So what happens when I have kids? I'm enslaving my kids by having kids, because they'll grow up in a world where there's one insurance company, whom they have to go through, and whom they have no way of controlling it, becuase there's no competition. And if there is competition, that makes the market-place even more complicated, as companies wouldn't know which rules to follow, or what their liabilities are, making the entire thing worse. Also, how does the insurance c company come to an agreement on the issues? If one person doesn't want said chemical, does that mean said chemical can't be used? Does it require majority opinion? Well, again, you're talking about a democracy. The problem is, you propose something which would function exactly like a government, in every way, but you want to call it something different, and lambast anyone who says we need government.
Though to show how we agree a little, I think there should be a "revolution" every so often, that the social contract needs to be remade with every generation.
Also, please explain again how having a third party insurance company is going to get companies to reduce their pollution. Why should a company follow the rules, when there's nothing forcing them to? Boycotts work great in a lot of area's, but no so great when it comes down to food and water.
Lastly, what an area that an insurance company manages? Up to the consumers, or a strict locality? If it's up the consumers, then we'd end up with something just like the federal government, by another name. If if it's a small strict locality, then you have problems actually guaranteeing the quality in question here; and also begs the question of who says that a company can't be larger.
Why would there be only 1 insurance company. There would likely be many, that's the point of markets, the poly-centric nature ensures competition continually tries new approaches to find what is best in a dynamic situation. The governmental mono-centric one-size-fits-all approach is very slow to react and try new things to improve. The scope the insurance companies coverage would be as small or as large as it needed to be. Border's are irrational in the market system, since you are contracting with people directly, no matter where they are, it ensures they play by the same rules. If you don't want a particular chemical in your local environment, but another company really wanted to use it. It doesn't have to be a black-and-white ultimatum where one of you wins out at the others expense, it would go to arbitration to work out a solution and may very well be a win-win. Perhaps the company will use special filtration or post-processing to eliminate the chemical, or people's homes or utilities are fitted with additional mechanisms to prevent contamination. There are lots of ways, but the point is, common ground can be found.
Because if there's more than one insurance company, it creates uncertainty and havoc in the market place in the relevant situation's Was it this, or the other thread, where the Articles of Confederation came up? By having more of a uniform policy, businesses and investors are able to know what they're getting their hands into. In your world, they won't really know what the rules are, and this will cause problems, uncertainty and a whole bunch of other things which make it unclear what the rules of the road are. This, along with basic human nature, market competition, and time eventually producing winners and lowers, a monopoly would eventually form.
What about infrastructure? There's limited space for things like telephone wires, roads, etc; a true market-place for this kind of thing would lead to absurd inefficiency in the system; there would either be too many roads, or no competition. The government is good when there won't be competition, because in a democratic governement, the people still have a voice - where as in a "market" system, you end up with someone who might as well be a monarch.
Also, arbitration? You do realize that's a legal term, meaning you're relying upon a government and a judicial system to enforce it. In your world, I see no reason at all to see why a company is held to someone elses demands unless they want to. If you force them into arbitration, then we're back to where you don't think we should be forcing them into said arbitration. If my investors and my market is half way across the world, then why should I listen to the local population as to what they want? The only way around this problem is to allow governance, your "HOA," which enforce such a process, and allow for something like what you're talking about to be possible. Regulations are then the rules and the common ground that get's agreed upon, which can end up in litigation and arbitration, and where people can find just compensation. It's a system they pay into and agree upon by where they live, and in a free society, you're allowed to leave.
The common ground that is eventually formed is a government, and you can call it by whatever name you want.
I'm done, the implications of what you say end up in government, and would mature into something you don't like, yet you don't like government. You've ignored so many of my arguments, that's it's rather frustrating.
Topic: Buffet Says: Tax the Mega Rich (Read 16225 times)
