[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
The market could decide that pollution should be at a level which the scientific consensus believes will cause long term, irreversible damage to the planet. Is this acceptable to you? Even if the majority of consumers want to save the planet, if the minority is not coerced into it as well then we could still be f***ed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no assurance that the majority of people will choose the "right" thing. Your argument seems to be "But what if the will of the majority is not imposed on everyone else?" Of course if you think that they only possible way to determine the "right" outcome is to poll the population and rule in favor of the majority, you won't agree with anything other than democracy. The whole point is that the opinion that the majority has regarding what other people should be forced to do has nothing to do with the "optimal" solution.

[ QUOTE ]
You can play that game, but you fail. The judge here is making a very delicate decision. A few % points in either direction would lead to catastrophe for either business or the environment. The government, with a viewpoint that extends beyond punitive damages, vast reserves of researchers and advisers in different fields and on both sides and an incentive to get elected next term is far more qualified to make this close judgement call then Bobs Discount Disputes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've assumed the government has qualifications that would exceed the market judge. If the qualifications are necessary, why wouldn't the market consumers demand them from the judge? Who's going to hire Discount Bob to be their judge when they know no one else will listen to Bob's unqualified rulings? You've assumed the market judge will be unqualified, and concluded that their decisions will be bad.

[ QUOTE ]
Just in case you missed it the first time round, a complex decision involving two parties with legitimate wants and grievances does not equal an irrational call for mass suicide or genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does when the objection to private courts is that a judge will order the collapse of mankind and we'll be screwed. The observation that they are not comparable emphasizes that the concern is unwarranted. When I make a reductio ad absurdum argument and you say "That's absurd!", you haven't won the argument.

[ QUOTE ]
No, but the more individuals involved reduces the chance of a [censored] up. You must know about sample size, I thought this would be obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point - this will be an obvious and unavoidable problem since of course the market can only provide services from a single judge who is acting irrationally because his dog died that morning. I forgot.