4 ms·

How would a Free (as opposed to 'free' with regulations attached) market limit industrial pollution (some contaminations of which aren't discovered until almost

How would a Free (as opposed to 'free' with regulations attached) market limit industrial pollution (some contaminations of which aren't discovered until almost a century after the original contamination[0])? In a Free market, how does an individual litigate against a multinational oil company that spills 17-30 million gallons of oil into a major metropolitan area[1]? (Very slowly: litigation has been ongoing with nearly no developments in the last 9 years except to drop Chevron) In a Free market, who sues the coal plants when entire uninhabited ecosystems are poisoned with lead, mercury, and sulfuric acid? In a Free market, who do you sue when global temperatures rise by 5C and flood major metropolitan areas? What market forces are at work when an entity will be defunct by the time the repercussions of its actions come to light? [0]. http://www.wnyc.org/story/most-radioactive-site-new-york/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/most-radioactive-site-new-york/ [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpoint_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpoint_oil_spill

nickff 12y ago
In a free market, property rights are more extensive than in a highly regulated market, so tort law serves many of the purposes that regulators and federal agencies currently do. When a multinational company causes damage to a harbor, beach, ecosystem or city, damaged parties can file suit for compensation. A harbor authority may have provided a guarantee to assume responsibility for environmental problems, in order to be granted the relevant rights of way, or it may be on the other side of the law, filing suit against a company which has damaged its income stream. Landowners or municipalities can file suit for damage caused to a beach, and fishermen, environmental tour companies, or governments can file suit for damage to ecosystems. In the United States, the EPA has absolved many companies of any responsibility, or at least greatly diminished the corporations' costs, by depriving damaged parties of a cause of action, as the EPA has the sole responsibility for many forms of pollution, and their regulation. Free markets are not very different from mixed systems in dealing with issues like climate change, but they do make it plain to each individual that they are directly responsible for the outcomes which come to pass. This responsibility is more effective in regulating action than one might think. In a market system, entities at fault may be defunct by the time the repercussions of their actions are apparent; on the other hand, politicians are rarely held to account on any single issue, and they are often more ephemeral than large corporations; the bureaucrats responsible for regulation are never held to account for any results at all.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  In a free market, property rights are more extensive than in a highly regulated market, so tort law serves many of the purposes that regulators and federal agencies currently do. So how does a small property owner fund decade-long litigation against a giant corporation?
  - nickff 12y ago
    I will assume that your question refers to damages caused to a "small property owner" by a multinational corporation. There are a few alternatives: 1) When large corporations do anything, it is usually on a grand scale, so it is likely that the "small property owner" can find a number of neighbours similarly affected, and join in a class-action lawsuit, to defray the costs. 2) If the "small property owner" is very sure of victory in the courts, they can take out a loan, to finance their legal costs, which they may be able to recover from the respondent at a later date. 3) The "small property owner" may find a lawyer willing to do the work pro-bono, or on a contingency basis. 4) Some "small property owner[s]" may represent themselves in court; this is not as uncommon as some think, and many people present their case well without a credential-ed lawyer. The most likely outcome is a settlement in any case, as no corporation wishes to gain a reputation that it is unwilling to clean up its own mess, and a drawn-out court battle would not be very productive.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - warfangle 12y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure When private costs (potential liability of losing a lawsuit in re pollution) are lower than the cost of negative externalities (disease, cancer, obliterated ecosystems), you have a classic market failure. You can make lawsuits easier to win or you can impose artificial limits on the private entities impacted. I'd prefer the one that leads to less lawyers.
  - warfangle 12y ago
baddox 12y ago
> How would a Free (as opposed to 'free' with regulations attached) market limit industrial pollution (some contaminations of which aren't discovered until almost a century after the original contamination[0])? That's hardly a fair question, because if the contamination so aren't even discovered for a century, there's very little any society ("free" or governed) can do.

nickff 12y ago

In a free market, property rights are more extensive than in a highly regulated market, so tort law serves many of the purposes that regulators and federal agencies currently do. When a multinational company causes damage to a harbor, beach, ecosystem or city, damaged parties can file suit for compensation. A harbor authority may have provided a guarantee to assume responsibility for environmental problems, in order to be granted the relevant rights of way, or it may be on the other side of the law, filing suit against a company which has damaged its income stream. Landowners or municipalities can file suit for damage caused to a beach, and fishermen, environmental tour companies, or governments can file suit for damage to ecosystems. In the United States, the EPA has absolved many companies of any responsibility, or at least greatly diminished the corporations' costs, by depriving damaged parties of a cause of action, as the EPA has the sole responsibility for many forms of pollution, and their regulation. Free markets are not very different from mixed systems in dealing with issues like climate change, but they do make it plain to each individual that they are directly responsible for the outcomes which come to pass. This responsibility is more effective in regulating action than one might think. In a market system, entities at fault may be defunct by the time the repercussions of their actions are apparent; on the other hand, politicians are rarely held to account on any single issue, and they are often more ephemeral than large corporations; the bureaucrats responsible for regulation are never held to account for any results at all.

nitrogen 12y ago
In a free market, property rights are more extensive than in a highly regulated market, so tort law serves many of the purposes that regulators and federal agencies currently do. So how does a small property owner fund decade-long litigation against a giant corporation?
- nickff 12y ago
  I will assume that your question refers to damages caused to a "small property owner" by a multinational corporation. There are a few alternatives: 1) When large corporations do anything, it is usually on a grand scale, so it is likely that the "small property owner" can find a number of neighbours similarly affected, and join in a class-action lawsuit, to defray the costs. 2) If the "small property owner" is very sure of victory in the courts, they can take out a loan, to finance their legal costs, which they may be able to recover from the respondent at a later date. 3) The "small property owner" may find a lawyer willing to do the work pro-bono, or on a contingency basis. 4) Some "small property owner[s]" may represent themselves in court; this is not as uncommon as some think, and many people present their case well without a credential-ed lawyer. The most likely outcome is a settlement in any case, as no corporation wishes to gain a reputation that it is unwilling to clean up its own mess, and a drawn-out court battle would not be very productive.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - warfangle 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure When private costs (potential liability of losing a lawsuit in re pollution) are lower than the cost of negative externalities (disease, cancer, obliterated ecosystems), you have a classic market failure. You can make lawsuits easier to win or you can impose artificial limits on the private entities impacted. I'd prefer the one that leads to less lawyers.
- warfangle 12y ago

baddox 12y ago

> How would a Free (as opposed to 'free' with regulations attached) market limit industrial pollution (some contaminations of which aren't discovered until almost a century after the original contamination[0])? That's hardly a fair question, because if the contamination so aren't even discovered for a century, there's very little any society ("free" or governed) can do.