San Fransisco bans Plastic bags from Grocery stores

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let's go with another example. Outlaw internal combustion engine-powered cars. Only fuel cell or battery cars are allowed. It doesn't matter that they're more expensive, because the customer will pay for it! Poof, problem solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there some right to combustion engine powered cars that I'm not aware of? For the overwhelming majority of human history that we got along without them, were people being deprived in some way? Of course not. The right is to voluntary transactions, except you conveniently ignore that these voluntary transactions might be opposed by people not making the transactions. So who cares, right? Well, these voluntary transactions (just like many, many others) affect people beyond merely those who make them.

I think you'd agree that you have no right to raise a skunk farm next door to me if it makes my land smell like [censored]. You have no right to play music loudly at 4 am just because it's in your apartment and not mine. So what gives you the right to pollute the environment that everyone else has to live in? Simply the fact that, guess what, the majority of people (and those who rule people) have decided that they are ok having cars and with others having cars.

Some people believe that driving cars isn't alright, and that this, along with other forms of pollution, should all be made illegal. Tyranny of the majority... or is it ok because you drive a car (which I do as well, not trying to say that cars should be outlawed)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let these people file a claim in a private court and present their evidence that my use of a car (I don't drive by the way this is hypothetical) harms them. If a reputable private court finds that it does to the extent that damages must be awarded and I value interacting with society above cutting and running I'll stop using my car or pay damages determined by the court.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]


Let these people file a claim in a private court and present their evidence that my use of a car (I don't drive by the way this is hypothetical) harms them. If a reputable private court finds that it does to the extent that damages must be awarded and I value interacting with society above cutting and running I'll stop using my car or pay damages determined by the court.

[/ QUOTE ]

By what standard does your proposed court make decisions? Clearly your use of a car harms the people around you to some slight degree. How does one go about putting a monetary value on this?

All you say is "reputable court", but that just means that the power of the court rests only in it's reputation. If you sue me and I say "[censored] that court", you have no power at all. Unless everyone in society agrees to ostracize me or punish me in some other manner, there is no punishment. And since everyone in society drives a car, nobody would support such a court. Which just means that the majority have managed to impose their preferences onto a minority, and in a case where they are actively harming society (the degree of harm is up to debate, it's existence is not).

In this case, we have a system with courts and lawmakers and law enforcers. They pass a law, and if you value interacting with society above cutting and running, you'll stop using plastic bags...