PDA

View Full Version : Are free-markets and enivornmental protection compatible?




nodeal
12-14-2010, 04:16 PM
Air pollution -- it's bad for everyone, but since no one owns the air, no one has a private economic interest in preventing it. So how does the free-market control this potential danger?

Yes we can debate the legitimacy of global warming, but regardless of whether or not it is true, I think we can all agree that dumping waste in a flourishing lake behind your factory to cut costs and maximize profits does not do anyone any good.

How does the free-market work to prevent this?

I've been reading about this, usually referred to as "The Tragedy of the Commons".

Any insight?

And by the way, you guys have been extremely helpful in increasing my understanding for the power of the free-market. I thank all of you!

fisharmor
12-14-2010, 04:30 PM
The factory that dumps toxic waste into the lake where families are swimming? I have yet to see it. It works on cartoon satire shows, but I'm not remembering a single case of it actually happening.

Property rights are the foundation. If we had property rights in this country, then it would be a simple matter of the lake owner - or any harmed property owner along the lakefront or downstream from any tributaries - bringing suit against the factory owner.
Two further points there:
1, in a libertarian society there would be no such thing as corporate personhood, so you'd have an individual or group of individuals who would be responsible for property damage.
2, great job the government is doing remunerating every single person harmed by BP, huh?

Instead of respecting individual property rights, we chose to keep renting our property from the state, and told the state to deal with the pollution problem. Well, they did, in the most expedient manner possible: by kicking all the industry out of the country.

My take on this is that things are so effed up, I can't see how a total absence of state coercion would be a whole lot worse.

Ekrub
12-14-2010, 04:32 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?272732-Daily-Caller-Free-Market-Environmentalism&p=3028735#post3028735

I posted this today, and this author writes some suggestions dealing with that.

nodeal
12-14-2010, 05:10 PM
The factory that dumps toxic waste into the lake where families are swimming? I have yet to see it. It works on cartoon satire shows, but I'm not remembering a single case of it actually happening.

Property rights are the foundation. If we had property rights in this country, then it would be a simple matter of the lake owner - or any harmed property owner along the lakefront or downstream from any tributaries - bringing suit against the factory owner.
Two further points there:
1, in a libertarian society there would be no such thing as corporate personhood, so you'd have an individual or group of individuals who would be responsible for property damage.
2, great job the government is doing remunerating every single person harmed by BP, huh?

Instead of respecting individual property rights, we chose to keep renting our property from the state, and told the state to deal with the pollution problem. Well, they did, in the most expedient manner possible: by kicking all the industry out of the country.

My take on this is that things are so effed up, I can't see how a total absence of state coercion would be a whole lot worse.

Can you explain corporate personhood a bit more?

And what if the person polluting the lake also owned the lake? What if the people who did the pollution purposely bought up the resources they were damaging? Not disagreeing, just playing devil's advocate to further my understanding. I really want to be immune to contradiction when I defend free-markets as NOT being dangerous to the environment.

nodeal
12-14-2010, 05:11 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?272732-Daily-Caller-Free-Market-Environmentalism&p=3028735#post3028735

I posted this today, and this author writes some suggestions dealing with that.

Thank you. I'm reading it now.
-----

Just finished. Excellent read!

virgil47
12-14-2010, 05:18 PM
While you are at it look up Love Canal.

acptulsa
12-14-2010, 05:18 PM
Can you explain corporate personhood a bit more?

And what if the person polluting the lake also owned the lake? What if the people who did the pollution purposely bought up the resources they were damaging? Not disagreeing, just playing devil's advocate to further my understanding. I really want to be immune to contradiction when I defend free-markets as NOT being dangerous to the environment.

They can buy the whole lake, but water rights can still be part of the deal when you buy land nearby--and buying the whole lake won't make them immune for damage they cause the area's aquafer.

And corporate personhood refers to a trend toward granting corporations the same rights that individuals enjoy, such as the Constitutional right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Read the Constitution and you'll see that you have that right, but things (like associations or businesses) do not. But their lawyers will still try awfully hard to secure those rights for the nonhuman entity.

nodeal
12-14-2010, 05:27 PM
They can buy the whole lake, but water rights can still be part of the deal when you buy land nearby--and buying the whole lake won't make them immune for damage they cause the area's aquafer.

And corporate personhood refers to a trend toward granting corporations the same rights that individuals enjoy, such as the Constitutional right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Read the Constitution and you'll see that you have that right, but things (like associations or businesses) do not. But their lawyers will still try awfully hard to secure those rights for the nonhuman entity.

Thanks for clearing that up. I see the logic in property rights as a means of securing environmental protection.

One question, though: what do you mean by "water rights" as being part of the deal?

Free-market solutions really do get me giddy!

nodeal
12-14-2010, 05:30 PM
While you are at it look up Love Canal.

will do.

awake
12-14-2010, 05:48 PM
Complete private property in all scarce resources combined with market prices is the absolute most efficient means of conservation. When things become scarce, rising prices devote these resources to their most urgent applications in wants and needs. As well, this same price system spurs the search and development of alternative means and substitutes. No central planning is needed. Food , shelter, and clothing are very critical things, they are brought to us in this manner with no issues with shortages or hysterical calls of "were going to run out!", "government do something!".

In every case where people are screaming were running out of x or y, they don't understand the market pricing / allocation mechanism. They don't want to, for most of these loons are always calling for government intervention regardless of the convenient pretext.