Quote from: AyeYo on June 17, 2011, 10:24:16 PM

Quote from: kylesaisgone on June 17, 2011, 10:16:20 PM

In order to understand my position, you have to let go of this irrational view of law and regulation as codified bureaucratic non-sense. Like I said, read Hayek, he has done a lot of work in this area. I can sit here and type up what's on my mind, but you'll just ignore it and reply with the typical strawman. You still haven't demonstrated that you're not a troll. Give me a good reason.

I don't have to give you shit. You made a claim, back up that claim.

My definition of law doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

Your job is to articulate an argument that will convince me that implicit, non-codified law with nothing but social shunning as punishment will control or eliminate behavior that even explicit, codified law backed by imprisonment and death has a tough time controlling.

Restated in words you might better understand...

You need to tell me why, if a bad person's bad actions are not deterred by written law promising physical punishment including financial loss, freedom loss, and even death, that same person will cease to engage in those actions if the only reprocussion they face is societal shame and outcast.

Because they won't make a profit, they will gain a bad reputation, will have problems making money or even getting a job, they might have assassins and private defense organizations out to get them (depending on what they did), etc

Meanwhile, in your "codified law", a couple of bribes, a powerful buddy in charge, or a sufficiently large amount of money (ironically enough, considering your argument) and you can become practically untouchable regardless of what you do. Look at huge agribusinesses like Monsanto; they sell unsafe goods, they violate people's property and prevent property owners from defending themselves from it, and the FDA goes out of its way to help them along, meanwhile they bust Amish farmers for selling raw milk. Look at drugs with the FDA. They prevent smaller drug companies or competition from entering with prohibitively high testing costs, but inversely don't prevent huge companies from doing a hundred tests and submitting the only one that shows that the drug in question doesn't result in death. That isn't even covering the fact that the FDA is notoriously corrupt. On one occasion, a drug company submitted a drug which was rejected 3-7. A while later, the EXACT SAME DRUG was submitted by a different company and accepted 8-2. Yeah, I am seeing some real success right there.

See, in a free society, that shit wouldn't fly because there would be enough competitors to make it prohibitively hard to screw with people and get away with it. Okay, maybe you pay off a judge or a defense agency or something; doesn't prevent the one down the street from deciding to deal with you to get itself a positive reputation.