ACism and global warming

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay then, lets say that everyone who is affected by a specific polluter has a successful day in court and they receive damages. That could mean millions of individuals all getting payout from one company. Could that not make any form of pollution heavily -EV. After all, you know how much people love their litigation. What effect would that have on industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're worried about limitations on industry, you should be equally worried about governments imposing anti-pollution rules on them. It's not like government officials have some special status that allows them to perfectly balance costs and benefits. In fact, many people agree that governments are substantially WORSE at this than the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm not aware of current government regulations that would lead to such a destructive outcome. There is a a definite possibility that AC could. Even though it's only a possibility, I'd rather not play russian roulette on such an important outcome.

I'm certain some people trust the markets more because they haven't been given enough power to really [censored] things up yet.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And does this not mean that the economic and ecological fate of the world will be decided by one judge/arbiter. What if his dog just died? It's not like there's a higher court to appeal to.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's unlikely that a single judge will effectively rule against all economic and ecological development, similar to how a government leader isn't going to be able to declare Jump of a Bridge Day and watch as everyone jumps of bridges. And there's no higher court to appeal to when you don't like the government's actions, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it unlikely? Unless legal precedents wouldn't exist in AC, but I don't see why not. And getting compensation for a reduced quality of life =/= jumping of a bridge.

Not really sure how thing work in the US, but in the UK there's 3 tiers (local, national and European) plus the ability to appeal. Things can still get [censored] up, but at lest you have safety nets against recently bereaved arbiters.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So as a farmer from Bangladesh in 75 years who has lost my farm and my country. Who sohuld I sue? What should I expect them to give me?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is a government going to make this situation any better?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll assume you're serious. That farmer can talk to his government/our international reps and present his evidence for how the pollution of Wal-Mart (just picked a company) is harming him. Since Wal-Mart operated within US law, the judical system decides if the case is sound, and if so, punishes Wal-Mart, probably by fines.

Not sure about the confusion.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in the real world it's government says "sorry, that's within Wal-Mart's acceptable pollution level, GG". This is the only reason that pollution exists right now is governments saying it's ok and protecting businesses from having to pay their rightful restitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wal-Mart is protected because they have the money, and thus, the power. This won't change in any system/anti-system. In any case, what you've said isn't true, if Wal-Mart is harming the air that badly, it's certainly against the law. If not, write your congressman/run for office.

Cody

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay then, lets say that everyone who is affected by a specific polluter has a successful day in court and they receive damages. That could mean millions of individuals all getting payout from one company. Could that not make any form of pollution heavily -EV. After all, you know how much people love their litigation. What effect would that have on industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're worried about limitations on industry, you should be equally worried about governments imposing anti-pollution rules on them. It's not like government officials have some special status that allows them to perfectly balance costs and benefits. In fact, many people agree that governments are substantially WORSE at this than the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm not aware of current government regulations that would lead to such a destructive outcome. There is a a definite possibility that AC could. Even though it's only a possibility, I'd rather not play russian roulette on such an important outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're willing to allow government officials to make the call? Or have a referendum? Why is there this distrust of participants in the market but no such distrust of participants in a government or a vote?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm certain some people trust the markets more because they haven't been given enough power to really [censored] things up yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we've got a long history of watching governments blunder time after time so I sure as heck don't think putting your trust in them is any more rational. This has nothing to do with "belief" that the market will provide the solution in the form I want it. It's the belief, based on experience, that severe government intervention won't work.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's unlikely that a single judge will effectively rule against all economic and ecological development, similar to how a government leader isn't going to be able to declare Jump of a Bridge Day and watch as everyone jumps of bridges. And there's no higher court to appeal to when you don't like the government's actions, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it unlikely? Unless legal precedents wouldn't exist in AC, but I don't see why not. And getting compensation for a reduced quality of life =/= jumping of a bridge.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're making it out to be so when you express fear of catostrophic decisions resulting from the decision made by one judge who is not acting rationally because his dog just died. But I can play that game, too. What if the President's spouse burns the toast one morning? He might order the army to wipe out the population. Are you saying this can't happen? I don't see why not. QED, we shouldn't have a state.

[ QUOTE ]
Not really sure how thing work in the US, but in the UK there's 3 tiers (local, national and European) plus the ability to appeal. Things can still get [censored] up, but at lest you have safety nets against recently bereaved arbiters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private courts could have an appeals process. I not sure how "escalating" the "levels" geographically somehow makes the appeals process any more valid. And you're still stuck at eventually reaching the level where there is no higher court. Are you saying the highest court of the state is infallible?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So as a farmer from Bangladesh in 75 years who has lost my farm and my country. Who sohuld I sue? What should I expect them to give me?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is a government going to make this situation any better?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll assume you're serious. That farmer can talk to his government/our international reps and present his evidence for how the pollution of Wal-Mart (just picked a company) is harming him. Since Wal-Mart operated within US law, the judical system decides if the case is sound, and if so, punishes Wal-Mart, probably by fines.

Not sure about the confusion.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the point was that private arbitration isn't workable because it is impossible for him to prove that Company X caused his damages???

If he can "present evidence" then what is government going to add here?

[wtfsvi]

Yes. What Cody says there makes as little sense to me as what AlexM is saying.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So as a farmer from Bangladesh in 75 years who has lost my farm and my country. Who sohuld I sue? What should I expect them to give me?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is a government going to make this situation any better?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll assume you're serious. That farmer can talk to his government/our international reps and present his evidence for how the pollution of Wal-Mart (just picked a company) is harming him. Since Wal-Mart operated within US law, the judical system decides if the case is sound, and if so, punishes Wal-Mart, probably by fines.

Not sure about the confusion.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the point was that private arbitration isn't workable because it is impossible for him to prove that Company X caused his damages???

If he can "present evidence" then what is government going to add here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The power to hold a large entity accountable. You'll have to forgive me doubts that a bunch of small justice companies will hold a business giant's feet to the flame.

Cody

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. What Cody says there makes as little sense to me as what AlexM is saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're asking what AC (or government) will do if you don't have the proof to form a case against some one. Uhhh...nothing I hope to god.

Cody

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
The power to hold a large entity accountable. You'll have to forgive me doubts that a bunch of small justice companies will hold a business giant's feet to the flame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Communication should be sufficient. If there are a number or reputable justice firms siding on behalf of disgruntled consumers, and the consumers are not being compensated, it won't take long for that information to spread through the market. In particular, when governments aren't protecting existing companies then I suspect that potential competitors will be at the ready to pounce on market share forfeited by companies getting sued and ignoring the judgement. And even if the Big Bad Corporations try to wage a counter-information campaign to undermine the justice firms, the same potential competitors will be at the ready to pounce on the opportunity to sell the same services without the cost of a misinformation campaign.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The power to hold a large entity accountable. You'll have to forgive me doubts that a bunch of small justice companies will hold a business giant's feet to the flame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Communication should be sufficient. If there are a number or reputable justice firms siding on behalf of disgruntled consumers, and the consumers are not being compensated, it won't take long for that information to spread through the market. In particular, when governments aren't protecting existing companies then I suspect that potential competitors will be at the ready to pounce on market share forfeited by companies getting sued and ignoring the judgement. And even if the Big Bad Corporations try to wage a counter-information campaign to undermine the justice firms, the same potential competitors will be at the ready to pounce on the opportunity to sell the same services without the cost of a misinformation campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a new argument, we've been here before. I don't trust the power to group anywhere but in large companies, and in that situation, the ability to compete won't be enough. It won't matter. They'll buy whatever they want, this includes their own DROs etc. People will still shop there because "hey global warming isn't an issue to me and check it out $2 tube socks, hellllllo".

If think people will be the new masters, then I'm pulling for you and hope you're right, but again, you'll have to forgive my being skeptical.

Cody

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a new argument, we've been here before. I don't trust the power to group anywhere but in large companies, and in that situation, the ability to compete won't be enough. It won't matter. They'll buy whatever they want, this includes their own DROs etc. People will still shop there because "hey global warming isn't an issue to me and check it out $2 tube socks, hellllllo".

If think people will be the new masters, then I'm pulling for you and hope you're right, but again, you'll have to forgive my being skeptical.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

To the extent that the concentration of power in large companies subject to competition is bad, the concentration of power in a single state subject to very limited competitive forces is much worse.

Again, don't confuse the assertion that competition is good with the assertion that competition will make things work out exactly the way I want. I agree that for the most part people make stupid choices (on my own subjective basis) that impact me negatively. This is true in how they elect officials as surely as it is true in how they choose consumer products. As you like to say, people are bastard covered bastards in bastard sauce (paraphrased). I don't assert that market forces will turn them into angel convered angels in angel sauce.