5 ms·

In a free market, property rights are more extensive than in a highly regulated market, so tort law serves many of the purposes that regulators and federal agen

by nickff 12y ago

In a free market, property rights are more extensive than in a highly regulated market, so tort law serves many of the purposes that regulators and federal agencies currently do. When a multinational company causes damage to a harbor, beach, ecosystem or city, damaged parties can file suit for compensation. A harbor authority may have provided a guarantee to assume responsibility for environmental problems, in order to be granted the relevant rights of way, or it may be on the other side of the law, filing suit against a company which has damaged its income stream. Landowners or municipalities can file suit for damage caused to a beach, and fishermen, environmental tour companies, or governments can file suit for damage to ecosystems. In the United States, the EPA has absolved many companies of any responsibility, or at least greatly diminished the corporations' costs, by depriving damaged parties of a cause of action, as the EPA has the sole responsibility for many forms of pollution, and their regulation. Free markets are not very different from mixed systems in dealing with issues like climate change, but they do make it plain to each individual that they are directly responsible for the outcomes which come to pass. This responsibility is more effective in regulating action than one might think. In a market system, entities at fault may be defunct by the time the repercussions of their actions are apparent; on the other hand, politicians are rarely held to account on any single issue, and they are often more ephemeral than large corporations; the bureaucrats responsible for regulation are never held to account for any results at all.

nitrogen 12y ago
In a free market, property rights are more extensive than in a highly regulated market, so tort law serves many of the purposes that regulators and federal agencies currently do. So how does a small property owner fund decade-long litigation against a giant corporation?
- nickff 12y ago
  I will assume that your question refers to damages caused to a "small property owner" by a multinational corporation. There are a few alternatives: 1) When large corporations do anything, it is usually on a grand scale, so it is likely that the "small property owner" can find a number of neighbours similarly affected, and join in a class-action lawsuit, to defray the costs. 2) If the "small property owner" is very sure of victory in the courts, they can take out a loan, to finance their legal costs, which they may be able to recover from the respondent at a later date. 3) The "small property owner" may find a lawyer willing to do the work pro-bono, or on a contingency basis. 4) Some "small property owner[s]" may represent themselves in court; this is not as uncommon as some think, and many people present their case well without a credential-ed lawyer. The most likely outcome is a settlement in any case, as no corporation wishes to gain a reputation that it is unwilling to clean up its own mess, and a drawn-out court battle would not be very productive.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - warfangle 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure When private costs (potential liability of losing a lawsuit in re pollution) are lower than the cost of negative externalities (disease, cancer, obliterated ecosystems), you have a classic market failure. You can make lawsuits easier to win or you can impose artificial limits on the private entities impacted. I'd prefer the one that leads to less lawyers.
- warfangle 12y ago
  [can't directly reply to nickff..hm, thread too deep?] In the dream libertarian world of Free Market, every agent has perfect knowledge for every decision they make, courts never make mistakes, transgressors are always held liable, and pot is legal. I'm assuming they'd probably have to sell themselves into sexual bondage to pay for the lawyer costs, but nickff does outline some interesting options! 1) a number of neighbors who are affected ... and every single one of them has time to go through a two decade lawsuit that they'll likely lose. 2) Okay, they can take out some legal financing. If they're sure to win. Because property owners in this magical world always win when a third party dumps polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons into their well. I'd like to see a world where someone can get legal financing for what will end up being a $500m (in costs) lawsuit with a payout of maybe $50m (for the litigant, minus lawyer fees.. well, shit). The deeper pocket always wins. Except in Libertarian Land, where the government (which enforces the decision of the courts) doesn't have a monopoly on violence. So I guess it's actually who owns the most Abrams tanks that wins. 3) The small property owner may find a lawyer willing to do 10 years of discovery, 5 years of trials, and 20 years of appeals pro bono. #goodluckwiththat 4) There are some notable pro se litigants! Edward Lawson was the defender in 1983 Kolender v. Lawson and won (cannot be arrested merely for refusing to present identification. Pretty sure that one doesn't hold water anymore though). Robert Kearns fought Ford and Chrysler pro se over windshield wipers. On the other hand, while "it happens more than you'd think," it wins "a lot less than you'd think." I guess in Everything's Fair universe, where not having domain knowledge of 150 years of legal precedent is not a factor, it might win a little bit more often. >no corporation wishes to gain a reputation that it is unwilling to clean up its own mess Hahahahaha. Nah, that never happens. Nope. Buddy (and I know I'm not you're buddy), don't drive through coal country. Or eastern TN. Have a nice swim in the Gowanus Canal, and have a sip of sludge from Newtown Creek. Lie down for a little while in this little autobody shop in Queens - you'll only get 300rems a year. Corporations get the reputation that they won't clean up their mess all the time. And you know what happens? They fucking rebrand. Strong property rights Free Market randroids live in a perpetual bubble of warped 'insight', where litigation always ends in justice and juries are never tampered with and everything is always discovered in discovery because nobody ever holds things back.
  - baddox 12y ago
- baddox 12y ago
  Well, for one thing, litigation (like virtually all goods) would be a lot cheaper. But I think a better rhetorical way to answer your question is by proposing another: how does a small property owner currently fund decade-long litigation against a giant corporation, or a government?

by nickff 12y ago

nitrogen 12y ago

In a free market, property rights are more extensive than in a highly regulated market, so tort law serves many of the purposes that regulators and federal agencies currently do. So how does a small property owner fund decade-long litigation against a giant corporation?

nickff 12y ago
I will assume that your question refers to damages caused to a "small property owner" by a multinational corporation. There are a few alternatives: 1) When large corporations do anything, it is usually on a grand scale, so it is likely that the "small property owner" can find a number of neighbours similarly affected, and join in a class-action lawsuit, to defray the costs. 2) If the "small property owner" is very sure of victory in the courts, they can take out a loan, to finance their legal costs, which they may be able to recover from the respondent at a later date. 3) The "small property owner" may find a lawyer willing to do the work pro-bono, or on a contingency basis. 4) Some "small property owner[s]" may represent themselves in court; this is not as uncommon as some think, and many people present their case well without a credential-ed lawyer. The most likely outcome is a settlement in any case, as no corporation wishes to gain a reputation that it is unwilling to clean up its own mess, and a drawn-out court battle would not be very productive.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- warfangle 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure When private costs (potential liability of losing a lawsuit in re pollution) are lower than the cost of negative externalities (disease, cancer, obliterated ecosystems), you have a classic market failure. You can make lawsuits easier to win or you can impose artificial limits on the private entities impacted. I'd prefer the one that leads to less lawyers.
warfangle 12y ago
[can't directly reply to nickff..hm, thread too deep?] In the dream libertarian world of Free Market, every agent has perfect knowledge for every decision they make, courts never make mistakes, transgressors are always held liable, and pot is legal. I'm assuming they'd probably have to sell themselves into sexual bondage to pay for the lawyer costs, but nickff does outline some interesting options! 1) a number of neighbors who are affected ... and every single one of them has time to go through a two decade lawsuit that they'll likely lose. 2) Okay, they can take out some legal financing. If they're sure to win. Because property owners in this magical world always win when a third party dumps polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons into their well. I'd like to see a world where someone can get legal financing for what will end up being a $500m (in costs) lawsuit with a payout of maybe $50m (for the litigant, minus lawyer fees.. well, shit). The deeper pocket always wins. Except in Libertarian Land, where the government (which enforces the decision of the courts) doesn't have a monopoly on violence. So I guess it's actually who owns the most Abrams tanks that wins. 3) The small property owner may find a lawyer willing to do 10 years of discovery, 5 years of trials, and 20 years of appeals pro bono. #goodluckwiththat 4) There are some notable pro se litigants! Edward Lawson was the defender in 1983 Kolender v. Lawson and won (cannot be arrested merely for refusing to present identification. Pretty sure that one doesn't hold water anymore though). Robert Kearns fought Ford and Chrysler pro se over windshield wipers. On the other hand, while "it happens more than you'd think," it wins "a lot less than you'd think." I guess in Everything's Fair universe, where not having domain knowledge of 150 years of legal precedent is not a factor, it might win a little bit more often. >no corporation wishes to gain a reputation that it is unwilling to clean up its own mess Hahahahaha. Nah, that never happens. Nope. Buddy (and I know I'm not you're buddy), don't drive through coal country. Or eastern TN. Have a nice swim in the Gowanus Canal, and have a sip of sludge from Newtown Creek. Lie down for a little while in this little autobody shop in Queens - you'll only get 300rems a year. Corporations get the reputation that they won't clean up their mess all the time. And you know what happens? They fucking rebrand. Strong property rights Free Market randroids live in a perpetual bubble of warped 'insight', where litigation always ends in justice and juries are never tampered with and everything is always discovered in discovery because nobody ever holds things back.
- baddox 12y ago
baddox 12y ago
Well, for one thing, litigation (like virtually all goods) would be a lot cheaper. But I think a better rhetorical way to answer your question is by proposing another: how does a small property owner currently fund decade-long litigation against a giant corporation, or a government?