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.
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.
I’m not talking about here. I’m talking about a hypothetical country with a free market.
You’re right that no such country exists in real life, but then you blame the nonexistent free market for our problems, which makes no sense. How can you blame our problems on something that doesn’t exist?
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.
That is certainly true, and that’s why we have antitrust law (pity it’s not enforced), but keep in mind that the rich quite often use violence to get their way, not just money. Elon Musk, for example, inherited his wealth from his father, and his father got his wealth by enslaving people.
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.
I’m not talking about here. I’m talking about a hypothetical country with a free market.
You’re right that no such country exists in real life, but then you blame the nonexistent free market for our problems, which makes no sense. How can you blame our problems on something that doesn’t exist?
That is certainly true, and that’s why we have antitrust law (pity it’s not enforced), but keep in mind that the rich quite often use violence to get their way, not just money. Elon Musk, for example, inherited his wealth from his father, and his father got his wealth by enslaving people.