How could changover to AC could occur? (we only got one Earth)

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
Under AC you wouldn't have the monopoly so companies would have to be more careful about their pollution or risk being sued.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Under AC, who resolves disputes? What replaces the court systems? Private dispute-resolution firms?

2. Who enforces their judgements? Private security firms?

3. How can you prove that such disputes won't merely devolve into contests between who can hire the biggest pipe-hitting thugs?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
If any security or dispute-resolution firm becomes dominant in A-C land, you'd have a de-facto government anyway. Robert Nozick demonstrated this 30 years ago. This is really why hardly anyone takes A-C seriously--it simply cannot exist in the real world, and even if it did, it could not endure.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the worst case scenario is back to the status quo?

[gostros]

To BCPVP -

Short answer - your fantasies are way to inadequate to justify the sort of positive advocacy that you are putting forward. It is easy to argue when you simply appeal to an ideal over and over again. But these issues are way more complicated than "the government has a history of doing bad [censored] so we should get rid of it," which is essentially your argument.

Because the system we have now more or less works (you'll probobly disagree, but the truth is day-to-day life is not nearly as bad as you make it seem in most of the world), it is your burden to prove that your alternative would be better to a high degree of certainty, which you are definitely not doing.

Long answer coming later... maybe...

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
So the worst case scenario is back to the status quo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much all claims about A-C depend upon the imagination.

Therefore, I can imagine an A-C world devolving into a global totalitarian oligarchy, simply through mergers of security and dispute-resolution firms combined with the time-tested tendency of large corporations to diversify. Voila: Global government, large-scale inefficiency and bureaucracy, no charter of rights (since the only right A-Cers seem to recognize is the right to property), and a centralized command economy.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under AC you wouldn't have the monopoly so companies would have to be more careful about their pollution or risk being sued.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Under AC, who resolves disputes? What replaces the court systems? Private dispute-resolution firms?

2. Who enforces their judgements? Private security firms?

3. How can you prove that such disputes won't merely devolve into contests between who can hire the biggest pipe-hitting thugs?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because that is likely more expensive than the peaceful way and companies like these are in it to make money. "Quiet" resolution would likely be a quality many would want in their arbitrartion/security firsm, wouldn't you agree? At the very least, the street owners would since it is their property that fighting would spill into.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Short answer - your fantasies are way to inadequate to justify the sort of positive advocacy that you are putting forward. It is easy to argue when you simply appeal to an ideal over and over again. But these issues are way more complicated than "the government has a history of doing bad [censored] so we should get rid of it," which is essentially your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Worked pretty well for the American colonists in 1776 (slight difference I know).

[ QUOTE ]
(you'll probobly disagree, but the truth is day-to-day life is not nearly as bad as you make it seem in most of the world)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is your subjective opinion. Not truth. There's a difference.

[ QUOTE ]
it is your burden to prove that your alternative would be better to a high degree of certainty, which you are definitely not doing.

[/ QUOTE ]
The growing number of ACers on this board disputes this, though I won't claim any credit for the converts.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
Because that is likely more expensive than the peaceful way and companies like these are in it to make money. "Quiet" resolution would likely be a quality many would want in their arbitrartion/security firsm, wouldn't you agree? At the very least, the street owners would since it is their property that fighting would spill into.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since violence is therefore too expensive, why can't I just ignore a judgement you get against me?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
This makes absolutely no sense. "Clean air" is not quantifiable. Nobody can say: there is x% clean air and y% dirty air in z space.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how is government any better in this regard? How much faith should I be putting in government promises to provide "clean" air and water through legislation?

[ QUOTE ]
If I buy gas, would I be required to pay a premium to make up for the pollution that would ensue? First of all, it would be impossible to determine that cost in market terms. Secondly, a market is not adequate to determine the real and projected harms of environmental destruction. You guys worship the power and omniscience of the free market, but you are also blind to its limitations (that's where government comes in).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, how is government better in this regard? Central planning is magically omniscient here when it's so grossly deficient in every other aspect?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, what institution would be charged with protecting and restoring the environment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does there need to be one entity in charge of "the environment"? This is like asking "who will be charged with mowing the grass?" Many individuals own many different parcels of grass, they are all responsible for their own lawns. Likewise, everyone is responsible for their own piece of "the environment".



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where do they get the money and the manpower to fight all of these expensive wars?

[/ QUOTE ]
From selling goods and services. What do you want to say here? That it would be difficult to aquire a disgusting amount of wealth under the AC system? LOL! People would become extremely wealthy, and they would want to protect their wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

So people becoming wealthy is bad?

Protecting wealth is bad?

Hint: starting a war is not a good way to protect wealth. Why do you think violence-based business models are restricted to black markets? Why don't gangs outcompete Coke and Pepsi in the cola market?

[ QUOTE ]
Security companies would be the new armies, and don't think for a second that they would be more benign. Security companies have no interest in civilian life. They have no interest in conventions or international law. Governments do. And don't give me that, "oh but we violated international law when we invaded Iraq! WAAAAA!" The truth is, though we circumvent international law at times, we have to at the very least acknowledge it and play close to the rules to remain at the table in the international community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Governments face no loss of revenue, no liability when they violate "international law" or conventions.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because that is likely more expensive than the peaceful way and companies like these are in it to make money. "Quiet" resolution would likely be a quality many would want in their arbitrartion/security firsm, wouldn't you agree? At the very least, the street owners would since it is their property that fighting would spill into.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since violence is therefore too expensive, why can't I just ignore a judgement you get against me?

[/ QUOTE ]
War ("contests between who can hire the biggest pipe-hitting thugs") would be too expensive. Violence between a firm and an individual probably wouldn't. A successful, large security/enforcement firm wouldn't likely get that way but by providing great service. Great service would mean not enforcing phony judgements, not harming third parties executing the judgements, and not defending guilty parties.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You still haven't explained how the environment will be cared for. Nobody owns "the" environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is my backyard part of "the" environment?

[ QUOTE ]
3. You say that we have property rights, not war, because of scarcity. You completely sidestepped my point. Scarcity AND property rights are why we have war. If you want the right over x property, you might have to fight for it, unless there is an authority with its own force behind it (i.e. governements) that will settle the issue for you. The alternative is constant war and struggle over resources. You have no answer for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do governments help this? You said yourself that governments are the ones fighting over the resources.

[ QUOTE ]
If you look at the reasons behind most recent wars, you will recognize that resources and scarcity are almost always the culprit.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would private individuals fighting over whatever resources were being struggled over in these recent wars possibly made these conflicts *worse*?

Let's pit Rockefeller vs. Gates. Hell, lets make it Rockefeller and Carnegie vs. Gates and Vanderbilt. How many people do you think they could kill? More or less than died in WWII?

[ QUOTE ]
4. I am VERY VERY curious as to how one would sue somebody else in your system. It seems to be a very important aspect of your theory, and NOBODY seems to know how it would work without governments.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOBODY? It happens *all the time* RIGHT NOW. Private arbitration is huge. Especially in international disputes where there is no government with jurisdiction.