|
Okay, okay, perhaps I need a pseudonym change from An-ather bloody Libertarian to another friggin' contrarian. There is no need for such a treaty. If the details did not work out to AbL's liking, wouldn't he be miffed. Perhaps the unenforcability in the HCA decision is why it is so good - such a bad decision can't affect the internet. But do you entirely want to remove libel/slander? Rational people won't beleive outrageous or unproven stories, but they can still do damage, and there should be a dterrent/punishment/recompoence. Yes, credible outlets will prevail but innocent people still get hurt, or remain uncompensated or have a blackened name. A court decision holds much weight in society. The whackos and lazy journos get pushed aside, but without libel/slander, someone still gets hurt, and I beleive this is a market failure. Yep, soliciting isn't easily taxed. That's why a GST or land tax would get the revenue ( and lower the rate presumably). The money spent by the girl gets taxed, and the money saved by the man gets taxed in a land tax (making a few presumptions). Well, land may not be a fixed resource in the old classical sense, but there isn't a better example to my mind. What could be, that is currently utilised? Yes I do think that consumption is equivalent to tradeable utility, in the sense that holding something that can be consumed means that it is being withheld from someone who wants to consume it. Say, the land has nothing done to it, but people want to build houses on it. But then again, witholding it is a form of consumption. Owning the land uses up land non the less.
| 
