3 ms·
> Can I dump toxic waste on my own land? Sure, it's your land. > What happens when 10 years later it starts leaching into the soil and poisoning nearby stream
by LyndsySimon 9y ago
> Can I dump toxic waste on my own land?
Sure, it's your land.
> What happens when 10 years later it starts leaching into the soil and poisoning nearby streams and farms?
Those impacted landowners now have a tort claim against you, which they should pursue.
> What about the animals who eat on my land and then run back into the forest where they get shot for someone else's dinner, and that someone else ends up consuming elevated levels of heavy metals?
They now have a tort claim against you, which they should pursue.
> What about the person who buys the land from me? Do I have to disclose the presence of the waste to them?
Yes, you should. If you don't, the purchaser now has a tort claim against you, which they should pursue.
---
I know I'm being a bit trite with the above, but I mean no offense. The difference here is one of strategy, not base ideas. I (and other libertarians) believe that people who harm others through their action should be responsible for that harm. Proponents of the EPA believe that people should be limited by government regulation to a minimal level of harm.
I'll also grant that, prior to the EPA, the tort system in the US was ineffective at resolving these issues. I don't believe that was a problem with the process itself; it was (and remains) a problem with the courts.
- maxxxxx 9y agoWith your system the court system needs to make judgements about the validity of all these tort claims. So they need to build up pretty much the same expertise the EPA has right now. I think it's also very inefficient to allow people to do things that we know for sure will be harmful. If all that stuff is allowed and ends up in court you will need a gigantic court system to handle all these cases.
- cimmanom 9y agoAnd this was the state of affairs prior to the EPA. Somehow that didn't stop the pollution of sites that became superfund sites; it didn't prevent rivers from getting into a state where they could be set on fire. It didn't prevent air pollution that made living in a city worse than smoking a pack a day.
- awful 9y agoWe already tried this (ex. gasoline stations) and it doesn't work: there is no way someone who pollutes an entire aquifer with barrels of toxin can be made to financially or mechanically remediate it. It always falls upon the government to do so.
- burfog 9y agoRequiring payment in advance solves most of that. The rest isn't solved by any current or proposed idea; some people will just be sneaky.