3 ms·

Can you expound on this ideologically consistent view?

• erikpukinskis 10y ago
  If you are going to destroy the oceans that we all rely on for fishing, you should pay for them. You break it you buy it. The idea that someone can just come onto your property and destroy your land, as long as they do it with toxic gasses, is not very libertarian.
  • throwaway2016a 10y ago
    Exactly! I hope this is what the op meant. If you are a True Libertarian you should be in favor of the Government regulating air polluters because there is no way to pollute the air (or ocean) without depriving others of their rights.
    • ancap 10y ago
      > there is no way to pollute the air (or ocean) without depriving others of their rights I mostly agree with this part, > If you are a True Libertarian you should be in favor of the Government regulating air polluters but take issue with this part. As others have pointed out the libertarian position on air pollution, and similarly on other kinds of pollution, is it is a tortious trespass on property and is dealt with through the judicial system. Meaning no regulation or action is needed by government other than the recognition of property rights. This was the position of common law and was abandoned by American courts in the early 20th century. Now, when you refer to the oceans, which due to government action remain un-ownable, it's more complicated and the libertarian position is that they should be privatized.
      • throwaway2016a 10y ago
        Ok, good point. I should have probably said protected by the government not regulated. But with that said, regulation is more efficient than going after every polluter on a case by case basis. Legislation can at least be used to set the guidelines so everyone knows what rules they are playing by. Either that or you're just replacing law with case-law which would have relatively the same effect. A rose by any other name...