I have searched the previous forum toics, yet I have not been able to find one that would answer my question, that namely being about the introduction (as said in the topic) of new life forms or plants in to the enviroment causing death and/or destruction-things that would not be allowed to enter into an economy that has regimented its trade to exclude such things. So, onto my question, what would stop corporations, or any one individual for that matter, from placing such things into the enviroment that may in fact destroy either the life of people through epidemics or the crops of people in an anarcho-cap. or possibly minarchist society?
There is no “environment”, there is only private property. Property rights prevent people from introducing unwanted animals. The property owner deciding what happens to it is the only workable solution.
Any other solution would involve arbitrary authority. Should people be forbidden to introduce cattle onto their own property in order to protect the local vegetation?
Even if such an introduction of some strange and exotic cattle would kill hundreds if not thousands of people due to the disease that it may have carried? I understand that it would be necessary for arbitrary force to stop this totally, but is there really no way to prevent this without arbitrary force?
Also, though unlikely to the point of making it nearly incredulous, one could by theory bring these dangerous-to-most-life-forms to bypass the idea that you cannot coerce or initiate force upon another person-hence killing people indirectly.
Negative outside forces will always enter society, any society. Take drugs/weapons in prisons for example. Neither position can offer a risk-free utopia.
Sorry if this isn’t addressing your question directly.
Well if some corporation were to genetically engineer an animal capable of causing death and destruction on a huge scale a la Resident Evil or whatever, then they would be the rightful owners of this animal and hence would be responsible for all the mayhem it causes. So basically their main incentive to refrain from releasing it is the fact that they would have to pay off a lot of pissed off people.
Well, market anarchy is not utopian. It will not create a perfect world. Some problems may simply not be preventable, just as in the current state-run model. If someone intended to destroy the world (or environment) and obtained the means to do so. There may possibly be no logical way to prevent it. But it’s the same situation with or without a state, and is not an argument against Market Anarchy.
Only if those thousands of people are on my property.
All actions can be divided into two categories: Those that initiate harm against others and those that don’t. The former would be illegal and the latter would not. Most animals introductions will fall into the latter, though I suppose some could be in the former.
It seems you missed the obvious solution: judging cases individually according to their facts.