ex-President Trump

It's not meant to be evidence. It's just people giving their opinions about an MSNBC video clip. Do you know what an opinion is?

The River has a owner, the owner can sue for damage.

That's tort law fixing the problem for you

And who exactly do you think should own the Mississippi River?

Anyone who wants to buy parts of it? I don't envision a single owner, that would be very improbably be the free market equilibrium.

But even if it is public property, then the public entity/entities owning it can sue.

I really don't see why you thought your example made any sense, do we need specific regulations banning people for throwing waste in your home garden for it to be illegal?

Yes? But IANAL, maybe it would fall under common law. I wasn't even allowed to throw waste in my own garden when I owned property.

I'm not the one who brought up the example of a river. But it certainly seems like the archetype of something that should not be owned privately even under a very free market economy. I have a degree in economics and have continued to read lots of economic literature for the last 30 years, and I have never heard anyone advocate for private ownership of a river over 2000 miles long. Not to say you're the first, but it's certainly a fringe opinion, and one that I don't feel is worth the energy of further rebuttal.

As I said, even if the ownership is public (and the topic is orthogonal to that of regulations) the public owners can still sue if someone dumps stuff in it against the owners will.

To begin with there is trespassing, because supposedly you also own some land around the river in order to actually own the river, then there is the damaging of property.

No need for further regulations than that, than normal property right protections, in the example provided.

I didn't bring the river issue up, you did saying that absent regulations companies could dump waste in the river without recourse.

Do you now agree that's false given the (currently public) owners can sue?

So dude gets a $5 million judgement against him for defamation and responds by going all out and getting an $83 million judgement for the same thing months later, yet people like Brian and lozen think he has sound judgment that is fitting for the office of POTUS. 🤣🤣

As usual, there are more than a couple of problems with AC fantasy land. First, in the real world, private litigation is a blunt and enormously inefficient tool for inducing "correct" behavior. Second, there is often a huge asymmetry in resources between the party engaging in the "bad" behavior and the people affected by that behavior. Yes, for some situations, we have come up with class actions, multidistrict litigation, and a few other mechanisms for reducing the impact of the asymmetry, but litigation using those mechanisms is even less efficient than business to business litigation.

I am not an AC deluded person, just a minarchist.

Btw in the situation described the aggrieved party is a public entity so more powerful than any single corporation that might be acting improperly on public land.

There is also the fact that in minarchism the defense of property rights should be stronger than today, so draconian penalties should be imagined for acts that destroy the value of others' property.

For the purposes of my point, I don't think the distinction between an ACist and an Ayn Rand enthusiast matters much.

Such as?

such as the company gets liquidated to pay damages even for minor infractions.

You still want deterrence in the law, and property rights violations can be criminalized more than they are currently.

EDIT for example: it wouldn't be absurd to consider any damage that reaches the economic value of a human life as bad as murder for example.

The uk has demonstarted the weakness of regualtion in this area. Sue the ****ing pants of them would be far better. Particularly criminal liability for the directors/owners

Public ownership would be way better than even that for the key waste producers/managers. Regulation of such important matters is a deceit by the left as they cave to the right.

I mean it's not only "ayn rand", it's just about liking the role government had in the 19th century. I am not inventing a model that never existed

Are you dispensing with the requirement that damages be connected to the amount of harm?

Also, are you assuming that litigation is a reasonable option in most cases? Take the following example.

Apple infringes on the patent of Company A, which is a failed startup business. If Apple had licensed the technology, reasonable royalties would have been in the range of $20 million. (Damages in patent cases typically are based on a reasonable royalty.) Apple obviously does not have to be liquidated in order to pay $20 million.

Consider the following facts also. Although the plaintiff is probably correct that Apple has infringed its patent, jury trials are uncertain. Let's assume that even highly meritorious claims have a 25% of losing at trial (probably a fair assumption for patent claims). Apple has decided for what poker players would call meta-game reasons to litigate the overwhelming majority of these sorts of cases to the death -- that is, to never settle in the hopes of deterring future claims alleging patent infringement.

For Company A, litigating the case all the way to conclusion will require at least $5 million and probably closer to $8 million if the lawyers aren't getting any of the back end. Company A doesn't have $5-8 million in free cash to devote to litigation. No lawyer will take the case on a straight contingency because damages are relatively modest, which makes it a bad risk. Financing to pursue the litigation is unavailable for the same reason. Apple is aware that patent holders like Company A have little or no practical recourse, which is one of the reasons why Apple wasn't too concerned about infringing on Company A's patent in the first place.

I understand. You referring to the model that gave us Standard Oil and children under the age of 10 working as chimney sweeps rather than going to school.

Keep in mind the idea is that all property rights violations become crimes if intent to benefit from the violation is proven, in my model. The sacrality of property is such that society moved toward criminalizing all property right violations as property gets seen as an extension of the human body and treated with the same deference, in my model.

So there is damage compensation to the damaged party, which i think it's still proper to keep linked to the actual assessment of the damage (with some compensation for time spent in court, all legal fees of course, interest/missed gains from the lack of property since the damage happened and the like).

Then there is the deterrence of crime aspect which can be a lot higher, in a way that what you want to achieve is basically no one should even think of violating other people property for personal gain because his whole life would be destroyed without remorse if intent to do so is proven in court (remember the draconian part). I am talking death penalty /life no parole (depending on societal decisions for those topics) for all decision takers of the company involved in the decision that caused the property right violation if the damage is in the millions, and yes, potentially the loss of the entire company as well even if it is worth a big multiple of the damage generated.

Everyone should be fully terrified of violating other property rights, it should be considered one of the most heinous crimes possible, to the level we consider raping children today, that's the idea.

Like how could you ever dump waste in a river owned by someone else if even the idea of trespassing would be considered a complete folly, no driver would ever accept to drive a truck there risking death (both by the owners of the land trespassed, or later by court fiat if considered guilty of property right violations causing big damages) and so on.

All the above wouldn't, in my model, apply to your example as IP wouldn't exist in my model (remember 19th century model with very few modifications? ) but that's a completly orthogonal topic.

you still lose time and spend money to contest regulatory violations , but in that case (the current case) you also spend huge sums keeping in place a permanent bureaucracy (agencies and so on) that supposedly should be watching over their regulated subjects,and of course regulations cause a reduction of economic growth because they are never perfect, are captured for political and financial reasons by agents (both in the government, and private agents) and so on.

It's not like the regulatory state is an attritionless fantasy world where regulations make life smoother for participants

Seems like your entire thesis is "me" is more important than "us". I used to think that. Don't anymore.

Aren't you arguing for tougher border enforcement? How does that square with being an anarchist?

Sure but the law should be focused on justice which requires, among other things, speed and accessibility.

Defending anything because of the monstronsity of the legal system is dubious.

Age of consent and all the related consequences is completly orthogonal to everything else we discussed up to this point so i don't understand why you bring up children working at 10 (which was normal in all societies at that stage of development, and was everywhere in the world before that as well, so please pause a second your rethoric) as something that would come out of the role of the goverment using the 19th century model.

Technology being better changes things, but the model (size of the gvmnt, role) can stay the same.

Standard Oil otoh was one of the many reasons the USA surpassed Argentina at the end of the 19th century as the most prosperous country in the world (in per capita gdp terms) so ye please give me back that model.

The demonization of Standard Oil as a purported enemy of society (and not, as it was, as one of the engine of the country prosperity) was the beginning of the fall; overarching regulation was born there with the excuse of "controlling monopolies", creating the ground for the every growing number of strangling regulation and agencies we now have controlling every tiny detail of our lives, to our demise.

"Why big bad oil" (1996, Olien & Olien) goes in great detail explaining why my above claims are true, much better than i could ever do so i suggest you read it if you have further questions about why i think Standard Oil wasn't absolutely the boogeyman most people today pretend it was, nor a bad outcome of capitalistic forces we have to regulate to avoid, rather a welcome development that helps the country prosperity

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25163113

1) I am not an anarchist

2) I am not actually arguing too much for tougher border control currently in the USA (i would in countries with a lot more welfare guaranteed to illegal aliens)

3) Being in favor of X sic stantibus res isn't being in favor of X *if the rest of the societal system was structured in a way i favor*, because i do have a coherent model of how i would like society to be (from the pov of goverment role in society), but when you act in reality you act against artificial boundaries created by others, so what's +ev to have in a proper model can be -ev in the world we live in.

Again any negative considerations you have about the legal system apply the same if we solve "don't pollute my river" with tort law, or with regulation.

You (the state, or the private party in my model if it's private property rights being damaged) still have to prove the violation in court.

There is no escape from that under a rule-of-law framework.

Alternative is you give dictatorial powers to some entities and they decide arbitrarily who violates what (quick, but not recommended).

arguing with libertarian types is silly because their own preferred form of government couldn't run a tiny town in New Hampshire and it got overrun by bears in the 21st century.