an absolute rights system (which L-F definately is). It's obviously binding, but that's a matter of some people having guns. There are plenty of things that may be determined by majority rule under L-F, but those are all things that do not harm others without their consent.

(In fact, L-F in pure form is essentially identical to absolute pure libertarianism, which is untenable for the trivial reason that it's own precepts make its enforcement impossible. I'm assuming that the L-F discussed allows taxation for the purpose of defending rights. The case for this can be made within the context of pure L-F or absolute libertarianism, but it's on more shaky ground.)

[Arrian]

Which, Kuciwalker, is where the legal system comes in.

People are NOT allowed to harm others w/o their consent. As such, if a company pollutes LEGALLY, in compliance with their permit, and said pollution ends up harming you, you can sue them.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

I just see capitalism as being the system most likely to come up with better and better measures to deal with pollution.

Now a person knows that if they can come up with innovations that can reduce emissions by 25% this could be an immensely profitable product. Faced with stiffening regulations, businesses that can innovate will do well.

One of my big complaints with communism was the lack of individual incentives or even business unit incentives to innovate. If I am the manager of Factory 12 and production and pollution are within state-approved norms, what incentive is there to design that device?? If I did design it, no doubt the state would decide to put the first ones near the capital. Heck the state might even order me out of my comfortable rural lifestyle and order me to go around the world installing these things. I rarely see my wife and child, my factory is now being run by the nephew of the Administrator of Political Unit 18 and I see no benefit at all except the knowledge that the air is a little cleaner ( and wil be in my hometown when they get around to the installation there.


Capitalism has a problem in that a new device may be considered proprietary and therefore not widely distributed immediately but at least the device stands a better chance of getting built.

[Kuciwalker]

If they have a permit, it's no longer tacit approval through lack of punitive legislation (under which conditions the courts could make the company give you reparations, possibly, but that particular aspect of our court system really has nothing to do with capitalism), but direct authorization. In that case, unless they've violated their permit, you can't sue.

EDIT: xpost

[Arrian]

Kuciwalker:

No offense, but I happen to know environmental law better than you do, it seems.

Ever heard of CERCLA? You CAN be held liable for damage caused by doing something that was entirely legal. Hell, CERCLA might not really be Consititutional, but SCOTUS ruled it was, so there ya go.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If they have a permit, it's no longer tacit approval through lack of punitive legislation (under which conditions the courts could make the company give you reparations, possibly, but that particular aspect of our court system really has nothing to do with capitalism), but direct authorization. In that case, unless they've violated their permit, you can't sue.

EDIT: xpost

Actually you are wrong. Parties get successfully sued all the time for matters where they are in violation of no permit or regulation.

The problem comes with things like air pollution. Lets say a hundred thousand businesses and 10 million automobiles contribute to the air pollution over a city. Who exactly do you sue? Society. We are all complicit to some extent.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Che:
Every major communist revolution
Of which there have been two.

You got me there.

Russia was, and I'd hardly call the Russian death toll insignificant. Nor China's.

The Russian Revolution was less bloody than the American Revolution. Their civil war was significantly worse. China's revolution began with a slaughter of the Communists by the Nationalists, and became a civil war and a Japanese invasions before the Revolution actually succeeded. If you include subsequent events under the rubric of their revolutions, then I should be allowed to inclue the Amerindian genocide under the American revolution.

I would again argue that any communist revolution since the days of Stalin were twisted by him. Once he molded the Communist Parties of the world in his image, it was inevitable that their revolutions would be his bastard children. With his baleful influence finally swept away, we can do better.

How can you give particulars to a hypothetical situation?
How can you not?

To do so would be pure speculation. I could invent a new government for you out of whole cloth, but what would be the point? It would just be something to make up. I'd be lying to you, and I have no wish to do that. Do you want me to lie to you?

If you don't plan to convert people in the manner I described above, do you not suppose it might be a good idea to try to convince us in other ways?

What do you think I'm doing now? I'm discussing, debating, etc. I have no wish to convert everyone, to force my ideas down people's throats. I will admit that the "Communist Party of Apolyton" is based on my conception of what a party should be, but that conception is to have divergent views together, and that we don't all have to agree. Bad me for forcing plurality on my comrades.

Demonstrate how it'll be different this time around, maybe?

We aren't Stalinists. We aren't brutal thugs who fear difference. We can see the mistakes made by those who came before us, and try not to repeat them.

Do you notice me and kid agreeing on everything?
Indeed...and therein lies another problem. Global implementation is the goal, right?

Are all capitalist countries identical? There's no reason that all the socialist countries have to be identical. Each country will create its own system that fits within its own national character.

Uhm, what power vacuum?
Exactly my point. With NOTHING specific proposed and a gazillion different "utopias" proposed....yeah. Power vaccuum. People will...as people do, compete for the top slot. Historically, that has equated to....you guessed it...more bloodshed.

If the government is replaced, what vacuum is there?

That smacks of a dangerous ignorance of both history and human nature. Proceed with extreme caution, *especially* since you mean to dictate my future with your revolution.

It wasn't that long ago that people thought slavery was natural. It wasn't that long ago that people thought that the lower classes were cengenitally disposed towards ignorance and poverty. Today people claim that capitalism perfectly matches human nature, but that claim has been made about all previous economic and social systems. The truth is, peple are adaptable. It is our nature to adapt to each system.

I have no intention of dictating your future. I have no intention of dictating at all. I am no dictator. All I want to do is create a society where we all have equal access to the necessities, where there is true equality of opportunity, and where the only limitations are the ones that keep us from doing harm to others. I think the only way to do this is create a system where everyone is the government, where we all decide together, rather than abrogating that responsibility to a series of elected dictators, as we do today.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You shouldn't feel good. Your company really only cares about profit, and you will polute to a point that will maximize your profit.

Actually I feel FABULOUS. I have a meeting later and my express purpose is to try to negotiate as much PROFIT as I can from our planned arrangement. and GASP I think the other side plans to do the same thing.

Now I haven't yet figured out a way to profit more by polluting more on this particular deal so I think I'll just pour some oil on the street to compensate for my failing.

[Arrian]

Actually I feel FABULOUS

"I'm SUPER! Thanks for asking..."

Now I haven't yet figured out a way to profit more by polluting more on this particular deal so I think I'll just pour some oil on the street to compensate for my failing.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
Kuciwalker:

No offense, but I happen to know environmental law better than you do, it seems.

Ever heard of CERCLA? You CAN be held liable for damage caused by doing something that was entirely legal. Hell, CERCLA might not really be Consititutional, but SCOTUS ruled it was, so there ya go.

-Arrian

Huh? If you are given specific authorization to do something by Congress, how can you be sued?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Flubber
Actually you are wrong. Parties get successfully sued all the time for matters where they are in violation of no permit or regulation.

Do they get sued for doing exactly what the permit says they are allowed to do?

[Arrian]

I think the only way to do this is create a system where everyone is the government, where we all decide together, rather than abrogating that responsibility to a series of elected dictators, as we do today.

The problem I see with this is basically time. Our society has become more & more specialized over time, and that specialization has allowed us (collectively) to produce a helluva lot more than w/o that specialization. Odd as it may sound, representative government basically created "government" specialists, so that the rest of us can do other things.

Now, there is a DEFINITELY a downside to that. People largely ignore the government, and that is a major problem we face today. The alternative, however (direct democracy) seems... impossible to me. How can we do that and still have time for anything else?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Flubber
Actually you are wrong. Parties get successfully sued all the time for matters where they are in violation of no permit or regulation.

Do they get sued for doing exactly what the permit says they are allowed to do?

YES!

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
YES!

-Arrian

...

What's the justification there? The only rational one I can see is if the court says that whoever issued the permit doesn't have the power to issue it (i.e. Congress isn't allowed to do X, so it can't issue a permit to do X).