7 ms·
Thank you for your answer, interesting to read these 3 points. But I think with your last sentence you are inconsistent with what you've described before, which
by auxsend 11y ago
Thank you for your answer, interesting to read these 3 points. But I think with your last sentence you are inconsistent with what you've described before, which is:
- a complete lack of democracy, instead a small elite that is literally burning their country to the ground, in order to take it all until nothing is left.
- the absence of skill or will to provide the necessary legislative law in order to actually govern this country and not just passively stand on the sidelines and watch until every thing is dissolved in smoke.
- prodmerc 11y agoHe's kinda right about the capitalism thing - a small elite controlling everything is the inevitable outcome for a capitalist society without government (i.e. socialist, for the greater good of the population) oversight. Now, that's not really what happened here, the government seems to have already been weak and corrupted, so those with money just take advantage of it.
- Shivetya 11y agoSorry, someone in government has control over this. They have a military and I am quite sure its not multinational's run amok. When people blame capitalism in many cases it simply is government run amok. These companies cannot operate where a military is without someone allowing it. Governments have been selling out people forever, whether to other individuals or whatever business group they formed. that is not capitalism, its exploitation
- jegutman 11y agoTheir incentives are to burn the dead crops to maximize profit. There is not a system of property rights and a government willing to enforce them to prevent them from burning. I kind of doubt it's even a Coasean outcome given that it's causing quite a lot of damage to the air quality in Singapore and neighboring countries where they might be willing to pay them not to burn, but somehow that solution doesn't work (neutral enforcers of the agreement is obviously one difficult issue, and nobody is willing to go to war over it).
- ZenoArrow 11y ago> "that is not capitalism, its exploitation" Let's put it like this. Imagine the Indonesian government didn't exist. What would the people be able to do to stop the environmental destruction? Would you advocate vigilante justice?
- talmand 11y agoWithout a structured government, then the people are the "government", so to speak, and vigilante justice would not be so vigilante.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago> "vigilante justice would not be so vigilante." Explain why.
- talmand 11y agoBecause vigilante justice is usually defined as people taking legal authority for themselves because they feel the government's authority or response is lacking. If there is no government to define this by, then it is not vigilante justice and starts to delve more into natural rights. Think of a remote village with no semblance of what we would describe as a modern government, they still deal with problems in their own way. You wouldn't call them vigilantes.
- ZenoArrow 11y agoI'm not asking for the dictionary definition, I'm asking about why vigilante justice (whether you want to call the participants vigilantes or not) would be less troublesome. For example, imagine I've discovered Starbucks is doing terrible things, and to express my disgust I go around throwing bricks in the windows of the Starbucks in my area. What prevents/discourages this sort of vigilante behaviour?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
- CWuestefeld 11y agowithout government (i.e. socialist, for the greater good of the population) oversight But the Indonesians have a government that claims to be operating "for the greater good of the population". Clearly, they're not doing so, at least in significant cases. Political science and economics understands many of the reasons for such failures. And it's not due to the label you put on the government. Whatever *ist you choose to call it, it's operated by people, and they're subject to the very same incentives and motivations. Putting a sainted "socialist" hat on doesn't make the politicians immune to these. Look into the field of "public choice economics" for more understanding of this. Indeed, the worst crimes against humanity in all of history have been perpetrated by socialist governments claiming to be socialist, and working for the good of their people. Giving the government additional powers to protect you is functionally identical to giving the government additional powers to exploit you. You'll need some way to guard against that, and the good intentions of those believing in an "-ism" aren't sufficient.
- rayiner 11y agoHe's not wrong about the capitalism thing. These farmers own the land--why shouldn't they be able to do whatever they want to it, including burning it? At least, that's the libertarian formulation of it.
- omginternets 11y agoBecause they're not alone on earth?
- icebraining 11y agoIn a private property absolutist state, the farmers would be liable to all the damages caused to the surrounding properties (including to human bodies) in the form of spreading fire and pollution. They'd be sued to the ground.
- coldtea 11y agoLiable to who? This again presupposes government and non-market solution.
- icebraining 11y agoIf you're interested, there is plenty to read on private courts on mises.org and similar websites.
- Retric 11y agoNobody is going to sue a single farmer for doing 10$ worth of damage spread across the entire globe.
- icebraining 11y agoNo, many people would initiate a single lawsuit against many farmers. What makes you think a lawsuit can only have one defendant?
- 11y ago