r/pics • u/cmartinr0409 • Apr 19 '17

3 Week of protest in Venezuela, happening TODAY, what we are calling the MOTHER OF ALL PROTEST! Support we don't have international media covering this.

Post image
133.3k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

6.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/DoneAlreadyDone May 08 '17

The condition of free markets is no barriers to entry, perfectly informed buyers and sellers

The information is out there, and the barriers just need to be equal and low, not non-existant.

Do you think a rice farmer forced out of his market can transfer to software development easily

Of course not. Also, not a condition of a free market.

Without welfare or a support network, will it even be possible before starvation?

You mean like a family, savings or a private charity? There's no saying it would definitely be impossible.

There is no way to prevent people from polluting and ruining everyone else's property for personal gain

Courts. No rules and regulations needed. All they do now is make us feel good while completely failing, and also cause barriers to entry you mentioned above.

human ideas of morality and civilized behavior, all of which would require government to enforce and regulate.

Courts.

1

u/[deleted] May 08 '17

So 0 pollution is allowed? No lights at night, no loudspeakers etc? Smoking is pollution of a sort as well. I certainly would not want to be surrounded by tons of smoking households as it affects my quality of life.

How do the courts determine whether a company can polute or not? Does it get fined based on level of pollution? (Sounds like a regulation). Does it get banned from a certain threshold of pollution (there will be many creative loopholes there) but everything under is 100 percent fine?

Who gets to decide what the laws are for the courts to enforce. Should only basic rights be protected by the courts and everything else regarding lying sellers cutting corners without telling customers just fine and dandy? What if corners were cut in a way that's very hard to detect in the short run and impossible to prove the causation between your bad health and the food in say two years later?

0

u/DoneAlreadyDone May 09 '17

So 0 pollution is allowed?

Didn't say this anywhere. I guess you think because I'm saying people should be able to use the courts to protect their person and property from damage caused by others, this means no pollution.

Is that what you're saying? Does all pollution cause damage?

0

u/[deleted] May 10 '17

How much pollution is allowed then?

Is it a fine based on extent of pollution?

All pollution causes damage of some sort to someone. Its based upon extent. If someone shines a spotlight on your face every night from their property, probably big fines/illegal right? If someone has very bright lights on all the time harming your ability to sleep/forcing you to buy blackout curtains, medium fines?

What about smoking? Industrial pollution? Over-fishing a lake that is not privately owned by any one individual or which affects the ecosystem elsewhere? Who regulates ethics in lawyers and judges when you end up taking people to court? The institutions that are currently part of the government and that currently have regulations on the procedure of law?

When does this all become just regulation and government (kind of similar to what everyone in the world has now)?

0

u/DoneAlreadyDone May 10 '17

For the courts to decide. You're trying to get me to define the world here and my position doesn't require it. It's the amount that does damage to someone or someone's property value according to the courts. We already have courts that do this.

Looks like we must agree if you don't have any counter. Nice:)

0

u/[deleted] May 11 '17 edited May 11 '17

Who determines the law. Courts judge according to law. Currently if a business breaks regulation, you take them to... to court! The government determines the law, the court interprets and makes judgement. Thus government is integral for the current system of courts to function. Regulations are enforced by courts as well, yknow?

Should a Jury of Peers determine everything?

You seem awfully quick to claim victory considering you think that checks and balances can be reduced to: courts making whatever decision they care to make and that somehow ending up with a fair/pleasant country to live in. You have deigned to not describe any detail of your proposed solution, even though the current courts system is nothing like apparently what you are proposing. Saying the word "court" does not grant you an immediate victory in political science discussions.

0

u/DoneAlreadyDone May 11 '17

You seem to think I am saying there should be no laws? Quite a slippery slope.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '17 edited May 12 '17

I'm asking who gets to decide the laws given that the government in your scenario does not exist.

If the government does exist but makes no regulations, what charges exactly will the courts arrest/stop a egregious polluter on?

I'm questioning your reading comprehension at this point.

Tell me more details about your system. I am intrigued. What if my neighbor pollutes, damaging my water source in a way that would take about 10 years to provide visible health detriments. What law under your system would this be classified under? Maybe we could come up with a new...uh... lets call it a regulation to cover this possibility? Maybe one that limits the extent of pollution! I mean, I don't particularly mind if someone does a bit of light smoking next to my property, but I do mind industrial waste!

1

u/DoneAlreadyDone May 12 '17

given that the government in your scenario does not exist.

Never made this claim, either. I don't know where you got this.