| |
| ▲ | sham1 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | And pray tell, who comes up with common law? And who enforces the judgment of the court? And what gives the court the authority to judge on the matter of glass shards in your tomato paste? Fun fact about the common law in fact is that it came into existence because the English government after the Norman conquest needed a unified theory of law for the king's courts that was distinct from manorial and canon laws. 1154 Henry 2 the Plantagenet ascended the throne and wanted a code of law that would apply everywhere in the realm as opposed to local laws, the aforementioned manorial laws, as well as being secular, unlike canon law. So without the government, you wouldn't have this common law your legal theory relies on. | |
| ▲ | pixl97 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Right, this typically works very well after you spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars getting all the stuff to court in the first place to have a trial drag on for years in discovery all the while the hospital is sending out debt collectors. Oh, that's if it wasn't actually a shell company in the first place that has no assets. A good portion of the things you mention existed before we had food regulations, you could sue the business if you had issues with them. The problem is the vast portion of the population is far too poor to do that. Regulations stop the harm before it happens. | | |
| ▲ | piekvorst 2 days ago | parent [-] | | My claim is narrower: the principle of retaliatory force is practicable. That is, a society can function using only courts, class actions, and government-as-plaintiff, without preemptive editcs on screw sizes or battery compartments. As I said earlier in this thread: > Determining the best means of applying the principle of suing corporations in practice is an very complex question that belongs to the philosophy of law. | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | >My claim is narrower: the principle of retaliatory force is practicable Ah yes, the school of theory that says it's better to clean up the spilled milk after its been contaminated with uranium waste. | | |
| ▲ | piekvorst 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | You’re assuming that without preemptive permits, nothing stops a company from spewing uranium. But liability, if properly enforced, is a powerful deterrent. The threat of paying full cleanup costs, compensating victims, and facing criminal charges for negligence doesn’t require an official to approve one’s pipe size in advance. Further, the principle doesn’t deny retaliating in advance when violence can be objectively anticipated. | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | This does not and cannot exist when the corporate veil exists. Make a corporate shell and throw it away like a used condom. Add to that a company can cause a trillion dollars of damage while having only a billion dollars on hand. Criminal charges don't fix things, if they did there wouldn't be murderers in jail. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | vrganj 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sue them in who's court? With who to enforce the ruling? The... government? | | |
| ▲ | piekvorst 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Courts, police, and the army are proper. That's government. The difference is what kind of government. A proper government holds a monopoly on retaliatory force, it acts after someone initiates force or fraud. It doesn't dictate your screw size, battery compartment, or production method before you've harmed anyone. | | |
| ▲ | roboror a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Are there laws and lawmakers in this scenario? | | |
| ▲ | piekvorst 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, to settle disputes. The purpose of these laws is the protection of individual rights, not consumer “rights” or any other special “rights” that belong exclusively to one group or race and no other. |
| |
| ▲ | vrganj 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | ...why? This sounds incredibly arbitrary. | | |
| ▲ | piekvorst 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's not arbitrary. It's called the distinction between retaliatory and preemptive force. Retaliatory force requires a victim and evidence of causation. Preemptive force has no objective anchor, hence arbitrary by definition. You can't jail a man for a crime he might commit tomorrow. | | |
| ▲ | vrganj a day ago | parent [-] | | What im saying is that this distinction is arbitrary. Running a society isn't all about punishing crimes. That's just one minor aspect of a states responsibilities. Standardization is another, arguably more important one. | | |
| ▲ | piekvorst a day ago | parent [-] | | It's far from minor. To ban physical force from social relationships,
people need an institution charged with the task of protecting their
rights. People's rights can only be violated by physical force. To
prevent this, the government's only solution is to hold a legal
monopoly on the use of physical force. If this vested power remains unchecked and unlimited, the government
will violate the rights of its own citizens. That's why we should
limit its power to retaliatory use. Standardization is a very valuable asset, I don't deny that. But: 1. Standardization is not limited to forced standardization; 2. It's better to live in a world not fully standardized than to
accept the premise that it's right to violate rights for a good cause.
The "good cause" shifts the question from "should rights be violated?"
to "what kind of violation do you want?" Once we accept that, we lose
to totalitarianism. A man who says "let's violate a tiny fraction of
rights" would lose to a man who declares "let's violate rights of
thousands." | | |
| ▲ | vrganj a day ago | parent [-] | | There's more to rights than just physical force. How do you account for the right to clean water and sanitation [0] without state infrastructure, just as an example? It feels like you care a lot about violence and force, at the expense of (imo) more important issues societies face. [0] https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/human-rights-water-and-s... | | |
| ▲ | piekvorst a day ago | parent [-] | | If people without an access to clean water want it, the proper route is to trade with those who do, not victimize them. There can be no right that involves sacrifices of one man to another. Trying to wield sacrifices at the point of a gun (by an official or legislator) is the most important and disturbing modern issue. It paves the road to all actual social conflicts, unrest, and misunderstanding. | | |
| ▲ | vrganj a day ago | parent [-] | | The people withholding the water in this scenario are the ones victimizing the ones without. That's where the state monopoly on violence has to come in as a corrective mechanism. | | |
| ▲ | piekvorst a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If "withholding" means actively blocking someone from acessing water they already have a right to, you'd be correct. But that's not what's in your link. Passive possession, "I have water, I'm not giving it to you," is not initiation of force. It's simply not being someone else's servant. And it's unjust to assume humanity wouldn't help unless forced to. By calling upon sacrifices, the first target would be engineers, plumbers, and utility workers. Forcing the people who actually produce and deliver clean water isn't justice. | | |
| ▲ | vrganj a day ago | parent [-] | | You're completely discounting the most perfidious type of violence: economic violence. Punishing and preventing it is the core purpose of the state. | | |
| ▲ | piekvorst a day ago | parent [-] | | What exactly do you mean by "economic violence"? If you mean fraud or theft, we already agree those are crimes. If you mean something else, I'd like to know what. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cindyllm a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
