Hands off the Job Creators at Freedom Industries!

[_EAllusion]

You seem to routinely confuse capitalism with corportism.

In the context of my argument this is a distinction without a meaningful difference.

Well this is a central problem in your thinking. Capitalism - as in referring to a coherent group of free market philosophical views and policy positions - is significantly different from corporatism, which is a pejorative label given to anti-capitalist collusion between business interests and governments. You keep calling corporatist acts - literally the antithesis of capitalism - "free market" and "capitalism." And it's not a simple issue of semantics, because you use examples of corporatism to critique capitalist views.

If you need an analogy, this is like a fundamentalist evangelical saying atheism and Mormonism are a distinction without a difference because they both are just paganism.

It's facepalm level wrong.

[_Kevin Graham]

I just don't get this "tort remedy" approach, as it really does nothing to remedy the problem. All it does is say victims are allowed to sue companies that make them sick, apparently the idea is that companies won't break the law if they think they will get sued. Yeah, I'm sure that's true!

This tort solution does nothing to prevent companies from producing externalities in the first place. Rejecting regulations in favor of tort measures is like saying we won't make drunk driving illegal, instead we'll just let victims sue drunk drivers. Well, what if those victims end up getting killed, as is often the case with ecological externalities? And how is this solving the problem?
Further, say my son ends up getting chronic asthma because of pollution. Who do I sue?

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...
Further, say my son ends up getting chronic asthma because of pollution. Who do I sue?

you sue the EPA

"Many of the environmental statutes that govern EPA actions contain provisions that allow citizens to sue EPA when EPA fails to perform an act or duty required by the statue."

http://www.epa.gov/ogc/noi.html

[_EAllusion]

I just don't get this "tort remedy" approach, as it really does nothing to remedy the problem. All it does is say victims are allowed to sue companies that make them sick, apparently the idea is that companies won't break the law if they think they will get sued. Yeah, I'm sure that's true!

This tort solution does nothing to prevent companies from producing externalities in the first place. Rejecting regulations in favor of tort measures is like saying we won't make drunk driving illegal, instead we'll just let victims sue drunk drivers. Well, what if those victims end up getting killed, as is often the case with ecological externalities? And how is this solving the problem?

Tort is part of the current system, Kevin. It's just not as robust as some free-market thinkers believe it should be. Tort is meant to have a deterrent effect, yes, but insofar as damages occur, the idea is that recompense occurs and the real cost of those externalities gets built into the system. I don't think tort can efficiently communicate costs to the market, so I do not favor that route.

You are arguing that tort is ineffective because businesses will still break the law even if they have to pay damages. The alternative system you are currently defending, which enforces the law through a system of fines, clearly has businesses breaking the law and dealing with the fine. So you haven't solved the problem of lawbreakers. You seem to miss the tort advocate criticism of the regulatory system you favor, namely that the level of fines and penalties is prone to political manipulation by the regulated, is probably a more pressing issue than the criticism of tort you bring up.

Perhaps it would be helpful to understand than the current system is a lot like private tort, courts and all, only with the government being the property interest holder, and the penalties determined on statutory grounds that are somewhat more removed from market value.

Further, say my son ends up getting chronic asthma because of pollution. Who do I sue?

You could just read about tort as a regulation of pollution, Kevin. The suit comes in that the point of pollution of owned air. Tort handles nonspecific injuries poorly since it is hard to prove a causal connection in any particular case. That's why you can't sue anyone currently for getting asthma, but you can sue a polluter for releasing carcinogens into your water supply.

[_EAllusion]

Typical Rand ideology.

Lol. Sweet Jesus. If only you could see just how much you are the mirror image of Droopy. The upshot is that I'm both a purveyor of typical Rand and Alinsky ideology.

Regarding Citizens United, I agree with the content of the ACLU's amicus brief. You can see me discuss the decision the day it came out here.

My opening quote is, "Sure, I consider the right to donate money to marketing campaigns of your choice to be a form of freedom of speech. I don't entirely like how limited liability and the "person" status of corporations has developed in law, but that isn't the issue under question here."

I think what follows is a persuasive case, echoed in the ACLU's opinion.

I don't think you are displaying an accurate understanding of corporate personhood as a legal fiction, but I think that is beside the point. Yes, I think people should be allowed to get together and pool their resources to express their political views through print media, commercial advertising, etc. That's what is happening with a business, incorporated or not.

This is tangential to the argument at hand, though. I had a broader definition of lobbying in mind that I already explained. Removing campaign donations from the system will not curb special interest influence on political policy - and in some cases it will magnify it. Dismantling some of the other forms of influence I talked about would be even more restrictive towards personal, political, and economic freedom. The kind of governments where that sort of restriction is possible tend to be unpleasant totalitarian regimes for a reason.

What we need is more oversight and accountability, and when I say less capitalism or refer to the capitalists I am referring also to capitalism within government, which prevents government from doing the job it was designed to do because those humans in positions of power are no longer acting like public servants, but rather capitalists who are interested in profit.

What is capitalism Kevin?

This is a classic example of EA refusing to acknolwedge what I said just so he can accuse me of "not understanding" something. He does this crap all the time and now here I am explaining it for yet a third time. Was I writing in Greek? Pig Latin? I just don't understand how he didn't get it the first two times.

Feel free to quote BCSpace, even at his most trolley, arguing that, "The markets always correct themselves. If a company like this ends up making people sick or killing them then this will make the people refrain from buying their products and the company will go out of business. Problem solved without government intrusion."

Quote any notable free market thinker arguing this. A system of courts where people can solve contract and property disputes and receive compensation for damages is central to even the most anarcho of the anarcho-capitalist thinkers. And that's not even looking at more mainstream free market economic views most free market types hold that allow for government regulation of certain kinds of negative externalities. That's not to say that consumer behavior is its only natural check on harmful practices, but who argues that is the sole response? Who?

Imagine Ebay for a second. Imagine both the system of user reviews and the system of courts dealing with fraud, damages, etc. behind it that keep exchanges relatively honest. That's frequently used as the hard core anarcho-capitalist ideal for how transactions should be regulated. And before you go running off writing a 5000 word critique of this, realize that this example is just meant to illustrate the difference between that kind of argument and what you are saying.

It isn't about competition so much as it is about keeping children behind bars for profit. Whether the sentence fits the crime doesn't really matter in a private system. What matters is more prison time for inmates = more profit.

Two things you seem to be unaware of: 1) I'm criticizing quasi-private prisons here due to how the arrangement breeds corruption. 2) Prison unions in government run institutions also are a major lobbying force for keeping people in jail because more immates = more job security for them. (More inmates also = more union dues.) The single biggest special interest that helped to defeat Prop 5 in CA? Prison unions. Prison unions spend nearly almost as much as "private" prison companies on political campaigns on a market share basis. They spend a lot of money fighting any reform that would reduce the amount people in prisons.

Does this mean you favor making prison unions illegal? Probably not. Do you think prison guards should not be allowed to bloc vote in favor of policies that favor a more expansive police state? Probably not. Once again, reality is a bit more complex than your current worldview is allowing for.

[_moksha]

I was thinking about the difference between our government and our businesses. Our government is still running after two hundred years.