Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Methods for choosing to ensure a market that operates how the public wants:

Regulation: Laws that mandate exactly how something should be done and if the company doesn't do it that way they are shut down - with no regard to whether or not the legally-mandated process achieves the end. Quite literally it's politicians controlling the means to hope that a certain end occurs, regardless of that end being achieved. Prone to regulatory capture, rent seeking, anticompetitive practices. Apt for: when a negative outcome will absolutely devastate the public, there isn't much variability in how to achieve the end, the domains in which the market operates are stable.

Tort Law: A company is free to change how some process works but is able to be held financially liable for all ramifications of their process. Prone to failure if the assets of a company are less than the damage they can produce. Apt for: a new market which is highly dynamic, the state of the art is constantly changing, ruin is limited to customers who have chosen to engage with the company (no to little externalities).

Neocons: in favor of no regulation and castrated tort remedies Neoliberals: in favor of bloated regulation (rent seeking) and symbolic tort remedies: Libertarians: in favor of /extremely/ limited regulation and strong tort remedies.



The problem with tort law is that by the time the government or court reacts, the perpetrators are long gone with the money and only a shell of a limited liability company is left.

For that to work the owners of a company has to be personally responsible for the damages they create.


For tort law to work, you need a very effective universal legal aid system. It can't all be done by no-win-no-fee and class actions, and it takes an extremely long time.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: