And the reason Russia ran out of money was that they continued with the war in Afghanistan that everyone knew they couldn't win. It took all their money to feed their armed forces, fuel the planes, and keep manufacturing the bullets and spare parts.
I think that the free market laws would be subject to a lot of interpretation by some powerful source that we would all have to agree upon. The government provides that now. If all that matters is property and individual rights, the Courts will be reasoning out whether a property right was violated or not.
The court system - since it's not run by any government would not have much power. If there wouldn't be a Supreme Court to end all the court decisions, who would be the last decider? The free market might help decide by supporting what operations a company uses to accomplish their service. They just wouldn't go to the 'bad' companies once the word was out. But, who would decide that they had committed fraud?
So far Cng, you are personally doing the interpretation of what is or isn't a violation of property rights. How can you be sure that everyone would agree with you? Maybe the company with the fraudulent advertising campaign would have lawyers to find ways of interpreting their actions as being the only way to tell the 'real' truth. They could hire courts that would keep them in business and justify what they are doing. Can you see that the public could be swayed by the publicity the company would create?
Comments
It took all their money to feed their armed forces, fuel the planes, and keep manufacturing the bullets and spare parts.
Is that what we're doing?
If all that matters is property and individual rights, the Courts will be reasoning out whether a property right was violated or not.
The court system - since it's not run by any government would not have much power. If there wouldn't be a Supreme Court to end all the court decisions, who
would be the last decider? The free market might help decide by supporting what operations a company uses to accomplish their service.
They just wouldn't go to the 'bad' companies once the word was out. But, who would decide that they had committed fraud?
So far Cng, you are personally doing the interpretation of what is or isn't a violation of property rights. How can you be sure that everyone would agree with you?
Maybe the company with the fraudulent advertising campaign would have lawyers to find ways of interpreting their actions as being the only way to tell the 'real' truth.
They could hire courts that would keep them in business and justify what they are doing. Can you see that the public could be swayed by the publicity the company
would create?
Secrets and communication don't work together. The other side of the issue of privacy is transparency. You can type but you can't hide!