At C4SS: In a Truly Free Market, BP Would Be Toast
posted by Kevin Carson | 9:59 PM
Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
To dissolve, submerge, and cause to disappear the political or governmental system in the economic system by reducing, simplifying, decentralizing and suppressing, one after another, all the wheels of this great machine, which is called the Government or the State. --Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution
Note--if the text field is blank, you should be reading this in Firefox.
MY SITES
The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto
Mutualist.Org: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
JLS Symposium on Mutualist Political Economy
Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective
Sports Apparel
Baby Products
WikiLaw3k
Blogging Fair Trade
Atom Feed
FAVORITE POSTS
Subject Headings
Organizational Behavior Theory
Decentralist Economics and Alternative Social Institutions
Contract Feudalism and Labor Issues
Agribusiness vs. Alternative Agriculture
Fish! Philosophy and Who Moved My Cheese?
Vulgar Libertarianism, Neoliberalism, and Corporate Welfare
Fake "Small Government," "Privatization," "Deregulation"
Primitive Accumulation
Neoconservative Ideology
Washington Bullets, "National Security," Globalization
Cockroach Caucuses and Local Corporate Welfare
Vulgar Liberalism, the New Class, and Publik Skools' War on Independent Thought
Libertarian-Green, Libertarian Right-Left Alliances
Libertarian Politics and Strategy
Free Market Anti-Capitalism
Georgism, Tuckerism, and Property Issues
Contra Reisman
Health Issues
Establishment Journalism
Police State
AFFILIATION
MY SITES
The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto
Mutualist.Org: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
JLS Symposium on Mutualist Political Economy
Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective
BUY MY BOOKS:
SUPPORT THIS BLOG
Sports Apparel
Baby Products
WikiLaw3k
Blogging Fair Trade
- At C4SS: Two Lessons From a Rogue Ex-Cop
- C4SS May Fund Drive
- At C4SS: The Proprietary Content Industry's Stran...
- At C4SS: Getting it Backward
- At C4SS: Politics as a Dead End, Part Two
- At P2P Blog: Homebrew Industrial Revolution, Chap...
- At C4SS: Politics as a Dead End, Part One
- At C4SS--Meet the New Boss, Part Two: Executive Po...
- At P2P Blog: Cory Doctorow. For the Win
- At C4SS--Meet the New Boss, Part One: Empire
Atom Feed
FAVORITE POSTS
Subject Headings
AFFILIATION
3 Comments:
Various valid points in the article, particularly on the role of the (cpaitalist) state in protecting capitalist corporations.
The problem with the analysis is, I would suggest, that the solution is retroactive and so not really a solution at all. Sure, it would be possible to sue a company for the damage done but that is the problem -- the eco-system has been destroyed.
Would an individualist anarchy be able to deter people and companies going potentially dangerous things, for example, drilling in the gulf? After all, the company may think that the profits make it worthwhile and they may underestimate the dangers. How would others object?
They could sue afterward but, as I said, the damage has been done. Eco-systems are hard to repair and the assets of the owners may not cover the costs.
Similarly, in the case of wilderness, how would it be protected? If people can "homestead" anything which is "unowned" (i.e., untransformed by labour) then, surely, wilderness areas cannot be protected because, by definition, no one "values" them (for if they did, they would labour on them and so stop them being wilderness).
In short, can eco-systems and the inter-connectedness of human and non-human life fit into an individualistic system?
And I should note that Shawn makes a lot of good points too.
Iain
An Anarchist FAQ
Thanks for the comments, Iain. I responded to Shawn's comment under his post.
Your critique of tort law/insurance premiums for acting only ex post is valid, but I don't think there's any system that would address pollution ex ante. The regulatory state was supposed to prevent risky behavior ex ante, and we see how that turned out. If the point is to "deter people... doing potentially dangerous things," by definition the approach is of behavior modification based on the anticipated consequences of one's actions ex post. And I expect the threat of a "corporate death sentence" with all assets liquidated to pay the full cleanup costs and economic damages from a big spill (in addition to cleaning out the bank accounts of execs personally guilty of deliberate criminal negligence) is at least as effective as the threat of a fine from the EPA for inadequate safety measures.
There's no system in which the operations would not be carried out by human beings with a tendency to underestimate long-term cost and risks compared to short-term gratification.
Re homesteading wilderness, I think the Ricardian/Georgist view is pretty much on the mark. Marginal wilderness areas are homesteaded only by landless people who have been excluded by the political appropriation of land, and the holding of more fertible and more favorably situated land out of use. If there were no artificial property rights in land in Brazil, say, and arable land were fully utilized by peasants, slash-and-burn development of the rainforest wouldn't be an issue.
"Insurance companies take the kind of adversarial attitude toward the insured that liberals only wish government regulators took toward regulated industries."
The solution is clear! Government-mandated Universal Liability Insurance for all corporate persons!
Post a Comment
<< Home