4 ms·

In a libertarian view, you aren't allowed to use anyone else's property, including to dump toxic chemicals. With strong property rights, they would be forced by

by coryrc 5y ago

In a libertarian view, you aren't allowed to use anyone else's property, including to dump toxic chemicals. With strong property rights, they would be forced by the courts to completely make people whole. In our system, the EPA allows companies to pollute your land, water, and air... so long as they don't do it too much or they bribe the officials enough.

spaetzleesser 5y ago
"In a libertarian view, you aren't allowed to use anyone else's property, including to dump toxic chemicals. With strong property rights, they would be forced by the courts to completely make people whole." Having to go to the courts for everything will always favor people and institutions with money. The little guy simply can't afford lawyers, expert witnesses and so on to challenge players with deep pockets. We need institutions like the EPA who enforce the rules and we need them to actually do that and not be captured by industry or underfunded by politics.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  It feels like people in the US have a strong distrust towards state/federal institutions. As long as that doesn't improve it seems unlikely that those institutions will be properly funded. Without trust it's better to keep those dollars to yourself.
cogman10 5y ago
> With strong property rights, they would be forced by the courts to completely make people whole. We HAVE strong property rights in the US. If you can prove harm from a company you can make a lot of money from them. The issue is that proving harm is a very costly and time consuming endeavor. How do you make everyone whole when the damage done by a company exceeds it's ability to repair? What about the irreparable like toxic waste in a water supply? Even if we granted the premise that this is a better system, how is what we have today made better by installing cronies into the EPA which systematically gum up and deregulate as much as possible before having stronger property rights in place?
- coryrc 5y ago
  > If you can prove harm That's not strong property rights. Strong property rights would include any unauthorized use regardless of "harm". It would mean Does Chemical needs to remove every molecule of dioxin from soil of any homeowner in Midland, MI. However, the EPA allows a set amount. I shouldn't need to prove "harm", I didn't authorize them to place their chemicals on my property and that should be sufficient. Similarly, I didn't authorize coal plants to put toxins into my air on my property, and thus they should be prevented from any emissions until they find a way to keep it off my property. We haven't anything even approaching a libertarian ideal and we aren't going to, because people/companies wouldn't be allowed to pollute and that's bad for business. Instead we have a socialized system where the government decides how much people are allowed to pollute your property, and your singular voice is inconsequential.
  - jcrawfordor 5y ago
    How do you view the practical considerations involved in requiring everyone that emits anything into the atmosphere to obtain permission from every property owner, globally?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Under such a system, suppose I walked on the sidewalk upwind of your property and farted. How would I need to cure this violation?
  - cogman10 5y ago
    So all automobiles, tactors, planes, and trains would be banned under the libertarian ideal because I don't concent to the garbage they put into the atmosphere? How could you justify killing off a coal plant and not any fossil fuel burning machine? How do you figure out harms already done? Also, how do you respond to my earlier question?

by coryrc 5y ago

spaetzleesser 5y ago

"In a libertarian view, you aren't allowed to use anyone else's property, including to dump toxic chemicals. With strong property rights, they would be forced by the courts to completely make people whole." Having to go to the courts for everything will always favor people and institutions with money. The little guy simply can't afford lawyers, expert witnesses and so on to challenge players with deep pockets. We need institutions like the EPA who enforce the rules and we need them to actually do that and not be captured by industry or underfunded by politics.

cinntaile 5y ago
It feels like people in the US have a strong distrust towards state/federal institutions. As long as that doesn't improve it seems unlikely that those institutions will be properly funded. Without trust it's better to keep those dollars to yourself.

cogman10 5y ago

> With strong property rights, they would be forced by the courts to completely make people whole. We HAVE strong property rights in the US. If you can prove harm from a company you can make a lot of money from them. The issue is that proving harm is a very costly and time consuming endeavor. How do you make everyone whole when the damage done by a company exceeds it's ability to repair? What about the irreparable like toxic waste in a water supply? Even if we granted the premise that this is a better system, how is what we have today made better by installing cronies into the EPA which systematically gum up and deregulate as much as possible before having stronger property rights in place?

coryrc 5y ago
> If you can prove harm That's not strong property rights. Strong property rights would include any unauthorized use regardless of "harm". It would mean Does Chemical needs to remove every molecule of dioxin from soil of any homeowner in Midland, MI. However, the EPA allows a set amount. I shouldn't need to prove "harm", I didn't authorize them to place their chemicals on my property and that should be sufficient. Similarly, I didn't authorize coal plants to put toxins into my air on my property, and thus they should be prevented from any emissions until they find a way to keep it off my property. We haven't anything even approaching a libertarian ideal and we aren't going to, because people/companies wouldn't be allowed to pollute and that's bad for business. Instead we have a socialized system where the government decides how much people are allowed to pollute your property, and your singular voice is inconsequential.
- jcrawfordor 5y ago
  How do you view the practical considerations involved in requiring everyone that emits anything into the atmosphere to obtain permission from every property owner, globally?
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Under such a system, suppose I walked on the sidewalk upwind of your property and farted. How would I need to cure this violation?
- cogman10 5y ago
  So all automobiles, tactors, planes, and trains would be banned under the libertarian ideal because I don't concent to the garbage they put into the atmosphere? How could you justify killing off a coal plant and not any fossil fuel burning machine? How do you figure out harms already done? Also, how do you respond to my earlier question?