ODT: Pollution--Rothbardian Property Rights vs. Mainstream Decreasing Negative Externalities

My Case:Pro tries to change the subject by talking about public ownership of land. But this has nothing to do with the resolution. Neither of us are suggesting government owned land—it’s completely irrelevant.“Furthermore, my opponent does not mention a mechansim for finding the polluters, taxing them, or verifying the pollution.”Neither does Pro, so I guess we’re even. Pro says that since I say I support property rights, my plan is just as vulnerable to the ‘if a single environmentalist disagrees, he can shut down the polluting factory’ argument. But this is nonsense. I said I supported private property, rather than government ownership of land and resources. But not absolute private property rights. Pro’s plan, however, does support absolute private property.Property rights:In a legal system that supports absolute property rights, what is the solution to arson or other property damage? It is to punish the aggressor and compensate the victim. Some sort of settlement could be worked out where the arsonist is forced to make restitution to the victim. But what if the arsonist came back and started the victim's property on fire again and again? We wouldn't just keep forcing him to pay restitution--the victim would have the right to use force to stop the arsonist from damaging his property. What would Pro suggest happen if the victim of pollution hired some men to forcibly shut down a factory polluting his land, if the factory owner didn't stop polluting after paying the settlement and getting a cease and desist order? According to the non-aggression principle, the victim has every right to do this--and an attempt to stop him would be a further violation of his private property rights.If pollution is a violation of property rights, then protecting property rights must mean that the victims of pollution have the right to forcibly stop the pollution. Pro admits this himself! He quotes Rothbard saying, "Before the mid and late 19th century, any injurious air pollution was considered a tort, a nuisance against which the victim could sue for damages and against which he could take out an injunction to cease and desist from any further invasion of his property rights." In the next paragraph, Pro states, "The solution is not completely stopping the pollution altogether, it is to find the optimal pollution level through private property rights."--but this is nonsense. What does he think 'an injunction to cease and desist from any further invasion of his property rights' means? It doesn't mean just "finding the optimum pollution level," it means stopping the pollution completely. Pro tries to say that a 'cease and desist' order would basically just be a fine—the firm can keep polluting if they face legal action in the form of paying damages. But you don’t just get to keep paying a fine if you continuously violate a cease and desist order—you can be forced to stop doing what you’re doing. Pro’s own source contradicts his interpretation. “Thus, only private property rights will insure an end to pollution — invasion of resources.” “The remedy is simply for the courts to return to their function of defending person and property rights against invasion, and therefore to enjoin anyone from injecting pollutants into the air.” Rothbard clearly does not think we should find the “optimum” amount of pollution. Rather, he argues that the costs of banning pollution aren’t relevant, because pollution is an immoral violation of property rights: “The argument that such an injunctive prohibition against pollution would add to the costs of industrial production is as reprehensible as the pre-Civil War argument that the abolition of slavery would add to the costs of growing cotton, and that therefore abolition, however morally correct, was ‘impractical.’” [1] But Pro dropped his morality argument after the first round.Pro realized the position he had to defend was ridiculous and tried to change his mind—but it’s too late now. He should have changed the resolution before the debate if he didn’t really agree with the Rothbardian position. Or he could have actually put some effort into defending his side of the resolution—there are plenty of arguments that he could have used. He could have argued that absolute private property rights do, in fact, maximize human welfare, and invasions of private property cannot be pareto improvements, as Rothbard does. [2] Or he could have argued that a complete ban on pollution would be feasible, as Rothbard does (in the very article Pro uses as a source!). [1] But instead, he pretends that his proposal would be essentially the same as mine. He concedes that trying to stop pollution completely would destroy civilization, and that instead we should use fines to disincentivize pollution to the optimal amount. But that’s my side of the resolution, not his, so he’s conceded the debate.[1] http://mises.org...[2] http://mises.org...