How to respond to this?

[Greebo]

In this recent Motley Fool update, the following was stated:

Although I said that capitalism has the occasional blind spot, that's far from a condemnation of free markets. Few would argue that when Freeport-McMoRan (NYSE: FCX) builds a gold mine, it should be allowed to let cyanide leach into the drinking water of nearby towns. There's nothing inherent in capitalism that prevents that sort of behavior. It's a blind spot that we correct through regulation. We have laws because complete free markets neither protect people's rights nor result in a stable society. So, it's unclear why saying that capitalism has blind spots should be controversial.

Emphasis mine.

My question is - assuming a truly objective, lasseiz faire system - doesn't it follow that if FCX were to act in such a way as to cause sickness and death to others, that they would at the least be charged with criminal negligence?

Edited February 20, 2009 by Greebo

[Benpercent]

Cyanide leaking out from one person's gold mine and into another person's drinking supply without his consent is a violation of property rights and is to be treated as such (though the penalty may be harsher considering the nature of this violation). Contrary to the article, this is not a blind spot in Capitalism; by applying our principles we see that we have the answer right in front of us.

The problem is possibly that the author is not acquainted with the notion of individual rights (or at least property rights) and, lacking the principled knowledge, got confused when he thought about this concrete situation.

[Brule]

It is just another example of people who equate Capitalism with Corporatocracy. A true Capitalist state with a strict view of property rights has no blind spot. In fact, it is the only system that can rationally deal with the above situation.