5 ms·

wouldnt the libertarian reaction to emissions be to sue the emitter for the lowered quality of air?

by unprepare 10y ago

ancap 10y ago
Yes
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
Why is anybody entitled to free unpolluted oxygen in libertopia?
- socialist_coder 10y ago
  Yes, why would humanity be interested in keeping the only environment we currently have in a livable state? It is truly a mystery.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  I'm going to answer your flamebait with a real answer: Because no one can own the air and you do not have a right to pollute something you do not own... further more if you pollute on land you do own you cannot guarantee the pollution will go to land owned by other people. And if you can guarantee that it will stay on your property, win win, we solved global warming!
  - ancap 10y ago
    I disagree that no one can own the air. To clarify, airspace can be homesteaded like any other piece of property. Obviously this is not necessarily the ownership of every air molecule in a given airspace as that would be quite impractical. But just the same, no one can pollute someone else's airspace.
    - throwaway2016a 10y ago
      Airspace is not air. Air flows freely across airspace. How can you guarantee that your air will not flow into my property?
      - ancap 10y ago
        From a libertarian perspective, at least when discussing air pollution, it is unimportant that air molecules flow from one property to another. What is important is that I do not pollute your airspace.
mrsteveman1 10y ago
I'm not at all familiar with the law in this area, but what stands in the way of doing that right now?
- mediaman 10y ago
  Frictional costs of reclaiming those costs: lawsuits are expensive, and when a large number of people are impacted a small to moderate amount, it's very difficult for diffused harm (those breathing polluted air) to reclaim damages against concentrated gain (polluting industry). This would be the argument for creating more of a structured market approach to assigning the costs of these externalities: courts are inefficient and plagued with problems when there's a power difference between the parties, so creating a market structure allows those externalities to be compensated in a more efficient way, while still allowing market pricing to incentivize industry to resolve the externality in the most efficient way available. The libertarian's argument against this (I imagine) is that any government market scheme will screw it up more, though I don't know why so much faith is placed in the court system as a magically efficient system that resolves property disputes fairly and cost effectively in cases like diffused externalities.
- tzs 10y ago
  One big problem is proof. In a civil suit plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was responsible for the harm. Our water systems and our atmosphere are large, very effective mixers, and pollution injected at one point can travel hundreds or even thousands of kilometers before ending up on someone's land and causing damages. An emission of pollution from one polluter and another of the same kind and amount emitted at the same time from a second polluter a few kilometers away could end up taking very different paths and end up causing harm to people thousands of kilometers apart.
JustUhThought 10y ago
Agreed. That's how I read their platform.
gpm 10y ago
In a perfect court system where the overhead of a lawsuit is 0, sure, that would be an acceptable outcome. In reality that's not the case, and there is no overarching principle any sect of libertarians hold (as far as I know) that harm can only be addressed via lawsuits. Since the overhead of lawsuits grows ridiculously large when the number of plaintiffs is equal to the population of the country (or even world), the far more practical solution is to just directly apply a Carbon Tax. This is pretty much equivalent to a lawsuit without the overhead of the courts. The biggest difference is while after a lawsuit the wealth is distributed directly, here the wealth is distributed by lowering taxes.
- dpark 10y ago
  I believe the Libertarian party stance is that such damages should be addressed via lawsuits.
  - gpm 10y ago
    So, the party platform apparently opposes any government action on the issue. The reasoning seems to be more "it's not effective" than "the proper way to address it is lawsuits" though. On the other hand I've seen Gary Johnson quotes like this one > In 2016, as a candidate, Johnson talks about balancing the budget but lacks the zeal of libertarians who think the state could be cut in half without consequence. He’d keep Social Security for current retirees. He wouldn’t abolish the EPA, after learning in New Mexico how the government policed bad actors. > “In the libertarian view, without the EPA, you as an individual could sue under the law,” said Johnson. “But not really. You don’t have deep pockets to go up against Chevron.” From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-libertarian-gary-johnson-a-factor-in-clinton-trump-matchup/2016/06/10/05025d84-2dc5-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-libertarian-gary-... Either way, good point.
jcfrei 10y ago
That's already happening. Ie. ExxonMobile: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/03/exxonmobil-sued-pollution-baton-rouge http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/03/exxonmobil-sued-po... or Volkswagen: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/us-civil-suit-volkswagen-clean-air-act https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/us-civil-sui... But as another commentator pointed out that's a very inefficient process because courts generate a huge overhead. And the US already spends way too much on lawyers imho.
throwaway2016a 10y ago
Most of the Libertarian's I know are moving away from this for the case of the environment for the various reasons listed and add one more, that in this country the court cannot make new laws. But with that said too: the government itself can sue, it doesn't have to be people.

wouldnt the libertarian reaction to emissions be to sue the emitter for the lowered quality of air?

ancap 10y ago

Yes

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

Why is anybody entitled to free unpolluted oxygen in libertopia?

socialist_coder 10y ago
Yes, why would humanity be interested in keeping the only environment we currently have in a livable state? It is truly a mystery.
throwaway2016a 10y ago
I'm going to answer your flamebait with a real answer: Because no one can own the air and you do not have a right to pollute something you do not own... further more if you pollute on land you do own you cannot guarantee the pollution will go to land owned by other people. And if you can guarantee that it will stay on your property, win win, we solved global warming!
- ancap 10y ago
  I disagree that no one can own the air. To clarify, airspace can be homesteaded like any other piece of property. Obviously this is not necessarily the ownership of every air molecule in a given airspace as that would be quite impractical. But just the same, no one can pollute someone else's airspace.
  - throwaway2016a 10y ago
    Airspace is not air. Air flows freely across airspace. How can you guarantee that your air will not flow into my property?
    - ancap 10y ago
      From a libertarian perspective, at least when discussing air pollution, it is unimportant that air molecules flow from one property to another. What is important is that I do not pollute your airspace.

mrsteveman1 10y ago

I'm not at all familiar with the law in this area, but what stands in the way of doing that right now?

mediaman 10y ago
Frictional costs of reclaiming those costs: lawsuits are expensive, and when a large number of people are impacted a small to moderate amount, it's very difficult for diffused harm (those breathing polluted air) to reclaim damages against concentrated gain (polluting industry). This would be the argument for creating more of a structured market approach to assigning the costs of these externalities: courts are inefficient and plagued with problems when there's a power difference between the parties, so creating a market structure allows those externalities to be compensated in a more efficient way, while still allowing market pricing to incentivize industry to resolve the externality in the most efficient way available. The libertarian's argument against this (I imagine) is that any government market scheme will screw it up more, though I don't know why so much faith is placed in the court system as a magically efficient system that resolves property disputes fairly and cost effectively in cases like diffused externalities.
tzs 10y ago
One big problem is proof. In a civil suit plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was responsible for the harm. Our water systems and our atmosphere are large, very effective mixers, and pollution injected at one point can travel hundreds or even thousands of kilometers before ending up on someone's land and causing damages. An emission of pollution from one polluter and another of the same kind and amount emitted at the same time from a second polluter a few kilometers away could end up taking very different paths and end up causing harm to people thousands of kilometers apart.

JustUhThought 10y ago

Agreed. That's how I read their platform.

gpm 10y ago

In a perfect court system where the overhead of a lawsuit is 0, sure, that would be an acceptable outcome. In reality that's not the case, and there is no overarching principle any sect of libertarians hold (as far as I know) that harm can only be addressed via lawsuits. Since the overhead of lawsuits grows ridiculously large when the number of plaintiffs is equal to the population of the country (or even world), the far more practical solution is to just directly apply a Carbon Tax. This is pretty much equivalent to a lawsuit without the overhead of the courts. The biggest difference is while after a lawsuit the wealth is distributed directly, here the wealth is distributed by lowering taxes.

dpark 10y ago
I believe the Libertarian party stance is that such damages should be addressed via lawsuits.
- gpm 10y ago
  So, the party platform apparently opposes any government action on the issue. The reasoning seems to be more "it's not effective" than "the proper way to address it is lawsuits" though. On the other hand I've seen Gary Johnson quotes like this one > In 2016, as a candidate, Johnson talks about balancing the budget but lacks the zeal of libertarians who think the state could be cut in half without consequence. He’d keep Social Security for current retirees. He wouldn’t abolish the EPA, after learning in New Mexico how the government policed bad actors. > “In the libertarian view, without the EPA, you as an individual could sue under the law,” said Johnson. “But not really. You don’t have deep pockets to go up against Chevron.” From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-libertarian-gary-johnson-a-factor-in-clinton-trump-matchup/2016/06/10/05025d84-2dc5-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-libertarian-gary-... Either way, good point.

jcfrei 10y ago

That's already happening. Ie. ExxonMobile: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/03/exxonmobil-sued-pollution-baton-rouge http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/03/exxonmobil-sued-po... or Volkswagen: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/us-civil-suit-volkswagen-clean-air-act https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/us-civil-sui... But as another commentator pointed out that's a very inefficient process because courts generate a huge overhead. And the US already spends way too much on lawyers imho.

throwaway2016a 10y ago

Most of the Libertarian's I know are moving away from this for the case of the environment for the various reasons listed and add one more, that in this country the court cannot make new laws. But with that said too: the government itself can sue, it doesn't have to be people.