3 ms·

Why should it be $X and not $Y you pay?

by wbl 9y ago

mikeash 9y ago
My understanding is that the standard legal remedy is for the perpetrator to be required to make the victim whole, i.e. to restore them to the state where they were before the damage. So, for example, if I destroy your car, I have to give the money it would take to buy another one. I can't argue that you didn't use the car much and so its value to you was less, so I only need to pay that much. It's also standard to look at the less tangible losses suffered by the victim (like health damage or pain and suffering) and come up with a fair monetary amount based on that. But my understanding is that this is only done when it's necessary. Without a time machine, it's not always possible to put the victim back in the exact same state they were in before the damage. When it is possible, that's what you do. Otherwise you do the best you can to compensate them. In the case of pollution, you'd have to come up with a monetary equivalent to the health damages done to the victims if that damage was already done and couldn't be reversed. If the damage hasn't been done yet (e.g. because I just polluted your property very recently) and can be prevented (e.g. because I can clean it up, or buy your property so you can move to a house that isn't polluted) then I can still restore you to your pre-damage state. Another problem is that $Y is highly probabilistic, whereas $X is not. Calculating DALYs lost due to some contamination works on populations, but not individuals. You, personally, might die from that pollution tomorrow, or you might live to the age of 120 regardless. Compensating you based on the expected amount you'll lose, when the real amount might be much different, means the amount is likely to be incorrect. If we can instead ensure that the pollution doesn't impact the individual, either by removing it or removing the individual, we avoid that problem.

3 ms·

Why should it be $X and not $Y you pay?

by wbl 9y ago

Why should it be $X and not $Y you pay?

mikeash 9y ago
My understanding is that the standard legal remedy is for the perpetrator to be required to make the victim whole, i.e. to restore them to the state where they were before the damage. So, for example, if I destroy your car, I have to give the money it would take to buy another one. I can't argue that you didn't use the car much and so its value to you was less, so I only need to pay that much. It's also standard to look at the less tangible losses suffered by the victim (like health damage or pain and suffering) and come up with a fair monetary amount based on that. But my understanding is that this is only done when it's necessary. Without a time machine, it's not always possible to put the victim back in the exact same state they were in before the damage. When it is possible, that's what you do. Otherwise you do the best you can to compensate them. In the case of pollution, you'd have to come up with a monetary equivalent to the health damages done to the victims if that damage was already done and couldn't be reversed. If the damage hasn't been done yet (e.g. because I just polluted your property very recently) and can be prevented (e.g. because I can clean it up, or buy your property so you can move to a house that isn't polluted) then I can still restore you to your pre-damage state. Another problem is that $Y is highly probabilistic, whereas $X is not. Calculating DALYs lost due to some contamination works on populations, but not individuals. You, personally, might die from that pollution tomorrow, or you might live to the age of 120 regardless. Compensating you based on the expected amount you'll lose, when the real amount might be much different, means the amount is likely to be incorrect. If we can instead ensure that the pollution doesn't impact the individual, either by removing it or removing the individual, we avoid that problem.