From: carruth@mksol.dseg.ti.com (matthew carruth)
Subject: Re: Capitalism and the environment
Organization: internet
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:24:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.141605.27330@nynexst.com>, baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch) writes:
|> In article 20361@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine) writes:
|> > 
|> > Under a system of total laissez-faire capitalism, how would
|> > one "protect the environment?"  By this I mean: without any
|> > form of government regulation, how would one keep companies
|> > from strip mining, dumping toxics in rivers, burying nuclear
|> > waste, etc.?
|> > 
|> > One solution that comes to mind is "active consumerism," e.g. 
|> > boycotts, protests, etc. against companies that pollute. 
|> > Privitization of natural resources might also provide a
|> > solution.  If I own a river, I can make sure no one pollutes
|> > it and take them to court if they do.  (Of course, how do you
|> > privitize the air?)
|> 
|> Remember that air is something which I use.  By polluting the air
|> I breathe, the polluter is interfering with my well-being, or
|> if not my well-being, then my natural enjoyment of clean air.
|> If the air smells like sewage, it may not be harmful, but it
|> certainly reduces my enjoyment.  Why couldn't I take a polluter
|> to court for that?
|> 
|> > Privitization, though, leads to the
|> > problem of companies buying resources (land, water) strictly
|> > for the purpose of polluting it ("It's my own d*mn land --
|> > I'll buy what I want in it!")
|> 
|> That's reality.  It *is* my own land, and if I don't affect you,
|> you have no say in how I use *my* land, or *my* resources.  After
|> all, I *did* buy them with my own money.  Will you now say that 
|> I can only use my money in "public-sanctioned" ways?
|> 
|> --Rob

Once again we're comparing an assumption, that is that the government protects
the environment, against another, that is that people who have a stake in the
process do not.  The government's record of environmental protection is
terrible, and is one of the best arguments against governmental owership of
property.  Much of the government's fantastic cleanup and research costs are the
result of problems the government created.  

The best way to protect the environment is to buy it.  It's much cheaper, however to 
force owners to give up part of the value of their land by force to further one's
own political ideas. 

If somebody is polluting land or water in a way that offends you, then buy it and 
do with it what you will.  If there is a consensus on clean air and water then
most people will follow the socital norm.  Groups will develop and buy land in
question.  Some will hold land and pollute the the hell out of it, but  the 
situation will not be a free for all.  

The pollution issue is more complex than the Green types admit.  Where one person sees
a few homes on a mountain others see out of control development.  Where some see
the necessity of culling herds others see wanton destruction of animal life.   Where some
see tree harvests for wood, jobs and homes others see deforestation.  There is no
agreement on how to tell others how to manage their property.  The person who has the
most at stake, with the biggest incentive to protect, and the most knowlege is the 
owner.

Public property is like "pubic" schools, parks, and washrooms.  They are substandard,
often dirty or dangerous, cost the taxpayer a bundle, and people fight over them.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My views are my own and do not reflect those of my employeers....
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.math