This is literally the reason why free markets are the bane of all that is good. Sure, it’s nice to get the shinies quickly and cheaply, but then you find out the cost of that is how the world is being torn apart because it’s cheaper to do it that way.
The only solution is government regulations to force companies to become responsible for their actions. And the only way to have that is for politicians who think about the country first and have the will to enact the necessary change.
I mean, down south the erosion of government regulations is bringing back child labour. Imagine a 15yo working in a steel mill, as it’s recently been legalized in some states.
Government regulations??? That sounds like socialism!!! Oh, and can I get a couple billion dollars in tax money to cover my expenses? Which is totally not socialism how dare you!!!
It is free market since those others are technically able to sue the company for compensation…presuming that they can afford to hire a lawyer for the five years it takes to settle the lawsuit because the company’s going to use every delay tactic and counter-lawsuit they can think of to just wait out the other guy.
Unless there is meaningful redress of grievous acts that fall outside the bounds of voluntary commerce, such as property damage, it’s still not a free market.
I never stated that any of this explicitly has to bypass the laws. In fact, the fact that they can be sued means specifically that they’re following the law. And that is exactly what is going on with these companies we’ve been talking about. Polluting the environment is well within the law, or else they wouldn’t be getting away with it, and because they are able to afford to lobby the government so that they don’t have to be responsible for it, that it’s the public that has to pay for the cleanup, rather than those who are responsible for the pollution in the first place.
In fact, the fact that they can be sued means specifically that they’re following the law.
You also said that suing someone and prevailing is impossible if you aren’t richer than them. That is not meaningful redress. And there’s no reason why a free-market system couldn’t consider pollution a grievous act deserving redress.
Polluting the environment is well within the law, or else they wouldn’t be getting away with it, and because they are able to afford to lobby the government so that they don’t have to be responsible for it, that it’s the public that has to pay for the cleanup, rather than those who are responsible for the pollution in the first place.
Bribing the government is not part of a free-market system, either.
By law, lobbying isn’t bribing. Or else you wouldn’t see so much of it so blatantly in the States.
It happens in every government, here as well. Just not as obvious.
And while yes, theoretically these sorts of issues can be redressed in a completely free-market system, the degree the stars need to align for such a thing to happen, you might as well hope that everybody who makes more than $1000 a year in North Korea suddenly have a heart attack on the same day and the rest of the country come together and make peace with their southern neighbours.
Market forces always drive towards whatever is cheapest and pushes for the greatest profits, and a billionaire is going to be far likely to get their way than a few thousand people who combined still make less than 10% of that one guy. It takes a colossal combined effort to move a massive mountain of cash.
This is literally the reason why free markets are the bane of all that is good. Sure, it’s nice to get the shinies quickly and cheaply, but then you find out the cost of that is how the world is being torn apart because it’s cheaper to do it that way.
The only solution is government regulations to force companies to become responsible for their actions. And the only way to have that is for politicians who think about the country first and have the will to enact the necessary change.
I mean, down south the erosion of government regulations is bringing back child labour. Imagine a 15yo working in a steel mill, as it’s recently been legalized in some states.
Government regulations??? That sounds like socialism!!! Oh, and can I get a couple billion dollars in tax money to cover my expenses? Which is totally not socialism how dare you!!!
It’s not really a free market if they’re allowed to damage others’ property with impunity.
It is free market since those others are technically able to sue the company for compensation…presuming that they can afford to hire a lawyer for the five years it takes to settle the lawsuit because the company’s going to use every delay tactic and counter-lawsuit they can think of to just wait out the other guy.
Unless there is meaningful redress of grievous acts that fall outside the bounds of voluntary commerce, such as property damage, it’s still not a free market.
It’s a free market because the guy with a bigger wallet gets to do whatever he wants until his wallet isn’t the biggest anymore.
That’s not what “free market” means. It’s not a synonym for “anarchy”. Crime is still punished in a free-market system.
I never stated that any of this explicitly has to bypass the laws. In fact, the fact that they can be sued means specifically that they’re following the law. And that is exactly what is going on with these companies we’ve been talking about. Polluting the environment is well within the law, or else they wouldn’t be getting away with it, and because they are able to afford to lobby the government so that they don’t have to be responsible for it, that it’s the public that has to pay for the cleanup, rather than those who are responsible for the pollution in the first place.
You also said that suing someone and prevailing is impossible if you aren’t richer than them. That is not meaningful redress. And there’s no reason why a free-market system couldn’t consider pollution a grievous act deserving redress.
Bribing the government is not part of a free-market system, either.
By law, lobbying isn’t bribing. Or else you wouldn’t see so much of it so blatantly in the States.
It happens in every government, here as well. Just not as obvious.
And while yes, theoretically these sorts of issues can be redressed in a completely free-market system, the degree the stars need to align for such a thing to happen, you might as well hope that everybody who makes more than $1000 a year in North Korea suddenly have a heart attack on the same day and the rest of the country come together and make peace with their southern neighbours.
Market forces always drive towards whatever is cheapest and pushes for the greatest profits, and a billionaire is going to be far likely to get their way than a few thousand people who combined still make less than 10% of that one guy. It takes a colossal combined effort to move a massive mountain of cash.