590
591

Has a Crime Been Committed? (i.imgur.com)

mutantturkeySomalian Warlord / Capitalist Pig [Message Redacted] が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Balrogic3Anarchist (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ 85 ポイント86 ポイント  (94子コメント)

I can kinda see the "society" the victim part being used to justify some pretty horrible pollution.

[–]HEADPOCKET 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (28子コメント)

There would be individuals with standing in most cases.

[–]VStarffin 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Maybe. I can think of a few situations where standing would be a serious issue:

1) The pollution is diffuse enough that it doesn't harm any one person enough to make it worthwhile for them to pursue you.

2) The person you are effecting is not in a position to sue you. A classic example here is that if you pollute a river, and then it hurts a peasant village downriver in another country, how exactly are they supposed to stop you, in any realistic way?

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (8子コメント)

It's worth noting the difference between "An ideal legal system" and "An ideal adjudication process". Even with the perfect set of laws, you could very well have attorneys and judges that decide "Dumping radioactive waste onto a neighbor's lawn doesn't do him any harm, because shut up."

So there are lots of edge cases. But there are lots of other not-anywhere-near-edge-cases where a polluter could win or a responsible party lose simply because of superior lawyers / sympathetic judges / ill-informed juries / etc. The LP "It only counts if someone gets hurt!" doesn't work in practice, because the judicial system doesn't always operate on bright-line tests and regularly allows juries (a la processes like nullification) to jump the rails and decide outside the strict boundaries of the law.

What libertarians really want is for everyone to agree with their interpretation of events. And good luck with that.

[–]HEADPOCKET 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (6子コメント)

It's very easy to think up hypothetical legal problems, especially when we currently exist in a monopolized statist legal system.

Should I start listing all of the real and hypothetical legal problems in monopolized statist legal systems?

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

It's very easy to think up hypothetical legal problems, especially when we currently exist in a monopolized statist legal system.

eye-roll Monopolized my ass. We have overlapping municipal, state, and federal systems each tightly bound by geography. You have a smorgassboard of political options within the US alone. Your options only grow as you search farther afield.

Should I start listing all of the real and hypothetical legal problems in monopolized statist legal systems?

You're free to, if you so desire. In fact, you could start with the two big problems I listed above. Even in statist monopolized commie-topia, an ideal legal system only functions as designed when the court participants allow it. And in order to achieve that end, everyone in the court system must be of like mind regarding how the law is interpreted. On both counts, good fucking luck.

[–]HEADPOCKET 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

eye-roll Monopolized my ass. We have overlapping municipal, state, and federal systems each tightly bound by geography.

It's still a coercive monopoly that forcefully excludes competitors, by law. Call it an oligopoly if you want.

You're free to, if you so desire.

Here's one: The institution that runs the legal system also creates the laws and owns the police force that enforces the laws. If you object to the state laws or the actions of the state police, you have to go to the state courts and be presided over by the state judges. In many cases, the state simply claims sovereign immunity, which means that you can't even bring it to court.

Let's consider a real-life example of this in play: The state decided that Japanese Americans should be rounded up and sent to concentration camps. The executive order was issued by the state executive, enforced by the state police, and determined to be legal by the state courts.

I still see many problems that could potentially occur in a non-monopolized legal system. Fortunately, legally rounding up 100,000+ human beings and forcing them into concentration camps is not one of them. So I'd take my chances with the "libertarian" legal system.

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's still a coercive monopoly that forcefully excludes competitors, by law.

It does no such thing. You're always free to challenge laws, either through politics or through arbitration. And if you really can't stand the law, you're free to leave the municipality / state / country and strike out on your own as other have done in the past

Here's one: The institution that runs the legal system also creates the laws and owns the police force that enforces the laws.

The three branches of government are administered distinctively and have limited channels of interaction. Legislators cannot command the police. Judges cannot author legislation. Cops cannot deliver a verdict.

Let's consider a real-life example of this in play: The state decided that Japanese Americans should be rounded up and sent to concentration camps. The executive order was issued by the state executive, enforced by the state police, and determined to be legal by the state courts.

The Japanese thus interned can challenge these actions in court, petition for legal change and redress, have the executive orders rendered illegal, and recoup losses for harms inflicted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_redress_and_court_cases

I still see many problems that could potentially occur in a non-monopolized legal system. Fortunately, legally rounding up 100,000+ human beings and forcing them into concentration camps is not one of them.

There is absolutely nothing that prevents a body of armed men with superior weapons and tactics from identifying and rounding up another group of people and detaining or executing them. What you're asking for in "non-monopolized" authority is equality of capacity between all parties which will never happen. At no point in the future will all individuals be equally capable of self-defense, much less any one individual or group equally capable of self-defense against a more militarily capable individual or group.

[–]gandhii 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Are you arguing for or against statism? Or are you arguing that we're screwed no matter what ideals we work towards and therefore we should just sit on our asses in reddit and try and convince others to give up on trying as well?

[–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Are you arguing for or against statism?

I'm arguing that there is no "monopolized statist legal system". At least, not unless we're going to start radically revising what words mean.

Or are you arguing that we're screwed no matter what ideals we work towards and therefore we should just sit on our asses in reddit and try and convince others to give up on trying as well?

Nope. I'm saying that there are some fundamental problems every system struggles to overcome. And the Libertarian "Just do it my way!" approach doesn't address or seek to resolve them in any meaningful fashion. It just operates on the a priori assumption that their system works better.

[–]codemercenary 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You should write a book on this subject. I always like reading your responses, whether satire or not.

[–]DialMMM 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

1) Class action

2) Class action

[–]VStarffin 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

How does a class action suit help #2?

[–]DialMMM 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A village sounds like enough people to form a class.

[–]Flintloxminarchist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

They are damaging property down stream. They are damaging your/their property. I dont see what's hard to understand about this.

You say they "aren't in a position to sue" how? Why? Those are the problems as a barrier to equal access to courts, not a problem with a system that is based on property rights.

[–]VStarffin 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You think this happens in reality?

[–]Flintloxminarchist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It can't happen because of the EPA. How can you not know that? That's a major piece of contention in laws regarding pollution. The coase theory is basically what is being described in using property rights. It's pretty well recognized.

[–]terroh8er 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm in favor of limited environmental regulations, but for number 1, that is why class action lawsuits exist. Lawyers have an incentive to seek you out. The reason I am in favor of limited environmental regulations is because it is difficult to tell the source of every bit of pollution.

[–]Jason_OT 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The difficulty in proving a source of pollution, and that it has caused real harm, is a much better argument for stricter regulation and more harsh penalties than it is for limited regulation/punishment.

Given the aforementioned difficulty, let's say you can only prove harm 10% of the time it's actually happening. With strict regulation and harsh punishment, maybe you'll actually be able to hold accountable 7% of offenders. With lax regulation and enforcement, and incredible difficulty in proving harm in the first place, we're probably talking less than 1% of offenders being held accountable. Obviously these are all made up numbers, but you get the idea.

Also, don't forget, we're largely talking about collective resources here that are being polluted; ground water, air, etc. This sort of regulation is one of the few things governments of all levels actually should be involved in because of the distributed nature of the harm caused.

[–]HEADPOCKET -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Most cases.

[–]thetireguy 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

DWI is an offense where "The peace and dignity of the State of Texas" is the victim. Surely we don't need to wait until they hit someone?

[–]Geohump 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Yeah, like with air pollution, pretty much everyone shares the air, so "society"... :-D

[–]SheCutOffHerToe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Come on. Has no one in r/libertarian even read 101-level stuff like Walter Block? These aren't new dilemmas. These issues were put to bed decades (if not centuries) ago.

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/EconomicsandtheEnvironment.pdf

[–]HEADPOCKET 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The thing is that everyone pollutes. A certain level of pollution is necessary. The only non-arbitrary way to determine "optimal" pollution levels is through the hard work of determining legal standing and working through questions of property, quantifying harm, compensation, abatement, compromise, etc. There are no shortcuts that magically solve the problem of pollution, just as there aren't actually any shortcuts that magically solve the problems of education, poverty, roads, terrorism, etc.

[–]Geohump 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

A certain level of pollution is necessary.

Is it? I'm fairly certain this isn't any kind of truth.

[–]HEADPOCKET 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

To take this position, you would have to favor destroying every single car on Earth, banning smoking, banning flatulence, banning breathing, etc. You would basically have to propose that everyone in the world kill themselves.

[–]FuzzyBaconArachno-socialist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is in the sense that humans, as apex predators, are pretty much walking ecological disasters because of how much energy goes into producing our food.

But in the actual sense that people are really talking about? Totally possible to drastically reduce pollution. It would just be very expensive.

[–]thisisntnamman 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What's standing in a pollution case? Do future plaintiffs have to wait for health related damages before pollution becomes a crime?

[–]SheCutOffHerToe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No.

[–]Tylerjb4 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Or something like jacking off next to a preschool

[–]lemonpartystatism kills 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (16子コメント)

both of these examples have specific groups of people who were victimized

[–]Tylerjb4 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Did I impede on their liberty, property, or life?

[–]lemonpartystatism kills 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]DialMMM -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Do you suppose that if you told a preschooler every day for a month than you were coming to his house to kill his parents at the end of the month, he would be harmed by this?

    [–]kenlane -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Liberty probably allows him to be a creep and do that sort of thing. Really personal liberty nullifies any set of public indecency laws we have, so long as noone is harmed by them.

    The really gray area here is if the children notice the guy, would that cause them emotional harm? Probably, might be hard to prove though.

    [–]Flintloxminarchist 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I highly doubt it would be hard to prove. There are a lot of psychologists that would readily testify to the fact that this kind of behaviour could psychologically damage a person at such a young age.

    [–]kenlane 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    readily testify to the fact that this kind of behaviour could psychologically

    [emphasis mine].

    I agree with you, but in the American (I noticed the u in behavior) justice system something must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That use of the word could would most certainly be attacked.

    Fortunately for America, in addition to us not knowing how to use commas, we are ignorant of our own judicial system. I suspect most jurors would vote to convict anyway but I can see how a well crafted argument by a good lawyer with a well reasoned jury would come to the conclusion that the criteria, beyond a reasonable doubt, was not met.

    E: And I really hope I'm wrong on this one, I'm just trying to play the devils advocate.

    [–]Flintloxminarchist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Sure, there is always a chance there will be a travesty of justice, but that's in any system with humans. Personally, I like the idea that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent one.

    [–]mortemdeus -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Yep but you have to deny the victimizers liberty if you want to save the victims, which is also a crime on this chart.

    [–]shiftyeyedgoatlibertarian party 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Your An-Cap is leaking.. the chart above is assuming the US model of Court Justice, with deference to its authority in arbitrating or adjudicating.

    [–]tablemanSocial contract: roads and thousands of dead children in iraq -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    US model of court system:

    5 % of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prison population

    [–]shiftyeyedgoatlibertarian party 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    A full 22% (or more) imprisoned due to non-violent, drug-related crime.

    In 2011, 55.6% of the 1,131,210 sentenced prisoners in state prisons were being held for violent crimes (this number excludes the 200,966 prisoners being held due parole violations, of which 39.6% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent violent crime)

    Removing the extensive list of non-violent crimes and the criminials those laws create reduces the US prison population by nearly 45%. That is significant.

    [–]tablemanSocial contract: roads and thousands of dead children in iraq -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You are supporting my post, yet I got downvoted?

    [–]second_time_again -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Which is solved by OPs diagram. What's your point?

    [–]tablemanSocial contract: roads and thousands of dead children in iraq -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's not "solved", it will keep happening.

    [–]gandhii 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm not seeing where it says anything about "victimizers" or any synonym of such in this chart. Please specify.

    [–]BearSausage 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Pollution is a crime against property. That is why any smart libertarian should support National Parks as well as property rights.

    [–]NoMoreNicksLeftleave-me-the-fuck-alone-ist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (39子コメント)

    Pollution is definitely a property crime. Except for imaginary pollution (that smoker over there is giving me lung cancer!).

    [–]aquaknox 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (21子コメント)

    Is second-hand smoke a myth? I hadn't heard that. I'm aware that being around smoking occasionally won't give me cancer since my lungs can repair themselves, but would, say, living in a house with someone who smokes 2 packs a day indoors really not increase your risk?

    [–]mcfattykins 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (13子コメント)

    Yes. Second hand smoke can hurt you. The FDA used a study that had been proven to be bogus to make indoor smoking bans legitimate but later studies have shown prolonged exposure in unventilated environments does raise your chances of getting lung cancer. But the chances of getting cancer if you are in a building that is ventilated and someone is smoking are very insignificant. If odds like that bother you, I can't imagine the anxiety you get from driving or riding in a car comparatively

    [–]aquaknox 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    reminds me of people who think living in the same county as a nuclear plant will give you cancer and deformed children.

    [–]mcfattykins 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Better not eat a banana then. You'll get more radiation then living next to one!

    [–]FuzzyBaconArachno-socialist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

    But the chances of getting cancer if you are in a building that is ventilated and someone is smoking are very insignificant

    What about the risk of my workplace smelling like ass and thus effecting my quality of life? That shit lingers. There was (well, still is, but it's not my workplace anymore) a room that used to be the indoor smoking room. It hadn't been used for 15 years and it still kinda smelled like cigarettes.

    [–]mcfattykins 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Well no one is forcing you to work there. And i doubt even if a business was allowed to smoke inside that many would still. A government shouldn't force a business to remain smoke free they should be subject to the consequences of their own actions.

    [–]FuzzyBaconArachno-socialist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    A government shouldn't force a business to remain smoke free

    In the case of the defunct smoking break room, my employer did that of their own accord - in fact most businesses did, with the exceptions being bars and restaurants (and those are being restricted now too, because it does have an impact on the health of the employees). Point being it's not nearly as simple as saying "there's no harm to smoking in a ventilated building", because it can impact the quality of life and the quality of work that is produced - even if the government didn't say "no smoking indoors", private organizations would still crack down on it because a workplace that smells like an ashtray is not conducive to concentrating.

    [–]mcfattykins 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    I meant become instead of remain

    [–]FuzzyBaconArachno-socialist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    My point still stands, I think. The government didn't take smoking away from private businesses, that decision came down from corporate heaven when they realized that not only were nonsmokers cheaper to employ (insurance costs and additional breaks add up), having smokers around actually negatively impacted the nonsmokers.

    [–]mcfattykins 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Government's have instituted indoor smoking bans though which I do believe hurts certain types of business and the point I'm trying to make is the choice should be in the hands of the business which I think we both agree on.

    [–]mcfattykins 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    And to your point i agree with you completely. A business is very capable of deciding what's in it's best interest. I'm all for if a business being smoke free if it is voluntary, but we shouldn't punish businesses that don't require being smoke free.

    [–]FuzzyBaconArachno-socialist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    but we shouldn't punish businesses that don't require being smoke free.

    We should, and we do, by not giving them our business. The government didn't take that freedom away from most businesses (just bars and restaurants), the businesses took them away because it was hurting productivity.

    [–]legweedclassical liberal 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    It will, but smoking outdoors and in the open does not pose a second hand smoke risk, even if you can smell it.

    [–]ADH-Kydex 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Outdoor smoke won't give you cancer but it can be disgusting. I'm not sure if that interferes with my right to clean air, but it makes you a dick if you smoke in a crowded public place.

    [–]aquaknox 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    So it's more that everyone is just way more afraid of it than they should be.

    [–]VStarffin 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (14子コメント)

    How is that imaginary? Even if you don't think it causes health damage, you're still putting smoke into someone else's body without their consent. It's still a form of non-consensual violation of that person's body.

    If I spit in your face, that's not damaging or anything like that, but its still not permitted. Why is smoke ok?

    [–]NoMoreNicksLeftleave-me-the-fuck-alone-ist 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (13子コメント)

    you're still putting smoke into someone else's body without their consent.

    In the same way that you're putting smoke into their bodies if you drive 1000 miles away from them and then smoke?

    Or in the same way that you're polluting when I have to breath in your carbon monoxide?

    [–]VStarffin 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (12子コメント)

    Yes, its the same way; the difference is one of degree, not kind.

    The failure to libertarianism to reckon with this isn't my fault.

    [–]NoMoreNicksLeftleave-me-the-fuck-alone-ist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Yes, its the same way;

    Any theory that has as its foundational premise that we're all committing crimes against each other and can do nothing to stop it is absurd. And useless.

    [–]VStarffin 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Similarly, any theory of personal rights or property which ignores the fact that we're all constantly violating the personal bodies and property of one another is absurd. And useless.

    I don't believe we're all committing crimes against each other. Do you believe that people should be free of all forms of non-consensual molestation?

    [–]NoMoreNicksLeftleave-me-the-fuck-alone-ist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    hich ignores the fact that we're all constantly violating the personal bodies

    I am not violating your body. Or anyone else's.

    I don't believe we're all committing crimes against each other.

    Then we have some sort of communication difficulty, because I cannot understand how your previous statement says anything but this.

    Do you believe that people should be free of all forms of non-consensual molestation?

    If they wish to be free from imaginary violation, they can choose to imagine something else.

    [–]VStarffin 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    I am not violating your body. Or anyone else's.

    If you smoke a cigarette, and blow that smoke in my face, you're not violating my body?

    [–]NoMoreNicksLeftleave-me-the-fuck-alone-ist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    If I smoke a cigarette 2 miles away, and the wind wafts it to your location... can you even tell?

    [–][削除されました]  (0子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]ActionAxiomkierkegaardian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      The failure to libertarianism to reckon with this isn't my fault.

      Libertarians have not failed to address continuums. More importantly, continuums are solved through reasonableness criteria and tort liability in a far more satisfactory manner than distance/intensity criteria can possibly hope.

      [–]gandhii -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      The same can be said about any political method or ideology. Lack of perfection in the pragmatism of the libertarian/anarchistic ideal as an excuse to not try is the act of seriously missing the point.

      Every little step in our culture where we can stop legally attacking, abducting and/or killing others for acts that have no legitimate affect on others... is a step in the right direction. How many people do we need to kill over a loosy cigarette tax law before we actually consider that maybe some things aren't worth killing over.

      And in order to be clear.. if you support a law (regardless what it is for) then you support the act of killing to enforce that law. What? you say? what if it is only a fine? Well, if that person thinks the law is stupid then they may decide to not pay the fine. And then eventually cops will get sent to abduct this person who in an exercise of their natural rights may choose to defend themselves. Which generally results in this person getting killed by the officers. And you need to think real hard about whether that small amount of smoke that annoyed you is worth killing over.

      I'm not really trying change your mind on this.. but I would like to communicate that your view on this subject is not a moral one.

      [–]VStarffin 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I'm not really trying change your mind on this.. but I would like to communicate that your view on this subject is not a moral one.

      I wasn't trying to make a moral point. I was trying to show the vacuousness of the libertarian position.

      Contrary to what you said, this is not a problem for any political ideology. Libertarianism, while not unique, is a political philosophy which adheres very, very strongly to certain metaphysical beliefs which manifest themselves through very particular and specific policy positions. The most obvious of this is the primacy of private property, and the primacy of consensual activity, especially as it relates to the actual body of the person.

      The problem for libertarianism is what happens when that primacy runs up into a rather absurd result - that was the point of my statement. Other philosophies don't have this issue, because they don't hitch their wagon to absolute rules which lead you to absurd conclusions.

      [–]IPredictAReddit 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      that smoker over there is giving me lung cancer!

      It's only "imaginary" because you have no means of handling the fact that second-hand cigarette smoke is, indeed, aggressing against another person.

      Can't fit it into the set of ideals you think libertarianism should be? Assume it away by calling it imaginary and carry on!

      This is what r/libertarian has reduced libertarianism to.

      edit: but upvote for being correct that pollution is definitely a property crime.

      [–]Zifnab25Filthy Statist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Except for imaginary pollution (that smoker over there is giving me lung cancer!).

      And here is where the break-down really occurs. "My pollution is real. Your pollution isn't real." No legal system in the world is going to sort out people that try to redefine policy into a personal convenience.

      I mean, shit, if we're going to deny the effects of second hand smoke, what's to stop us from going the extra mile and concluding asbestos doesn't cause lung damage. Why not claim radioactive materials don't cause physical burns. "It's a sun tan! Walk it off! Thus plutonium never hurt anyone!"

      [–]ghritt -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Pollution is a problem the market has no mechanism to solve.

      [–]SheCutOffHerToe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Citation needed.

      [–]ghritt 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Companies with larger profits tend to survive longer than those with reduced profits since they can price their product lower and have more capital to reinvest. It is cheaper to dump pollution than to dispose of it in a controlled way -> the market rewards companies that pollute with higher profits -> polluting companies outlast non-polluting companies.

      Feel free to post a libertarian nation with demonstrably lower pollution than other nation states.

      [–]Dantedamean -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

      This chart is more for an individual not a corporation.

      [–]second_time_again 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      A corporation is a government established entity designed to help powerful people evade taxes and certain rules.

      [–]KnightOfSeashells -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      But corporations are people. And people are individuals.