From: Dan Fabulich (dfabulich@warpmail.net)
Date: Sat Aug 10 2002 - 23:10:22 MDT
Brian Phillips wrote:
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:25:10 +0100
> From: Charlie Stross <charlie@antipope.org>
[...]
> <<[...]For example, [...] should people be exempt from liability for
> stuff they dump before (as opposed to after) it's identified as
> harmful?>>
> Pollution can be handled by the market. I have property, you damage my
> property through your negligence.. we have arbitration, possibly a
> lawsuit.
I believe you dodged this question. What should the arbitrators find?
Who should win this lawsuit? On what basis should penalties/restitution
be awarded?
Of course the market will handle the question. But, er, that's us, or
people we pay/hire. How should we handle it?
[Charlie again:]
> <Plus, it's better to prevent damage in advance than to suffer the effects
> of the damage.>
Well, all we have are criminal/civil penalties for damage. So we just
have to hope that penalties are adequate prevention.
> Epidemiology doesn't respect your statist bias. It's free access to other
> peoples property that allow disease vectors to exist. Local private
> inititatives are plenty sufficent. A free-polity can choose to control
> the vector persons or control the vectors IN the persons, so as to
> bring customers and patrons to their enterprise's geographic area.
"choose to control the vector persons"??? How is that a market solution?
That sounds more like initiation of force to me: you've forced sick people
to remain in their quarantined house/ghetto/whatever.
On what authority? You being in the majority?
What'll you do if they leave? Shoot them?
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:00 MST