It may be fashionable to forget this, but the purpose of the law is not to maximise the profits of these big corporations. It's to serve justice.

If Fox wants to pile on even more ads that's ok. Hopefully their viewers will rebel. And that goes for all the other channels as well. None of em are worth half the money they make to begin with. If they are allowed to simply appeal to the courts to *roll back the clocks* and roll back modern technology, for the sole purpose of propping up an obsolete business model, what does that say of justice?

This is a matter of horrible website design, aided and abetted by all the major browser makers. Unfortunately it is indeed very common, and unfortunately the solution you suggest is not simple, and definitely not good. It's trying to patch over a huge gaping wound with a million little individual scabs, each of which would have to come from a different source and be implemented independently.

Instead of offering multiple 'themes' per page, the logical way to do this is simply to use proper HTML, which means you use semantic tagging and leave layout and rendering decisions to the end-user equipment without assuming what capabilities it will or will not have.

Under what laws?

Under the ancient common law principles of tort, which are valid law in any common law jurisdiction until and unless superceded by statute.

Who makes these laws?

Common law torts originate so far back in time that it's difficult or impossible to precisely specify their origin. In this case we are talking about the tort of Nuisance which has been a recognised cause of action for a millenium or more.

Who determines the damages?

A judge or jury, after hearing testimony from both sides.

Who passes legislation that adjusts these laws when new forms of pollution come into existence?

That is one of the beautiful things about common law. No one needs to do that. The same principles apply to any instance of the tort, and the court simply applies them to the case at hand.

The very weak argument of how a free market is supposed to protect the environment goes something like this: people know pollution is bad and therefore they pay top dollar for the companies that pollute the least. If people don't think pollution is bad, then they buy the cheapest stuff and deal with it. And somehow the free market is supposed to work like this.

Uh no. That isnt even in the ballpark.

The way this is supposed to work in the free market is that if someone is polluting your water, your soil, or your air, you are supposed to be able to sue them, prove the damage, enjoin them from continuing, and collect damages for what was already done. This would prevent companies from externalising their costs in this way. When unable to externalise their costs, the real cost of production has to be paid, and included in the price of the product, and companies have a strong incentive NOT to pollute because they will be liable for the damge.

This free market method was not business-friendly enough, and so it has been superceded by statutory law and the EPA you are so fond of. The purpose of the EPA is NOT to protect the environment, as anyone who has paid much attention to it should realise. The purpose is to immunize polluters and allow them to externalise costs. The way it works is the EPA says a certain amount of pollution is acceptable, and as long as the company follows their rules, no one can sue them for the damage they do!

If the chinese are doing as you say (and it doesnt sound that far off to me, though I doubt either of us really know first-hand) that policy is self-defeating on its own. The best thing to do is avoid the temptation to respond in kind, and focus on keeping a proper free market here. In the long run they will only make themselves poorer, and us richer, and a few years down the road they will have no choice but to deal with the problems they are creating for themselves. It's sad for the common citizen in china, yes, but it isnt our governments job, or competency, to protect them.

So manipulating your currency and selling products at a loss is out competing?

People sell at a loss all the time, every grocery store has loss leaders. And the USA is in no position to complain about others manipulating their currency.

That said, it sounds like the Chinese are subsidizing this heavily. Hrmm, the US does the same thing dont they?

It's a self-defeating policy on both sides. If they want to sell at a loss, the best response is simply to let them. Let them waste their money, dont be stupid and waste ours as well.

That's not true. A free market doesnt mean no regulation, that's absurd.

What it means is only regulation in the meaning of the word current in 1776. Since then the word has been stretched and distorted until people think regulation = dictatorship by bureaucracy with a million little rules covering all aspects of the business. In 1776, regulation was still understood as 'make regular.' A well-regulated market is one where the minimal necessary rules are enforced and barriers to entry are not artificially raised. Traditional rules concerning force and fraud must be enforced in order for a free market to exist.

Unfortunately we have developed in the opposite direction, with rules against fraud effectively gutted, and a million little (and some not so little) regulations to raise barriers to entry and protect the market incumbents against competition. That isnt a free market at all.

Everything I do at work is recorded. And the worst I could do is cheat someone for a few dollars. Not kill them, or beat them within an inch of their life and send them to prison for something they didnt do.

I have a lot of sympathy for cops in general, several people close to me are or were cops. But then again they all want(ed) more cameras on them during their shift - to protect them from false charges.

Sorry, if he wont step up at all then he isnt a good cop.

That said, I also know a lot of good cops, and there are good reasons they wont step up nearly as often as we would like. Like everyone else, they are trying to work inside the system and do their job without losing it. And just like anyone else in such a situation, they have to pick their fights very carefully. What may look like a slam dunk case to us (and, in a perfect world, it would look the same to them) may still look very shaky to them, with a better understanding of the systemic obstacles they will face if they move.

If you want the good cops on your side, you have to make sure the case is clear cut, you have to have the evidence to prove that, and you need to avoid making inflammatory statements that disparage the entire profession as well. It's not impossible. It is much harder than it should be, however.

Actually there is much less space between the positions than you might think. We dont want the social safety nets to just go away. We do want to get the state out of it, AND remedy the fundamental problems that put so many people in need as well. Long term, end goal I think we could all agree would simply be a prosperous society where we are all able to pay for our own needs, including insurance to cover catastropic events, and the need for last-ditch assistance is practically zero. In such a situation private charity would indeed be more than capable of administering greatly improved versions of current programs such as were listed.

In the short term, of course, things are more delicate. But look at Ron Pauls plan for Social Security to get a clearer picture of how libertarians would rule. He doesnt cut off Social Security - quite the contrary he is the only one who actually has a realistic plan to keep it funded! At the same time, he wants to let people opt out of it from the start and send their contributions directly to a private retirement account which will give them a better return. Since the individual still has the option and there is no sunset, this plan would never actually end Social Security - not as long as there is a single living worker who prefers it to the private plans available. But it would see it wither to almost nothing in a generation, with most people voluntarily choosing to opt out of it.