How do people resolve damages caused by the BP oil spill? Would courts exist in an anarchist society? And wouldn't these courts be defined as some sort of government?
The courts would become a market entity like every thing else, judges would be like any seller of a service... Only the ones who made the fairest and most just decisions regarding property rights would survive the market test. The corrupt ones would fold.
Insurance companies most likely would offer these services but the corrupt institutions they are now would need to be cleaned up by the market as well.
In the case of BP, all property owners would be free to file suit for damages against the group of individuals called BP. They could contract any court they wish to hear the case and provide a summary judgment. And, as private ownership of the courts would mean that the prices would fall and the quality would tend to increase, you could afford these services with the what once was income tax turned into added income.
This assumes that public property ceases to exist and only private ownership prevails.
Note: If the ocean was divided, as is land, and owned by private owners, then the cost for BP would be much higher. As it is now, the government just makes up a dollar / damage figure for all government land; collective purposes.
Last edited by awake; 07-04-2010 at 07:25 PM.
hahaha.Originally Posted by awake
i'd love to smoke some of that anarchist pot...
Cool, we have courts, but what about people that live in the north like myself. I don't give a damn about what happens in LA, especially if it has an impact on gas prices. And who's to stop BP from telling these courts to simply $#@! off? I'm sure they can buy judges or choose to ignore people that are affected. And if the private sectore decides to counteract the unfairness of BP with violence, who's to stop BP from raising an army of mercenaries of their own?
I would highly recommend posting that question in the leading intellectual forum on free markets at Mises.com.
you could do that.
or you could also realize that thinking about the questions the OP posted is enough to conclude that anarchy is a fantasy.
It's obvious that Low Preference Guy has a firm understanding of the subject, judging by how compelling and reasonable his arguments are.
Last edited by ClayTrainor; 07-04-2010 at 07:26 PM. Reason: fixed typo
"One of the great victories of the state, is that the word "Anarchy" terrifies people but, the word "State" does not" - Tom Woods
Those who own the land/waters affected might sue BP in private court. (since the oceans would not be a "commons" in a stateless society, BP would've had to ensure beyond reasonable doubt to the owners of the ocean that their operation is safe.) In the unlikely event that a spill would happen, the terms of the contract between BP and the ocean owners would contain a clause explaining legal ramificiations for a spill(to clarify my opening statement).
I may write more about this later. Thanks for asking!
without reading your question, I think this will answer you adequately
YouTube - WKUK Anarchy
I think this article from the Center for a Stateless Society will give you some valuable insight.
http://c4ss.org/content/2685
In a Truly Free Market, BP Would Be Toast
Advocates for the regulatory state are fond of complaining that things like the financial meltdown, the BP oil spill, and the like, are the result of an “unregulated marketplace.”
But it was federal loan guarantees that first made securitized mortgages into a marketable asset. And I wouldn’t consider a $75 million cap on liability to be exactly “laissez-faire.”
That’s right. No matter how bad an oil spill, no matter how many billions of dollars of economic damage it causes, the company is only liable for $75 million over and above cleanup costs. And they can probably save more than that on the bottom line by deliberately skimping on safety precautions, with a perverse incentive structure of (as Steve Horwitz puts it) “Heads I win, tails I don’t lose.” That’s exactly the kind of incentive structure that caused Ludwig von Mises to dismiss the Oskar Lange model of market socialism as simply “playing at the market,” because the manager had nothing to lose personally.
And libertarian class analysis tells us that, despite what idealistic liberals want to believe, creating such incentive structures is the main thing governments are about. As left-wingers like Noam Chomksky put it, the idea is to socialize risk and cost and privatize profit. And Murray Rothbard described it as “our corporate state” subsidizing the operating costs of big business.
Let’s take a look, instead, at how a free market (a genuine free market, in which all economic actors do business on their own nickel, as opposed to the system of corporate-government collusion we’ve had for over 150 years) might deal with something like the British Petroleum oil spill.
Without a government-imposed liability cap, BP would be liable to the full value of its assets not only for cleanup costs, but for the full amount of economic damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Estimates of damage to tourism and fishing center on around $5 billion, but it could be far worse if the slick spreads far enough to affect fishing and boating for Florida’s $65 billion tourism industry (just think of the Everglades). Keep in mind, also, that we’re not just talking about one-off costs this year; we’re talking about big hits to fishing and tourism for years to come, especially as the movement of toxic chemicals up the food chain may make Gulf seafood inedible for generations. This is not just a one-year loss of income from 130,000 fishing jobs, but possibly an end to these people’s careers. There are also possible indirect effects if the loss of wetlands increases coastal areas’ vulnerability to hurricanes.
And that’s not even taking into account the possibility of criminal negligence by BP executives — who apparently rivaled Massey Energy’s Don Blankenship in cutting corners for just about every conceivable kind of safety measure — and the cleaning out of their personal assets by angry juries.
And remember, we’re talking about liability in addition to cleanup costs, which were $3.8 billion for the less severe Exxon Valdez spill.
These cumulative damages stack up pretty tall against BP’s total equity, which was around a hundred billion (at least before its stock took a hit the last month or so).
So absent a liability cap, as the flood of individual and class action lawsuits ate up the company’s equity, the market pressure for holding robust liability insurance (for damages up to tens of billions of dollars) would be a well-nigh non-negotiable prerequisite for economic viability in the industry.
And let’s face it. After what happened with BP, in a legal regime with no limits to liability short of total liquidation of a corporation’s assets, insurers will have a pretty significant interest in making sure policy-holders don’t bankrupt them.
What passed for federal regulations were ineffectual because, among other things, it’s not the federal government’s own money that’s at risk. Things get downright chummy between regulators and regulated. Inspectors sleeping with executives and snorting crystal meth off of toaster ovens is what you call a “public-private partnership,” I guess.
I mean, seriously. When Congress and the White House are packed with people who all got millions of dollars in campaign contributions from all sorts of regulated industries, and most of the political appointees in regulatory bodies are former directors and vice presidents of corporations in the regulated industries, how tough do you think that regulation’s gonna be? Last I heard, brown pelicans don’t contribute much to campaign funds.
But if relations between regulators and regulated aren’t really all that adversarial, you know what is adversarial? Relations between insurers and the insured. Insurance companies are notorious for not liking to pay claims, and for taking an adversarial view of policyholders who make them. Especially when slipshod safety measures mean a multi-billion dollar payout from the insurance company’s own funds. And the “adversarial” relationship is likely to entail things like actual inspections to make sure the failsafe devices work, maybe requiring relief wells as a standard precaution, things like that.
Insurance companies take the kind of adversarial attitude toward the insured that liberals only wish government regulators took toward regulated industries.
"One of the great victories of the state, is that the word "Anarchy" terrifies people but, the word "State" does not" - Tom Woods
A private court. Who cares if BP complies with a private court? If I were BP, I would weigh my costs. The costs of losing a few customers in the areas affect VS. the cost of raising the price on my customers in the northern states that may not care about what's happening to people on the coasts.Those who own the land/waters affected might sue BP in private court. (since the oceans would not be a "commons" in a stateless society, BP would've had to ensure beyond reasonable doubt to the owners of the ocean that their operation is safe.) In the unlikely event that a spill would happen, the terms of the contract between BP and the ocean owners would contain a clause explaining legal ramificiations for a spill(to clarify my opening statement).
I may write more about this later. Thanks for asking!
If I were BP, an international company, why couldn't I just ignore what a court in LA says? Seriously, if I were BP, I would ignore all that $#@!, because accidents happen (that would be my line of reasoning, and who care's what my line of reasoning is, what the hell are they going to do about it anyways?)
Sorry if I sound uncaring. It's just that caring for your fellow man doesn't seem as much of an obligation when very few of your customers are pissed off at your accident and the overwhelming majority of your customers would rather keep existing prices stable in direct contrast to the people that are affected by the accident.
Since the comments in the video are against capitalism your video is an epic fail. How about going over to Mises, the academics Ron Paul supports, and find a better video.
because Mises doesn't call themselves anarchists, nor does Ron Paul advocate anarchy.
lol wut.
Lets see...
Rockwell - Anarchist
Kinsella - Anarchist
Woods - Anarchist
Tucker - Anarchist
Murphy - Anarchist
Riggenbach - Anarchist
Block - Anarchist
Hoppe - Anarchist
Long - Anarchist
Boetkke - Anarchist
Thornton - Anarchist
I could go on and on.
Even David Friedman is an anarchist, as his son Patri is also.
If the word anarchy frightens you because of the negative connotation, then they are Voluntaryists, which are principally the same thing except without the negative stigma attached. Pretty much most of the Market academics are Voluntaryists.
Last edited by Austrian Econ Disciple; 07-04-2010 at 07:55 PM.
School of Salamanca - School of Austrian Economics - Liberty, Private Property, Free-Markets, Voluntaryist, Agorist. le monde va de lui même
"No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.
www.mises.org
www.antiwar.com
An Arrow Against all Tyrants - Richard Overton vis. 1646 (Required reading!)
You're missing the point entirely. In the Stateless society, BP wouldn't even have oermission to drill unless they could prove to the owner of that part of the ocean beyond reasonable doubt that the operation is safe. The contract BP signs would also include clauses explaining how BP would compensate for mistakes. (the same kind of agreement that property owners currently have with companies who operate on their property).
is that their own self identification?
Yes, well the term is either Anarcho-Capitalist, or Voluntaryist, but Voluntaryist is catching on more and more because it avoids the negative stigma and false mischaracterizations about the philosophy of true liberty. Nothing is more annoying than debate shutdown because the person across from you is closed due to emotional sentiments. I am just wondering how you can reconcile that the biggest experiment and most illustrious to have ever occured, has turned into the biggest Government the world has ever seen.
Experience hath shewn that a State can not, and does not protect the individual (especially not ontologically).
School of Salamanca - School of Austrian Economics - Liberty, Private Property, Free-Markets, Voluntaryist, Agorist. le monde va de lui même
"No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.
www.mises.org
www.antiwar.com
An Arrow Against all Tyrants - Richard Overton vis. 1646 (Required reading!)
lol
YouTube - George Carlin -- Bull$#@! etc.
Let's say that I own that part of the ocean and don't necessarily have any problems with uncleanliness or oil seaping through. Sure I pollute my neighbor's property if the spill spreads, but I get enough "rent money" from BP so I don't give a damn about any loss in my own livelihood. What are the private courts going to do to me then? I will tell them to get off me and carry on like not a damn thing has happened.
You also stated "the contract that BP signs." Well, if BP signs with the owner of that part of the ocean (myself), and I don't particularly care about the damages, people won't get compensated for the mistakes. Plain and simple.
Actually the courts will demand you cease polluting anothers property. In fact, in early America these were called nuisance suits. They routinely forced individuals and companies to stop destroying anothers property. This would be the same thing that happened in a Voluntaryist society. Besides, what is your argument on how Canada, Mexico, the US, and Guatamela deal with an issue that effects all 4 nations? Who is the arbitrage? In fact, these nations are in a de facto state of anarchy with one another.
People need to logically examine the world around them.
School of Salamanca - School of Austrian Economics - Liberty, Private Property, Free-Markets, Voluntaryist, Agorist. le monde va de lui même
"No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.
www.mises.org
www.antiwar.com
An Arrow Against all Tyrants - Richard Overton vis. 1646 (Required reading!)
All property owners that have property damage/devalued by BP's actions may sue.
If BP is guilty, victims will be paid/property will be restored.
If BP does not comply, BP will be severely ostracized.
Companies and most people will not buy BP products. Individuals that made the decision to not comply will also be ostracized. i.e. they will not be able to do anything because they will be deemed untrustworthy. Those individuals will not be able to step off of their property.
read/listen to http://libertyactivism.info/wiki/The_Market_for_Liberty for a greater understanding.
He asked about how would private courts enforce it, you responded by referring to government courts. His question remains. What are private courts going to do about it, since they don't have the force of a government to make you abide by their ruling.
People will still buy their product if they need it. Something such as oil/gas.
Mises.com
of course, the above post is just a guess about how a free market society could work.
Because governments do not satisfy our wants/desires as quickly as markets, a free market system will be more satisfactory than any system a state could provide.
States are guided by special interests and getting elected every 4 or so years.
Markets are guided by profits. Continuous profits come from satisfied customers.
Your money business may prevent you from buying BP products. Your money may not work at BP stations. So you may have to go to the gas station across the street.
That money business does not want to be associated with a criminal business.
Lot of "may" in there. If BP has something that people NEED and offers it a lower price than competitors people will find a way to buy it from them. That money business may just put themselves out of business if their money doesn't work at BP stations. Big difference between needs and wants. The consumer has far less bargaining position in the former category. I count oil/gas as a need at this point in our industrial revolution.
I use "may" because no one knows the exact mechanisms of a free market society. I could have use "will" instead to appear more confident, but I would be lieing because I am not absolutely certain...no one is. I can't predict the future, I can only give ideas of how people could deal with this situation without initiating aggression.
Realize that entire post of yours was entirely speculative too. I could keep coming up with speculative scenarios of what could happen...but I was just trying to give the OP of an idea of what could work.
Fair enough. I'm down for giving it a shot. But I'm thinking private armies would come into being to enforce the rulings of private courts.
Courts & Police in a stateless society:
YouTube - Courts in a Stateless Society
YouTube - Police in a Stateless Society
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
You win the dumbass, thoughtless post of the day award.
Connect With Us