Recently had a discussion with someone who advocates the EPA. He said that since corporations, especially the local power plant, had been known to dump chemicals in the nearby river before environmentalism took effect, it got me thinking: if there were no EPA, what would stop the power plant from dumping chemicals in the river, thereby ruining the river? I suppose people could segment portions of the river to purchase, but wouldn't dumping chemicals into their portion permeate throughout the entire river? Just curious to see the free market approach to this. BTW, this river is a huge food source for many people around the area, businesses and people alike. However, it is true that in the past, this did not stop the power plant from dumping the harmful chemicals in the water.
thetabularasa:I'm asking for an answer to my questions as follows: regarding lawsuits...in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no jurisdictions, right? Who creates these laws to uphold? What if I disagree with the laws, and how do I know where exactly the laws apply?
The only "law" in a free society would be the non-aggression principle: "Do not initiate aggression towards other people and their property". In your specific example of a factory dumping chemicals into a river, the defense/insurance agencies (DIAs) of the potentially affected downstream property owners would be paying them property damage claims, then -- after paying a reputable consultant/investigator to do a proper chemical analysis/investigation -- proceed to contact the DIA of the factory (Factory DIA) to reclaim their damages. If the Factory DIA agrees with the analysis and the damage claims, it would pay out the Owners DIA, then request that its client (the factory) stop damaging other people's property with its actions lest it cancels its defense/insurance contract with it.
If, on the other hand, the Factory DIA refuses the Owners DIA's analysis and refuses the damage claim caused by its client (the factory), then the Owners DIA would take the case to a reputable private arbitrator specializing in resolving cases of this nature. This arbitrator would likely be chosen from a list of reputable arbitrators that both DIAs have previously agreed to be acceptable for resolving conflicts such as the one in front of them. It would be in the interest of every DIA to have such agreements with other DIAs in place as this would make conflict resolutions easier (hence, cheaper).
If the Factory DIA acts as a total sociopath, refuses to resolve conflicts with other DIAs peacefully, and prefers to resolve them violently then its costs of doing "business" would rise exponentially and it would have to cover them through exponentially high premiums from its clients which, of course, would prefer to not pay them. On top of it, due to this DIAs reputation of being a complete violent sociopath, other DIAs and property owners would be very careful not to cooperate and trade with any neighbors, clients, or business partners who are this DIA's clients. The defense/insurance premiums and reputational costs imposed on the clients of such DIA would become so high that not many would subscribe -- so such DIA would not be staying in business for too long.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
z1235: The only "law" in a free society would be the non-aggression principle: "Do not initiate aggression towards other people and their property". In your specific example of a factory dumping chemicals into a river, the defense/insurance agencies (DIAs) of the potentially affected downstream property owners would be paying them property damage claims, then -- after paying a reputable consultant/investigator to do a proper chemical analysis/investigation -- proceed to contact the DIA of the factory (Factory DIA) to reclaim their damages. If the Factory DIA agrees with the analysis and the damage claims, it would pay out the Owners DIA, then request that its client (the factory) stop damaging other people's property with its actions lest it cancels its defense/insurance contract with it.
Interesting. So what would be the form of payment, exactly? As in the type of currency.
Whatever the market converges to as a medium of exchange -- most likely (but not limited to) gold or certificates of deposit thereof. Whatever gets voluntarily exchanged will be exchanged.
z1235: Whatever the market converges to as a medium of exchange -- most likely (but not limited to) gold or certificates of deposit thereof. Whatever gets voluntarily exchanged will be exchanged.
I really wish someone could purchase a town and experiment with all these ideas. It'd be awesome to see what works and what doesn't.
Most people already know that voluntary exchanges work much better than initiation of aggression -- for everyone involved except the parasitic aggressors. The status quo only needs to be explained to them as such.
Besides, the status quo -- democracy as plunder of all against all -- is both logically and empirically unsustainable. It's only a matter of time when humans will be forced to consider more logically consistent alternatives.
Tell that to people who believe in the state.
Welcome to anarcho capitalism.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org