Libertarian Govt and the environment

[The Dude]

In what way would a libertarian run government, and pure capitalism in general, protect the environment so that the population of the country would not be enslaved by living in an environment unsuitable to healthy living or completely reduced of most or all natural resources and beauty?

[libertybrewcity]

Property rights. If I own a piece of land and a corporation throws it pollutants in my back yard, they hurt me and my property and will face consequences in court. It acts a regulator because companies don't want to destroy what others have or face consequences.

Todays atmosphere allows for destruction of others property because companies can pollute and not face many problems.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

In what way would a libertarian run government, and pure capitalism in general, protect the environment so that the population of the country would not be enslaved by living in an environment unsuitable to healthy living or completely reduced of most or all natural resources and beauty?

YouTube - Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo)

There should be links on the side for the rest of the parts. The Government creates the environmental calamaties, not the market. The market has answers to it in private property rights. In fact, he goes over how the US used to deal with violaters of private property via pollution -- Nuisance laws/suits. Same thing would happen in a laissez-faire market society or in a Nozickian minarchist State.

[00_Pete]

The "pure" libertarians like to beleive that private property would generate the will of the property owner to take care of the environment of its property. They also like to beleive that the capacity to sue others for enviromental damages to a person or property would also generate this will to take care of the environment. They also like to beleive that great numbers of people would volunteer for private-owned and founded organizations dedicated to save animals or take care of the environment.

But all those that understand that "pure" libertarianism is a noble but impossible goal know that ultimatly there would have to be governmental force applied to the people or else we would all die in a sea of polution, most of the rare and vulnerable beautiful animals would go instinct and the judicial system would be completly paralised thanks to the numbers of judicial processes related to the enviroment (and most of them downright money-grabbing and silly).

Deep inside every advocate of "pure" libertarianism knows this is the truth and the "force of private property" argument is a bunch of crap...

Maybe, in a very distant future, when the vast majority of Humans reach a superior stage of spiritual and intellectual level this "pure" libertarianism would be possible but for now...say hello to mr. Force-over-the-individual :)

[Acala]

I'm sure there are many threads talking about this, but in a nutshell environmental protection in a free society is about clearly defining property rights.

If your neighbor throws his garbage on your front lawn, your property rights have been violated and you can use civil courts to make him fix the damage. Why is industrial waste treated differently? If you clearly define property rights in clean air and water, then you can protect them.

The current system of environmental protection is a disaster. EPA and its state counterparts are interested in maintaining their own power and the environmental laws they enforce were written to create huge, permanent government agencies overseeing a vast system of permits that cover almost every conceivable indistrial activity. They are heavy-handed, vindicitve, and irrational. And the cost is staggering.

And, by the way, the government is the worst polluter and worst steward of the land of anyone. Government land is clear cut, strip mined, soaked in pesticides and herbicides, polluted with military waste products, and generally abused with abandon for the profit of the politically well-connected business interests.

The best-kept land is land that is pravately owned by individuals.

(I happen to think that the corporate business form encourages pollution and mistreatment of land)

[Acala]

The "pure" libertarians like to beleive that private property would generate the will of the property owner to take care of the environment of its property. They also like to beleive that the capacity to sue others for enviromental damages to a person or property would also generate this will to take care of the environment. They also like to beleive that great numbers of people would volunteer for private-owned and founded organizations dedicated to save animals or take care of the environment.

But all those that understand that "pure" libertarianism is a noble but impossible goal know that ultimatly there would have to be governmental force applied to the people or else we would all die in a sea of polution, most of the rare and vulnerable beautiful animals would go instinct and the judicial system would be completly paralised thanks to the numbers of judicial processes related to the enviroment (and most of them downright money-grabbing and silly).

Deep inside every advocate of "pure" libertarianism knows this is the truth and the "force of private property" argument is a bunch of crap...

Maybe, in a very distant future, when the vast majority of Humans reach a superior stage of spiritual and intellectual level this "pure" libertarianism would be possible but for now...say hello to mr. Force-over-the-individual :)


Do you have any reasoned argument to go with this rant?

[Sentient Void]

Free-market environmentalism.

The Walter Block video posted above is a good place to start.

Also, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism

Not to mention that government is a massive violator and polluter of the environment - not to mention that many other govt interventions such as regulations, royalties, subsidies, special interests etc infringe on property rights, leading to excessive risk-taking and pollution, distort the system,and public leasing to private entities lead to destruction of the environment (whereas full marketization/privatization would actually preserve such areas due to the profit-motive).

Then, look at many government run areas, subsidized housing, etc... not only are they extremely wasteful and inefficient, they often look polluted, broken down, etc.

Then look at large swaths of privately owned land, especially by commercial entities. *VERY* clean, gorgeous, sometimes immaculate.

Marketize it all.

[ChaosControl]

Not sure, but I see no real conflict between environmental regulations and libertarianism.
We have laws and police that protect us from the harming affects of other people's direct actions, I see no reason we cannot have laws that protect us from more indirect actions like environmental harm and such.

But I'm not the best to ask, I'm pretty far "left" on environmental issues.

[00_Pete]

Do you have any reasoned argument to go with this rant?

Yes, its called "common sense". :)

Just use 10 seconds to think the chaos that whole "sue for enviromental damages" thing would generate.

Its a bunch of Utopian crap and you know it :D

[Epic]

The "pure" libertarians like to beleive that private property would generate the will of the property owner to take care of the environment of its property. They also like to beleive that the capacity to sue others for enviromental damages to a person or property would also generate this will to take care of the environment. They also like to beleive that great numbers of people would volunteer for private-owned and founded organizations dedicated to save animals or take care of the environment.

But all those that understand that "pure" libertarianism is a noble but impossible goal know that ultimatly there would have to be governmental force applied to the people or else we would all die in a sea of polution, most of the rare and vulnerable beautiful animals would go instinct and the judicial system would be completly paralised thanks to the numbers of judicial processes related to the enviroment (and most of them downright money-grabbing and silly).

Deep inside every advocate of "pure" libertarianism knows this is the truth and the "force of private property" argument is a bunch of crap...

Maybe, in a very distant future, when the vast majority of Humans reach a superior stage of spiritual and intellectual level this "pure" libertarianism would be possible but for now...say hello to mr. Force-over-the-individual :)

There is nothing logical in this entire block of text. The worst part - and most untrue - came when saying that assuming there is a government, libertarians oppose that government enforcing property rights and using force against offenders. Completely untrue. The point that libertarians make is that there shouldn't be apriori regulations on voluntary activities that don't affect other property rights. For example, mountain-top removal on your own property is okay, because it's YOUR OWN property (furthermore, using praxeology, we can determine that if this activity is being undertaken, it most likely is more in line with consumer demand than alternate uses of the land).

[The Dude]

I understand the concept of property rights and the ability to sue if they are violated by garbage, pollution, or otherwise any damage, but I think Pete's point about the courts may be a valid one. Wouldn't the court systems have to be vastly expanded to handle all the cases regarding property right violations - resulting in a big government expansion.

[YumYum]

Not sure, but I see no real conflict between environmental regulations and libertarianism.
We have laws and police that protect us from the harming affects of other people's direct actions, I see no reason we cannot have laws that protect us from more indirect actions like environmental harm and such.

But I'm not the best to ask, I'm pretty far "left" on environmental issues.

I too am a leftest where the environment is concerned, and when I first came on this forum I thought the idea of privatizing all land, especially America's national and state parks, was ridiculous. But, given the fact that we have pollution while we have government regulations demonstrates that the government has failed us. Where I live the fish are very toxic even though the water is clear.

Also, Costa Rica has Private Reserves open to the public that puts our parks to shame.

I hope that when everything collapses we will have privatization of all lands.

http://www.1costaricalink.com/eng/web/parks-eng.htm
(check at the bottom of the web page)

[Acala]

Yes, its called "common sense". :)

I guess this means you are unable to articulate a response.


Just use 10 seconds to think the chaos that whole "sue for enviromental damages" thing would generate.

I have given it a lot more than 10 seconds of thought. Being an environmental attorney by trade and a libertarian by choice for thirty years, I have given it a considerable amount of thought, thank you. I see no reason why enforcing property rights in air and water would be any more chaotic than enforcing property rights in land and contracts as we do now on a daily basis. There would be some time and effort involved in playing catch up since the courts dropped the ball back at the start of the industrial revolution, but nothing that could not be handled with a clear and consistent establishment of rights.


Its a bunch of Utopian crap and you know it :D

Is this supposed to be reasoned argument? If so, it fails.

[Acala]

I understand the concept of property rights and the ability to sue if they are violated by garbage, pollution, or otherwise any damage, but I think Pete's point about the courts may be a valid one. Wouldn't the court systems have to be vastly expanded to handle all the cases regarding property right violations - resulting in a big government expansion.

There would be some expansion in case load - especially as details in the law were being worked out. But then I don't see why it would be different than any other property law.

As for expanding the courts, there are changes that could be made to discourage people from using the government courts - like making losers pay attorneys fees and/or making the party that appeals from, or refuses, private arbitration pay court costs, etc.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, its called "common sense". :)

Just use 10 seconds to think the chaos that whole "sue for enviromental damages" thing would generate.

Its a bunch of Utopian crap and you know it :D

Your Statist Utopianism has been debunked a number of times on these threads. If you really want to know how property rights protect the environment, see "Boundaries of Order" by Butler Schaffer as well as Block's work on privatization of "public" property.

Did you know that during the collectivization period of the USSR, the State had total control of "polluting" and manufacturing factors? The result-horrifying economic and environmental destruction. Your arguments are utterly baseless. Congratulations on winning the "epic fail post of the day".

[heavenlyboy34]

There would be some expansion in case load - especially as details in the law were being worked out. But then I don't see why it would be different than any other property law.

As for expanding the courts, there are changes that could be made to discourage people from using the government courts - like making losers pay attorneys fees and/or making the party that appeals from, or refuses, private arbitration pay court costs, etc.

I see private courts arising at some point as well.

[Acala]

I see private courts arising at some point as well.

Exactly. By changing the rules in government courts to put the actual cost on the party who insists on using the government resource, you create a market for the private courts. You might also then see private law developing by agreement among parties who do business together frequently, streamlining the process.

[ChaosControl]

I too am a leftest where the environment is concerned, and when I first came on this forum I thought the idea of privatizing all land, especially America's national and state parks, was ridicules. But, given the fact that we have pollution while we have government regulations demonstrates that the government has failed us. Where I live the fish are very toxic even though the water is clear.

Also, Costa Rica has Private Reserves open to the public that puts our parks to shame.

I hope that when everything collapses we will have privatization of all lands.

http://www.1costaricalink.com/eng/web/parks-eng.htm
(check at the bottom of the web page)

I think the damage is there due to corporate control over government more than public ownership of things. I think private parks are great as well, but I do think we need public ones as well and I do think we need regulations. They need to be good regulations though, I don't support just any environmental regulations, such as I oppose cap and trade as that was complete nonsense.

[YumYum]

I think the damage is there due to corporate control over government more than public ownership of things. I think private parks are great as well, but I do think we need public ones as well and I do think we need regulations. They need to be good regulations though, I don't support just any environmental regulations, such as I oppose cap and trade as that was complete nonsense.

This is where my cousin and I have had some intense debates. He believes in government regulations and public parks; what we need to do is first fix the government, then everything will work nicely. I used to agree with him until I realized that everything the government controls, they mess up.

But you bring up a good point about corporations. Wealth always corrupts, even in a Free Market. If all land was privatized, what would prevent wealthy corporations from doing exactly what they are doing now, and that is paying to pollute?

This is the one problem I have with a 100% Free Market. I also, believe in a "Fair Market".

[farrar]

Naturally Industry would begin to stop polluting as much as possible. They would have the choice either to regulate their emissions better, or pay for the damages.

It is much more economical to keep machinery clean, and up to date on reducing emmissions, and then pay minimal to no cost in clean up, than it is not to, and ultimately pay higher and more frequent costs to have people remove the damage on the enviorment.

The problem with our system is regulations will give you a hefty fine but at the fraction of the cost of improving emmission levels, or hiring a company that specializes in cleaning the enviorment. We currently give industry insentive to not give a shit about everyone elses property, and their health (which is also an important issue involving the enviorment, where polluters need to be held accountable as well, assuming the cause can be traced).

Thats just how I've seen it.

[Vessol]

Who invited all the trolls into this thread?

[djdellisanti4]

My only concern is air pollution. Its easy to punish people who pollute waterways and the ground, but air pollution seems like a whole different story. It feels like it would be hard to prove the source of the pollution, who was effected, the actual effects, etc.

[farrar]

My only concern is air pollution. Its easy to punish people who pollute waterways and the ground, but air pollution seems like a whole different story. It feels like it would be hard to prove the source of the pollution, who was effected, the actual effects, etc.

You can calculate emissions and use biocarbon foot prints to tell who did what. But more than likely in such a world, Industries would ultimatly find it more profitable to use alternative fuels over say, coal and gasoline. Coal and gasoline are actually very expensive if you actually have to pay for the damages it causes on the enviorment and other people's property.

[Acala]

But you bring up a good point about corporations. Wealth always corrupts, even in a Free Market. If all land was privatized, what would prevent wealthy corporations from doing exactly what they are doing now, and that is paying to pollute?

This is the one problem I have with a 100% Free Market. I also, believe in a "Fair Market".


I happen to think the corporate business form - which is a government creation - creates numerous problems. In the same way that people treat rental cars with less care than their own cars, corporate managers, who are typically transient, treat the assets of the corporation, including employees, customers, real property, reputation, and good will in the community, with less care than businesses where the owners are also the managers.

As for business entities paying to pollute, as long as they pay everyone damaged by the pollution, why is that a problem?

Since this is now a rational discussion, I will share with you the environmental issues that I think ARE a challenge in a truly free market.

I think it is a challenge to deal with the replenishing of oxygen by plants. Suppose, for example, that the need for living space drove land owners to clear vast tracts of forest thereby depleting the oxygen in the atmosphere? Do other people have a property right in the flow of oxygen from the trees on your property? Or similarly, suppose it became profitable to harvest vast amounts of algae from the privately owned oceans thus depleting oxygen? Who has standing to sue?

How about the problem of latent environmental risks? Suppose I own a tract of land and want to dump toxic chemicals on it. My business, right? But suppose those chemicals will slowly seep down in to the groundwater and spread off my property? They have not done so yet, so nobody has been damaged, but what about the potential? Can you sue based on the scientific probability of future damage? And how would you even know it was happening?

Another problem - suppose I create a toxic waste dump on my property and it starts to contaminate the groundwater and the cleanup will cost $20 million but I have nothing. Who pays for it?

So I think there ARE a few thorny issues. But at the MOST they might require some laws directly prohibiting certain polluting activity. I can't see anything remotely like the permitting and regulatory system we have now being necessary. By and large, people take care of their property.

[heavenlyboy34]

I happen to think the corporate business form - which is a government creation - creates numerous problems. In the same way that people treat rental cars with less care than their own cars, corporate managers, who are typically transient, treat the assets of the corporation, including employees, customers, real property, reputation, and good will in the community, with less care than businesses where the owners are also the managers.

As for business entities paying to pollute, as long as they pay everyone damaged by the pollution, why is that a problem?

Since this is now a rational discussion, I will share with you the environmental issues that I think ARE a challenge in a truly free market.

I think it is a challenge to deal with the replenishing of oxygen by plants. Suppose, for example, that the need for living space drove land owners to clear vast tracts of forest thereby depleting the oxygen in the atmosphere? Do other people have a property right in the flow of oxygen from the trees on your property? Or similarly, suppose it became profitable to harvest vast amounts of algae from the privately owned oceans thus depleting oxygen? Who has standing to sue?

How about the problem of latent environmental risks? Suppose I own a tract of land and want to dump toxic chemicals on it. My business, right? But suppose those chemicals will slowly seep down in to the groundwater and spread off my property? They have not done so yet, so nobody has been damaged, but what about the potential? Can you sue based on the scientific probability of future damage? And how would you even know it was happening?

Another problem - suppose I create a toxic waste dump on my property and it starts to contaminate the groundwater and the cleanup will cost $20 million but I have nothing. Who pays for it?

So I think there ARE a few thorny issues. But at the MOST they might require some laws directly prohibiting certain polluting activity. I can't see anything remotely like the permitting and regulatory system we have now being necessary. By and large, people take care of their property.

The problem is more with government's relationship to corporations than the corporate form itself. It is likely that a free market would develop something similar to the corporation because of its efficiency and liability protections. Remember also, Mises said that the existence of a stock market is key to a market economy. I don't see a viable alternative to the corporate form, but am open to ideas.

[Acala]

The problem is more with government's relationship to corporations than the corporate form itself. It is likely that a free market would develop something similar to the corporation because of its efficiency and liability protections. Remember also, Mises said that the existence of a stock market is key to a market economy. I don't see a viable alternative to the corporate form, but am open to ideas.

I don't know if a free market could or would form the corporate business structure or not. I see some obstacles. For example, how do you get everyone you do business with to agree to not hold you personally liable? Also, how would a free market corporation hold title to property? But we can leave that for another thread.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't know if a free market could or would form the corporate business structure or not. I see some obstacles. For example, how do you get everyone you do business with to agree to not hold you personally liable? Also, how would a free market corporation hold title to property? But we can leave that for another thread.

Yeah, if you study various corporate forms (I had to in business class), it's a bit too much for this thread. Perhaps you could start one sometime and we'll discuss it further. :o

[ChaosControl]

As for business entities paying to pollute, as long as they pay everyone damaged by the pollution, why is that a problem?

Because someone of us think clean air and water and land free from pesticides and oil spills is more important than any damages we may collect.

[heavenlyboy34]

Because someone of us think clean air and water and land free from pesticides and oil spills is more important than any damages we may collect.

Since you don't own them, why should your opinion matter? ;)

[Sentient Void]

Since you don't own them, why should your opinion matter? ;)

Exactly. Now, if your air, or land, or water is being polluted - but that's where property rights come in, and would be pollution of your property - and you would have the right to sue for damages.

With how expensive it could/would get if an individual or corporate entity continued to pollute, and caused much damage - it wouldn't be in their best interests. Once again, the market can handle such issues. Most pollutions by corporate entities of this sort and other risky behavior can very much be attributed to excessive govt intervention through regulations, liability caps, etc etc.

The BP oil spill is one GREAT example.

[YumYum]

I don't know if a free market could or would form the corporate business structure or not. I see some obstacles. For example, how do you get everyone you do business with to agree to not hold you personally liable? Also, how would a free market corporation hold title to property? But we can leave that for another thread.

Actually, holding owners directly accountable with no corporate protection may be the answer. If I were to grow my business, and yet I had to remain a proprietorship, so that I am 100% liable, I would make damn sure that my employees were fully trained and that everyone that worked for me would follow to a "T" every rule and regulation that I established. I would grow my business slowly and maintain a tight span of control; thus eliminating potential liabilities. Chances are I would not want to become too big, but I would be running a very low stress, efficient and profitable small business.

Another question: What do you do about people who are extremely wealthy and can bribe their fellow citizens so they can pollute? In a Free Market, it may not be considered a bribe, but just a part of doing business.

It reminds me of Bill Gates showing up to a poker game. :)

[MN Patriot]

The best-kept land is land that is pravately owned by individuals.


Look around and you will CLEARLY see privately owned land that is horribly managed. Many people have no regard for the future, only immediately solving (or avoiding) the problem of what to do with their waste.

Publicly owned land, air and water needs to be responsibly and reasonably administered. If irrational, corrupt leftists are in charge, they will be just as bad as corrupt capitalists. China is an environmental disaster.

[MN Patriot]

I too am a leftest where the environment is concerned, and when I first came on this forum I thought the idea of privatizing all land, especially America's national and state parks, was ridicules. But, given the fact that we have pollution while we have government regulations demonstrates that the government has failed us. Where I live the fish are very toxic even though the water is clear.

Also, Costa Rica has Private Reserves open to the public that puts our parks to shame.

I hope that when everything collapses we will have privatization of all lands.


That may be our solution to the imminent bankruptcy our nation faces. Sell off government assets. The Establishment may be hysterical about it, but they are the ones who got us to where we are. Sell off all the government land, with billions of tons of coal, oil, etc. Probably worth a lot more than our national debt.