Libertarians and Pollution: An Inquiry

[Bartholomew]

I have a question for the Libertarians here: how would you have society address the problem of pollution?

Some kinds of pollution are eliminated through the incentives of market forces, but for others it is not so obvious. What do you propose for curbing pollution of the oceans or the atmosphere? Or how about fresh water sources, such as rivers, lakes or reservoirs? How should we handle space debris, especially the kind with deteriorating orbits that won't burn up on reentry?

I realize in shared spaces like national parks it is easy to suggest privatization. However, cutting up pieces of the atmosphere for ownership seems difficult (not to mention difficult to enforce) and certain kinds of air pollution (to continue the example) more easily distribute across large swaths of airspace, minimizing the impact on the initial polluter (and thus lowering the incentive in those cases to keep air clean).

To keep the most controversial issue off the table, and to keep this topic based in political theory (rather than political rhetoric), I am not necessarily speaking here about global warming. I assume, more generally, that constantly polluting the lakes, oceans and atmosphere will eventually have large-scale negative effects on the quality and (eventually) sustainability of human life on planet earth, whatever those consequences might be. There is also the more obvious issue of localized pollution, if the global picture is to be avoided altogether. (I could very well be wrong with this assumption of "large-scale negative effects", so I welcome correction on the matter.)

[Seasanctuary]

Pollution control, like public sanitation requirements, are very much worth restricting individual freedom.

[NeilUnreal]

The ability of lawyers to file suit on behalf of those affected by pollution is a market force.

-Neil

[joel]

Here is an article by Murray Rothbard on the topic (http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf). I skimmed it and it looks ilke it has some good discussion of the topic.

Here's a few things I saw:
"If A is causing pollution of B's air, and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then this is aggression and it should be enjoined and damages paid in accordance with strict liability, unless A had been there first and had already been polluting the air before B's property was developed."
...
"Anyone who initiates such aggression must be strictly liable for damages against the victim, even if the action is “reasonable” or accidental. Finally, such aggression may take the form of pollution of someone else's air, including his owned effective airspace, injury against his person, or a nuisance interfering with his possession or use of his land."
...
"while visible pollutants or noxious odors are per se aggression, in the case of invisible and insensible pollutants the plaintiff must prove actual harm; (c) the burden of proof of such aggression rests upon the plaintiff; (d) the plaintiff must prove strict causality from the actions of the defendant to the victimization"
...
"While the situation for plaintiffs against auto emissions might seem hopeless under libertarian law, there is a partial way out. In a libertarian society, the roads would be privately owned. This means that the auto emissions would be emanating from the road of the road owner into the lungs or airspace of other citizens, so that the road owner would be liable for pollution damage to the surrounding inhabitants. Suing the road owner is much more feasible than suing each individual car owner for the minute amount of pollutants he might be responsible for. In order to protect himself from these suits, or even from possible injunctions, the road owner would then have the economic incentive to issue anti-pollution regulations for all cars that wish to ride on his road. Once again, as in other cases of the “tragedy of the commons,” private ownership of the resource can solve many “externality” problems.
He also discusses class action suits, arguing that they "should not be allowed except where every plaintiff actively and voluntarily joins and where common interests predominate over separate and individual ones."

Thus he argues that the majority of problems of pollution can be solved by proper property and tort law.

[heraklitus]

I'm not libertarian, but one of the forefront thinkers of the environmental problem was actually Milton Friedman. If you have a copy of Free to Choose, I would recommend going to around pp. 213-218 in my copy on the chapter dealing with "Who Protects the Consumer." In there, he recommends the pollution-charge system, whereby the producers and consumers (who he labels as the primary drive in pollution. It's no surprise he's offering a market-based solution and is critical of governmental regulative measures. As an external cost though, libertarians aren't necessarily the biggest fans, as they're involuntarily passed on to others.

[Ex Nihilo]

I'm with Sea on this one.

[Conductor42]

Some libertarians leave it simply up to the "market", don't believe in global warming or anything like that, and barely recognize acid rain. Others are more rational.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pollution control, like public sanitation requirements, are very much worth restricting individual freedom.
Couldn't it be argued that pollution in of itself restricts individual freedom?

[Seasanctuary]

Couldn't it be argued that pollution in of itself restricts individual freedom?

I don't see how, except along the lines of how you not wiring me $1000 restricts my freedom.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Pollution control, like public sanitation requirements, are very much worth restricting individual freedom.

It depends on what we mean by "individual freedom" here. Individuals are hardly the largest polluters, anyway.

I think under libertarian principles, if applied correctly and to the true extent to principles, pollution controls would be much stronger than under our current mercantilist government.

Libertarians often espouse a belief in "the market" for answering the needs of people, and in most cases it does. Only "free market anarchists," however, believe that the market is the only way to answer the role that libertarians think is reserved for the government: the protection and enforcement of individual rights and liberty.

Regarding individuals: do I have the "individual freedoms" to throw garbage in your yard? I don't think so, and I think the government's place is to restrict/punish when I choose to litter in such a matter. I do think the market is best for determining manufacturing specs for fuel efficiency, fuel type, and other "pollution" related specs on consumer related goods like automobiles and electronics.

Regarding corporations: large companies have no more right to pollute my property than does my neighbor, wether they are 50 feet or 50 miles away. It is well within the justifiably use of force to stop companies from infringing on the life and property of citizens. A combination of knowledge/market forces and government protection of individual liberty should be effective in this instance.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't see how, except along the lines of how you not wiring me $1000 restricts my freedom.Pollution reduces the quality of life and is linked to disease.

[joel]

Couldn't it be argued that pollution in of itself restricts individual freedom?
Yes, if your pollution harms someone else on their property. You would be infringing their rights. Stopping/punishing you would not be an infringement of your individual rights. Rothbard goes into much more detail in the article I linked to above.

If you pollute your own property and the effects were somehow restricted to it, then that's another matter.

[fiddlin-john]

Nothing negatively affecting another's right to freedom, property, and pursuit of happiness is free from government intervention.

But, legislating for pollution is outright government intervention in the free market. Penalize a plastics company for polluting a stream, and yet you have tupperware in your kitchen. Don't allow a foundry to upgrade equipment because it smells funny outside the doors, but you drive a car with castings throughout.

The objective of pollution legislation has been to penalize companies, while neglecting to point out individual responsibility in that companies act. No, I am not saying an individual who buys a Polo shirt is to blame for a shirt factories carbon emissions. But likewise, if people don't buy the shirt for reasons of ecological sensitivity, the company is forced to either become greener or go out of business. Likewise, the individual might consider being prepared to pay the higher price to help support the company cost of becoming greener. Still, the market will regulate it. Cleaning mother earth will, just like every other aspect of human civilization, follow the money.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Nothing negatively affecting another's right to freedom, property, and pursuit of happiness is free from government intervention.

But, legislating for pollution is outright government intervention in the free market. Penalize a plastics company for polluting a stream, and yet you have tupperware in your kitchen. Don't allow a foundry to upgrade equipment because it smells funny outside the doors, but you drive a car with castings throughout.

The objective of pollution legislation has been to penalize companies, while neglecting to point out individual responsibility in that companies act. No, I am not saying an individual who buys a Polo shirt is to blame for a shirt factories carbon emissions. But likewise, if people don't buy the shirt for reasons of ecological sensitivity, the company is forced to either become greener or go out of business. Likewise, the individual might consider being prepared to pay the higher price to help support the company cost of becoming greener. Still, the market will regulate it. Cleaning mother earth will, just like every other aspect of human civilization, follow the money.

I don't think anyone is denying that market forces (along with education and openness about corporate policy) has a place in controlling pollution. What I'm saying is that it's a legitimate use of government authority to prevent individuals or companies from poisoning others bodies or property.

[fiddlin-john]

I don't think anyone is denying that market forces (along with education and openness about corporate policy) has a place in controlling pollution. What I'm saying is that it's a legitimate use of government authority to prevent individuals or companies from poisoning others bodies or property.

I agree totally, providing the authority likewise does not act irrespectively of a company's right to operate. In other words, it is not a right for an individual/company to pollute. However, if it does indeed pollute, the government has the right to interfere only in respect in the pollution area. But the government's obtrusive past is to restrict a business' ability to operate as a means of pollution control.

[Ex Nihilo]

I have a question for the Libertarians here: how would you have society address the problem of pollution?

Some kinds of pollution are eliminated through the incentives of market forces, but for others it is not so obvious. What do you propose for curbing pollution of the oceans or the atmosphere? Or how about fresh water sources, such as rivers, lakes or reservoirs? How should we handle space debris, especially the kind with deteriorating orbits that won't burn up on reentry?

I realize in shared spaces like national parks it is easy to suggest privatization. However, cutting up pieces of the atmosphere for ownership seems difficult (not to mention difficult to enforce) and certain kinds of air pollution (to continue the example) more easily distribute across large swaths of airspace, minimizing the impact on the initial polluter (and thus lowering the incentive in those cases to keep air clean).

To keep the most controversial issue off the table, and to keep this topic based in political theory (rather than political rhetoric), I am not necessarily speaking here about global warming. I assume, more generally, that constantly polluting the lakes, oceans and atmosphere will eventually have large-scale negative effects on the quality and (eventually) sustainability of human life on planet earth, whatever those consequences might be. There is also the more obvious issue of localized pollution, if the global picture is to be avoided altogether. (I could very well be wrong with this assumption of "large-scale negative effects", so I welcome correction on the matter.)

I was thinking about this. I read a really interesting article on how German and the Netherlands have got to the point where they have a huge wind and solar power base. The government supplimented the cost of the companies to pay users for switching, making the private industry suppliment the cost (they were somewhat reimbursed) by paying people back for investing personally into the technology. It basically was a sponsored way for the government to make it fiscally reasonable for someone to buy solar. I heard that Florida is doing the same thing and that they already hit their cap of 200 for the year to have people using solar tech. Basically doing this will be cost intesive to the government for so many years, but overall would be a cost saver all around because they would not have to pay for the infrastructure on their own.

Pretty brilliant if you ask me.

[Augustine2004]

It's no accident that the worst polluted areas of the world were governed by socialist people.

When are we going to stop thinking that the government will do more good than bad? I'm suffering now, and will suffer more later.

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's no accident that the worst polluted areas of the world were governed by socialist people.

When are we going to stop thinking that the government will do more good than bad? I'm suffering now, and will suffer more later.
Wasn't the worst pollution in the US during the hey-day of capitalism?

[Seasanctuary]

While there is a current fad to sell your stuff as [relatively] "green", it is ridiculous to claim market forces ensure pollution is minimized.

[Augustine2004]

Wasn't the worst pollution in the US during the hey-day of capitalism?Wow, what a bias. Got any reference for that?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow, what a bias. Got any reference for that?
Well, few workers rights, cheap labor, monopolies... Sounds like the early 1900's to me.

[Augustine2004]

While there is a current fad to sell your stuff as [relatively] "green", it is ridiculous to claim market forces ensure pollution is minimized.Not at present, no. One might say that since the Fed started operations in 1914, our markets ceased to be free. Actually even before that, the government was already big, powerful, intrustive, and manipulative. The South's slavery policy was indeed a great factor in the leadup to the American War Between the States, but the North's drive to conquer the South was a bigger factor. That means, the markets were already being impaired then at least in the South. We did have relatively free markets in the latter part of the 1800s, but the former slaves were still third-class citizens and the South remained in relative poverty.

The legal and justice system badly needs reforming. It's very difficult if not impossible for an individual to sue for relief from the pollution of a new plant. Usually the government does something about that, if it were at all inclined (not if bribery or lobbying is successful).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund seems to be reasonably accurate at least. It's been close to 3 decades now, and we still have nearly 1,000 sites left to clean up. It's hazardous (pun) for me to claim that inividuals suing new plants for pollution would have been far more quicker in a free-market setting, but YOU prove that it can't be.

[THIEF]

While there is a current fad to sell your stuff as [relatively] "green", it is ridiculous to claim market forces ensure pollution is minimized.Not at present, no. One might say that since the Fed started operations in 1914, our markets ceased to be free. Actually even before that, the government was already big, powerful, intrustive, and manipulative.
The government has been manipulating the economy in some form or another since the Washington administration's tariffs and national bank; the United States has never been, in the strictest sense of the phrase, a free-market economy. Of course the Federal Reserve Act gave the government much more control over the economy than it had previously; that conceded, Sea was claiming that "it is ridiculous to claim market forces ensure pollution is minimized." How, then, is the Fed--or, rather, the government in any capacity--hindering market forces from minimizing pollution? That is, in more blunt terms, how is this train of thought relevant to the conversation?


The South's slavery policy was indeed a great factor in the leadup to the American War Between the States, but the North's drive to conquer the South was a bigger factor. That means, the markets were already being impaired then at least in the South. We did have relatively free markets in the latter part of the 1800s, but the former slaves were still third-class citizens and the South remained in relative poverty.
What do you mean by "conquer the South"? If you mean that the North was impairing Southern markets with high tariffs, then you can hardly call the latter 1800s "relatively free": tariffs then were much, much higher than they were before the war.


The legal and justice system badly needs reforming. It's very difficult if not impossible for an individual to sue for relief from the pollution of a new plant. Usually the government does something about that, if it were at all inclined (not if bribery or lobbying is successful).
I mostly agree with what I see underlying what you're saying here ("government should in general have little power except to prevent one from injuring another") but what of this bribery and lobbying? If bribery is a widespread problem in our judicial system I want to see corroboration so I can become properly outraged. Similarly, lobbying is supposed to be performed on our legislative branch and I'd like to see what evidence there is suggesting that lobbyists are influencing judges.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund seems to be reasonably accurate at least. It's been close to 3 decades now, and we still have nearly 1,000 sites left to clean up. It's hazardous (pun) for me to claim that inividuals suing new plants for pollution would have been far more quicker in a free-market setting, but YOU prove that it can't be.
You're not willing to claim that the system you are (or seem like you are) suggesting--individuals take pollution control into their own hands by suing if pollution is harming them--is superior to our current system? If that's the case, there's nothing to argue here.

[Augustine2004]

Two ways our markets are not free are that governments usually 1) make laws and 2) provide dispute resolution services, e.g., the SCOTUS. Contrary to what most people would think, the free market can offer consumers, systems of law and dispute resolution services (mediators, arbitrators, negotiators, etc.).

The following scenario is possible (you prove that it’s impossible): An individual brings suit under one of the systems of law against a manufacturing plant that suddenly seems to be polluting a nearby lake. Three judges are hired to decide which of the individual’s case and the plant’s case is better. It may be the case the plant had bought a different system of law. The differences between the two systems will somehow have to be reconciled.

[THIEF]

Two ways our markets are not free are that governments usually 1) make laws and 2) provide dispute resolution services, e.g., the SCOTUS. Contrary to what most people would think, the free market can offer consumers, systems of law and dispute resolution services (mediators, arbitrators, negotiators, etc.).

The following scenario is possible (you prove that it’s impossible): An individual brings suit under one of the systems of law against a manufacturing plant that suddenly seems to be polluting a nearby lake. Three judges are hired to decide which of the individual’s case and the plant’s case is better. It may be the case the plant had bought a different system of law. The differences between the two systems will somehow have to be reconciled.

The free market could provide those things in some form or another, but would that be better than our current system? You pointed out some of the potential snags yourself in that hypothetical. What happens when the parties are operating according to different systems of law? How, then, is a decision made and, if necessary, enforced?

[Augustine2004]

The free market could provide those things in some form or another, but would that be better than our current system? You pointed out some of the potential snags yourself in that hypothetical. What happens when the parties are operating according to different systems of law? How, then, is a decision made and, if necessary, enforced?Let me turn the question around. What makes you think the government can do more good than bad? My guess is you’ve been trained to think so all your life. You’ve never questioned that. Now is the time to do so.

Violence is bad for business. Delays in getting cases resolved are also. Quick and peaceful resolutions make for good business. Judges, mediators, arbitrators, etc., would know in a free market that they must make fair yet expeditious decisions or rulings. The insurance companies or some similar companies that provide the systems of law and conflict resolution services are also strongly interested in peaceful and quick settlements.

I cannot provide details. That would require me to predict what people would do in a free market environment. Moreover if I do speculate, the critic can always naturally dismiss it as 'case not proven.'

[joel]

Violence is bad for business.

Including arresting, prosecuting, fining, incarcerating, executing people for things like murder, theft, or fraud?

I don't buy that argument for private defense forces. We are specifically talking about how force (violence) should be used (i.e., should one organization have a monopoly on violence, or should we have no state, and have only private use of violence). The private defense firms are specifically in the business of wielding violence (as a substitute for the monopoly). You cannot argue that they will enforce justice (use violence justly) by saying violence is bad for business. I would not hire the services of a pacifist defense firm. I would hire only one that I believed would use force against aggressors. That is, the service I am purchasing is violence (i.e., I want something enforced), and that is what they are in business to provide. How then can it be bad for business?

You might then modify your statement, saying, "Unjust violence is bad for business", but then Thief's argument against that still stands. Unjust violence will be bad for business only if people agree on what is unjust. But various parties/factions do disagree on what is just. If I think X is unjust, I would hire a defense firm to use force against X. But someone else will think they have the right to do X, and thus will hire a defense firm to use force to defend themselves against my firm, because they view me and my firm as unjust aggressors, against which force is necessary and just. Some practical examples would be over abortion, property rights vs wealth redistribution, and (at one time) slavery. What "quick and fair" resolution could there be for such cases?

[Augustine2004]

Joel’s post is both corrective and clarifying. However, wrong violence and right violence, and wrong threats to use violence and right threats–is a complex topic, needing much more than a post as long as mine was to treat at any adequate length. Let’s also throw in chicanery; in some cases it may perhaps be preferable to a threat of force.

How may society deal with an entity (individual or group of individuals) who refuses to comply with a resolution of a conflict, such as a suit in a court of law?

Society is assumed to have the means to force or chicane compliance. Is government as we presently have it a good solution? Reasons to think otherwise are presented. In theory, governments are to have a monopoly of violence. That is both unworkable and nonsensical. The murders, rapes, armed robberies that occur daily around the world make a mockery of the theory. Also, police or military people cannot be anywhere within milliseconds whenever one needs powerful aid against evildoers or would-be evildoers. Many people lost their lives while or after calling 911.

A more serious problem is that governments themselves are evildoers. Who will protect the people against governmental depredations? Let us keep in mind that the government “monopoly” of violence can be used against the people. Indeed, just look and see that virtually every nation has a Parasite Class. Its slogan should be honest: “government of the people, by leaders of the Parasite Class, for the Parasite Class.”

If not government enforcement of compliance, then what? If perchance the recalcitrant entity is so powerful it can defend itself against attempts to enforce judgements (or somethings like them), it may as well as be a government or one in the making, so we’d back to Square One. If we are interested in what a libertarian society can accomplish, we have to assume that in nearly every case no entity is powerful enough to fight off an attempt to enforce judgements.

Generally speaking, what people want, there can be a market to supply it. Granted, the free market will not supply all that we desire. That’s just economic scarcity (see the relevant section in this post, “The Basis of My Economic Arguments” http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2705941#post2705941
scroll down to where it says “Economic Scarcity”). Contrary to popular thought, government cannot banish economic scarcity; can’t even meliorate it (for further argument, ask me).

Even if the slogan of the government was honestly, “government for the people,” at least three reasons are now given why we should not expect governments to do a better job of making the world better than the free market can:

* When a group is given great power by the society, parasitical people are tempted to join the group and co-opt the power for their benefit. We’ve seen that happen repeatedly in history, so often that it ought to be a law of history. Indeed, didn’t Lord Acton say, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”?

* The greater the group’s control and the more pervasive its decision-making in the society; the less timely its decisions become, the less on-target they become.

* The greater the influence of the group on the society, the more necessary information for decision-making is destroyed. This point would require lengthy explanation, and anyway maybe you can figure it out on your own from studying the “Basis” post, link again given here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2705941#post2705941

So, let’s look at possible scenarios how a society may enforce judgement against a recalcitrant entity.

* The insurance company or insurance companies that were involved in the dispute can publish notices of the judgement to companies that did business with the entity. Even if it had a great deal of wealth, it may go out of business or have to suffer privation.

* Assets can be seized to pay the judgement. Note that there’s a popular TV show about repo people.

* The entity can be arrested and forced to work off the judgement.

[joel]

You didn't address my concerns at all.



How may society deal with an entity (individual or group of individuals) who refuses to comply with a resolution of a conflict, such as a suit in a court of law?

The concern is more basic than that. The prior question that needs to be answered is whose court? The differing firms may hold their own trials and reach conflicting "resolutions."



So, let’s look at possible scenarios how a society may enforce judgement against a recalcitrant entity.

* The insurance company or insurance companies that were involved in the dispute can publish notices of the judgement to companies that did business with the entity. Even if it had a great deal of wealth, it may go out of business or have to suffer privation.
You mean like the grocery store may not sell Bob groceries because he is now considered anti-social? It may be the case that the grocery store owner thinks Bob is a hero because of his actions and help him out.



* Assets can be seized to pay the judgement. Note that there’s a popular TV show about repo people.

* The entity can be arrested and forced to work off the judgement.
So the two parties will be trying to seize each other's property (or forced to work) to pay the conflicting judgements? Then they will perceive this action by the other party to be yet another crime, thus escalating the conflict.

The only way there will be peace is if one side yields, or one side achieves victory through superior force. Either way you are back to a (relative) monopoly of force on that issue, in the sense of the other faction(s) being excluded.

[Augustine2004]

The concern is more basic than that. The prior question that needs to be answered is whose court? The differing firms may hold their own trials and reach conflicting "resolutions."How could that happen? There is a plantiff and a defendant. The plantiff’s insurance company is ABC, and the defendant is XYZ. ABC and XYZ have met on many cases already, and thus quickly agree on a panel of three well-known judges to decide the present case.


You mean like the grocery store may not sell Bob groceries because he is now considered anti-social? It may be the case that the grocery store owner thinks Bob is a hero because of his actions and help him out.That’s possible. It’s also possible that suit can be bought against the owner for aiding and abetting. It would then be up to the owner and his insurance company to show that the judgement against Bob was bad, if it comes to that.


So the two parties will be trying to seize each other's property (or forced to work) to pay the conflicting judgements? Then they will perceive this action by the other party to be yet another crime, thus escalating the conflict.I’m trying to figure out a scenario like that. You seem to argue that, in one trail, Alice is the plantiff and Bob is the defendant and in the other trail, Bob is the plantiff and Alice is the defendant. That makes no sense, unless somehow the two trails are about two different matters.


The only way there will be peace is if one side yields, or one side achieves victory through superior force. Either way you are back to a (relative) monopoly of force on that issue, in the sense of the other faction(s) being excluded.Then there will be little for negotiators, arbitrators, mediators to do, because in the past they weren’t getting the job done. Phooey.

To be sure, sometimes disputes remain unresolved, as in the case of failing marriages. A few insurance companies may indeed disagree more or longer than the rest. Until you come up with more details though, you can’t say that’s a reason to prefer government provision of dispute resolution services. Of course in any sector you’re going to find ‘laggard’ businesses as well as leading businesses.

[joel]

How could that happen? There is a plantiff and a defendant. The plantiff’s insurance company is ABC, and the defendant is XYZ. ABC and XYZ have met on many cases already, and thus quickly agree on a panel of three well-known judges to decide the present case.

That’s possible. It’s also possible that suit can be bought against the owner for aiding and abetting. It would then be up to the owner and his insurance company to show that the judgement against Bob was bad, if it comes to that.

I’m trying to figure out a scenario like that. You seem to argue that, in one trail, Alice is the plantiff and Bob is the defendant and in the other trail, Bob is the plantiff and Alice is the defendant. That makes no sense, unless somehow the two trails are about two different matters.

Then there will be little for negotiators, arbitrators, mediators to do, because in the past they weren’t getting the job done. Phooey.

To be sure, sometimes disputes remain unresolved, as in the case of failing marriages. A few insurance companies may indeed disagree more or longer than the rest. Until you come up with more details though, you can’t say that’s a reason to prefer government provision of dispute resolution services.
Two posts ago, I gave you three examples: abortion, wealth redistribution, and slavery. I could provide you with many more.

Let's take a single concrete example. Alice says abortion is murder, and hires a firm ABC willing to prosecute it. Bob is an abortionist and Charlene wants an abortion. Bob and Charlene say that it is their right to do so, and hire a firm XYZ willing to protect their "right" against aggressors. Bob and Charlene go ahead with the abortion, and ABC steps in and arrests them on murder charges. In ABC's (and its clients') eyes, Bob and Charlene are defendants in a murder case. Bob, Charlene, and XYZ see this as a violation of rights, that ABC and Alice (and the other people who hired ABC) are unjust aggressors, and XYZ steps in to arrest them and prosecute them for violence against Bob and Charlene. In XYZ's (and its clients') viewpoint, ABC (and its clients) are the defendants. ABC (and its clients will see these actions as additional aggression and charge XYZ (and its clients) with additional crimes, and thus attempt additional arrests. XYZ will see this as an additional act of aggression. And so on.

Each side sees the other's charges as ill-founded, and sees the other as the aggressor (and thus as the defendant). ABC and XYZ will not see each other as fellow companies that "have met on many cases already". Each will have charges against the other company. ABC will accuse XYZ of crimes and see it as a band of outlaws (and vice versa).

In the case of the grocery store, I was picturing, for example, that the owner was also a client of XYZ and would be glad to support Bob and Charlene. XYZ would defend them in this.

How, in your system, could this be resolved?



Of course in any sector you’re going to find ‘laggard’ businesses as well as leading businesses.
That's not a good analogy for what we are talking about. It's not like the way both apples and oranges can be on the market simultaneously, even if apples are way more popular, and the orange selling businesses don't do as well, but can stay in business because they serve a minority consumer-base that likes oranges. In this case, neither the orange producers nor the apple producers have a claim that the other's presence in the market is unjust and ought to be obliterated. Both apples and oranges (and their sellers) can coexist peacefully in the market. But ABC and XYZ inherently cannot coexist peacefully in the market. Obliterating the other from the market through the use of force is their function in the "market." That is what each was hired to do.

(I put "market" in quotes just there because it seems there cannot possibly be (even theoretically) an unhampered market for defense, because it is the market for violence, and therefore cannot be unhampered by violence.)

[Augustine2004]

Two posts ago, I gave you three examples: abortion, wealth redistribution, and slavery. I could provide you with many more.<snip>
How, in your system, could this be resolved?Abortion is a hard case. Lawyers have a saying, ‘Hard cases make bad law.’ I think part of what they mean is that no matter what kind of society we have, we’re going to have hard cases. The society may be the best possible, but . . .

I’ll consider three scenarios:

A - The society is predominately for abortion rights.
B - It is in the area between A and . . .
L - The society is predominately against abortion rights.

Scenario A: ProLife Inc. is a small struggling business with high prices for its services. It loses much more often in trails or hearings than it wins. It continues because of the publicity that it manages to garner. I don’t know how successful it would be as compared to pro-lifers contributing to no-profit anti-abortion organizations that take out ads or commercials to attack abortion.

I am personally opposed to abortion. However, I for one am not going to spend most of my net worth on something that may not make much difference in the long run.

As for governments that make abortion illegal, I am doubtful. I think it’s much more likely governments would make most of abortions legal, if not all.

I’m not sure what answer you’re seeking by asking, ‘How, in your system, could this be resolved?’ For example, a panel of judges could vote for the abortion side or not. Nothing unusual.

I realize you’re disappointed: the system may fail to support your sides much more often than you’d like. You need to be realistic, however.

Scenario B: I don’t know what to say, except to point out that governments would be somewhat divided also. However, we would not have to pay the high cost of government that doesn’t do much either way.

Scenario L: This would be somewhat of a polar opposite to Scenario A, except that the baby needs to be raised by someone. Perhaps something like an orphanage.

I do not understand why you bought up wealth redistribution. That’s a government thing, is it not?

Slavery is not allowed by the Maybury precepts. The Biblical injunction against stealing also applies here. What I wrote about abortion applies also, mutatis mutandis, to slavery.



That's not a good analogy for what we are talking about. It's not like the way both apples and oranges can be on the market simultaneously, even if apples are way more popular, and the orange selling businesses don't do as well, but can stay in business because they serve a minority consumer-base that likes oranges. In this case, neither the orange producers nor the apple producers have a claim that the other's presence in the market is unjust and ought to be obliterated. Both apples and oranges (and their sellers) can coexist peacefully in the market. But ABC and XYZ inherently cannot coexist peacefully in the market. Obliterating the other from the market through the use of force is their function in the "market." That is what each was hired to do.

(I put "market" in quotes just there because it seems there cannot possibly be (even theoretically) an unhampered market for defense, because it is the market for violence, and therefore cannot be unhampered by violence.)Catholics often criticize Protestants, and vice versa. Yet there’s usually peace between them, though they may compete for converts. So it should be between ABC and XYZ.

Suppose XYZ goes to war against ABC anyway. ABC may call other companies for help, which should be readily forthcoming, because that sort of violence is bad for business.

[joel]

Scenario A: ProLife Inc. is a small struggling business with high prices for its services. It loses much more often in trails or hearings than it wins. It continues because of the publicity that it manages to garner.

You are still missing the point. It won't continue at all. It will not be like a lawyer that loses many cases but struggles along. It will be viewed as an outlaw organization (for arresting abortionists), and ProLife Inc will be forcibly dismantled and most of its people (and clients) imprisoned as aggressors. The predominant firm(s) will remove it entirely from existence via the use of force (not by market competition). There cannot be a free market for violence.

I propose that George Tiller's executioner was a competing defense provider (in this case, competing with the dominant "firm", the State). In the case of private defense firms, his "competition" would have done the same thing that the government did in the actual world: arrest him and likely sentence him to death. (Not just try to gain market share from him by, say, underbidding him.)



I am personally opposed to abortion. However, I for one am not going to spend most of my net worth on something that may not make much difference in the long run.
People like William Wilberforce disagreed with you.



I’m not sure what answer you’re seeking by asking, ‘How, in your system, could this be resolved?’ For example, a panel of judges could vote for the abortion side or not. Nothing unusual.
What panel of judges? Alice would not hire any firm that compromised or dealt with pro-choice judges. Neither would Bob hire any firm that compromised or dealt with pro-life judges. If they rule in favor of abortion "rights." Then ABC and Alice and its other clients will view the "judges" as aiders and abettors of aggressors. Just as if "judges" happened to rule in favor of slave-owning "rights".



I realize you’re disappointed: the system may fail to support your sides much more often than you’d like. You need to be realistic, however.
It's not an issue of "my side". Abortion was just one example. It doesn't matter which is my side.



Scenario L: This would be somewhat of a polar opposite to Scenario A, except that the baby needs to be raised by someone. Perhaps something like an orphanage.
I don't want to get off topic too much, but my conclusion is that parents have the obligation to provide for their offspring.



I do not understand why you bought up wealth redistribution. That’s a government thing, is it not?
It would be similar to the case of abortion. In this case, Bob believes that people have a right to a "safety net" or retirement or health care, or whatever the case may be. So he hires XYZ who will enforce that "right", by seizing wealth from the rich to pay for the safety net. Alice sees this as an act of aggression and hires ABC to protect herself (and other property owners) from this aggression.



Slavery is not allowed by the Maybury precepts. The Biblical injunction against stealing also applies here. What I wrote about abortion applies also, mutatis mutandis, to slavery.
But not everyone will agree with Maybury precepts. Some will see wealth inequality as an injustice--an aggression. Some might see slave-owning as a right. Thus you will have the same results as the other cases above. I could come up with a huge number of other examples, e.g., some will see owning and bearing arms as a right and entailed by property rights, while others may think they have the right to confiscate the arms of others.



Catholics often criticize Protestants, and vice versa. Yet there’s usually peace between them, though they may compete for converts. So it should be between ABC and XYZ.
That's not the same thing (well, not always; sometimes they have fought physically). I have no problem with a marketplace of ideas, even differing ideas about justice and rights. But that is not what we are talking about; we are talking about a marketplace for violence--for the physical enforcement of those ideas.



Suppose XYZ goes to war against ABC anyway. ABC may call other companies for help, which should be readily forthcoming, because that sort of violence is bad for business.Yes, the pro-life firms will likely band together, and the pro-choice firms will likely band together. If neither side yields, then there won't be peace until one side achieves victory through superior force, and obliterates the other firms and imprisons its people, and perhaps its clients. The successful firms will not win by market competition (i.e., gaining customers from the competition due to its providing the same good at lower prices, or an improved good), but by obliterating its competition by force.

[Augustine2004]

You are still missing the point. It won't continue at all. It will not be like a lawyer that loses many cases but struggles along. It will be viewed as an outlaw organization (for arresting abortionists), and ProLife Inc will be forcibly dismantled and most of its people (and clients) imprisoned as aggressors. The predominant firm(s) will remove it entirely from existence via the use of force (not by market competition). There cannot be a free market for violence.

I propose that George Tiller's executioner was a competing defense provider (in this case, competing with the dominant "firm", the State). In the case of private defense firms, his "competition" would have done the same thing that the government did in the actual world: arrest him and likely sentence him to death. (Not just try to gain market share from him by, say, underbidding him.)I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. ProLife is an insurance company that provides security services. The contracts that the company offers prospective consumers include what we may call a system of law (contract details, actually). ProLife may or may not also offer judicial/negotiation/arbitration/mediator/etc. services. It may or may not offer enforcement services. Likely, at least it will recommend some firms specializing in those two kinds of service. It most certainly will not go out on its own to whack people. If it did, then as you write, it would be adjudged and declared outlaw (more on this later).


People like William Wilberforce disagreed with you.What!? I AM against slavery. I don’t understand, are you thinking that William Wilberforce advocated the use of government force? Well, indeed he did, in effect at least. Or you mean he spent most of his net worth . . . ?


What panel of judges? Alice would not hire any firm that compromised or dealt with pro-choice judges. Neither would Bob hire any firm that compromised or dealt with pro-life judges. If they rule in favor of abortion "rights." Then ABC and Alice and its other clients will view the "judges" as aiders and abettors of aggressors. Just as if "judges" happened to rule in favor of slave-owning "rights".’Compromised’? You mean, ‘compromised WITH’? Or, ‘comprised’ in the sense of ‘include’? ‘Is composed of’ is maybe what you’re thinking of.

A dispute resolution is rather unlikely if each party in the dispute hires its own resoluter firm (if I may so write). Alice as the prolifer is not likely to get anywhere in Scenario A unless she can come to some agreement with Bob on the resoluter firm to hire. Even so, Alice needs to get a judgement that any business that may be involved then or later will respect.

I am willing to concede in Scenario A that Prolife would soon go out of business or offer only contracts that do not ‘outlaw’ abortion.


I don't want to get off topic too much, but my conclusion is that parents have the obligation to provide for their offspring.Sure. There will necessarily have to be voluntary-charitable organizations that defend children and mental incompetents, though. If not, God save them. Consider that maybe the dad and mom are both convicted of evildoing, and are sentenced to work off their judgements. Who, then, will care for the children?


It would be similar to the case of abortion. In this case, Bob believes that people have a right to a "safety net" or retirement or health care, or whatever the case may be. So he hires XYZ who will enforce that "right", by seizing wealth from the rich to pay for the safety net. Alice sees this as an act of aggression and hires ABC to protect herself (and other property owners) from this aggression. You seem to think that’s a likely thing in the Maybury world. I wouldn’t agree. People are not going to spend a great deal of resources on stuff that seem rather unlikely to be resolved.


But not everyone will agree with Maybury precepts. Some will see wealth inequality as an injustice--an aggression. Some might see slave-owning as a right. Thus you will have the same results as the other cases above. I could come up with a huge number of other examples, e.g., some will see owning and bearing arms as a right and entailed by property rights, while others may think they have the right to confiscate the arms of others.Sometimes I do wonder whether I’m not wasting my time, given all the diversity of personal ethical systems extant today.


That's not the same thing (well, not always; sometimes they have fought physically). I have no problem with a marketplace of ideas, even differing ideas about justice and rights. But that is not what we are talking about; we are talking about a marketplace for violence--for the physical enforcement of those ideas.No, enforcement of dispute resolutions.


Yes, the pro-life firms will likely band together, and the pro-choice firms will likely band together. If neither side yields, then there won't be peace until one side achieves victory through superior force, and obliterates the other firms and imprisons its people, and perhaps its clients. The successful firms will not win by market competition (i.e., gaining customers from the competition due to its providing the same good at lower prices, or an improved good), but by obliterating its competition by force. Do you mean it’d be worse in the Maybury world than now? Possible, but IMO rather likely to be more peaceful. Again, people are not going to spend a great deal of resources on stuff that appears likely to them to be unresolvable.

[joel]

A dispute resolution is rather unlikely if each party in the dispute hires its own resoluter firm (if I may so write). Alice as the prolifer is not likely to get anywhere in Scenario A unless she can come to some agreement with Bob on the resoluter firm to hire.

Exactly. Alice will not hire or submit to a "resoluter firm" that she thinks is mistaken about what is just /unjust. In the above example, she will not hire or submit to such a firm that does not recognize abortion as murder. Likewise Bob and Charlene will not hire or submit to a resoluter firm that does.

This is not just a problem for "hard cases," it is a problem in every case in which there is a disagreement about justice.



I am willing to concede in Scenario A that Prolife would soon go out of business or offer only contracts that do not ‘outlaw’ abortion.
And that would happen under coercion--the threat of force.



Consider that maybe the dad and mom are both convicted of evildoing, and are sentenced to work off their judgements. Who, then, will care for the children?
The parents. If they are forced to work off their obligations, that includes all their obligations. It may be that dependents are first in line (like in a proper bankruptcy where there is a priority of who gets paid first).



You seem to think that’s a likely thing in the Maybury world.
No, in the Maybury world where everyone has and follows the same system of justice, then the problems I'm describing will not occur. But then, law, security services and the like will be unnecessary in such a world.

But I'm talking about the real world in which people do have differing beliefs about what is just.



I wouldn’t agree. People are not going to spend a great deal of resources on stuff that seem rather unlikely to be resolved.
People would be spending only a small amount of resources to fund the seizing and redistributing of a much greater amount of resources. (Perhaps the firm would lower its prices by funding part of this action with the wealth it seizes.)



Sometimes I do wonder whether I’m not wasting my time, given all the diversity of personal ethical systems extant today.
But I believe there is a true one. We must seek to understand it by reason, and convince others of it.



No, enforcement of dispute resolutions.
Which are necessarily based on ideas (e.g., of what is just).



Do you mean it’d be worse in the Maybury world than now? Possible, but IMO rather likely to be more peaceful. Again, people are not going to spend a great deal of resources on stuff that appears likely to them to be unresolvable.No, what I'm saying is that it does not make logical sense to talk about a free market for law enforcement. As for whether people would spend a great deal of resources... As for people like Wiliam Wilberforce, I was referring to the fact that he spent a lot of personal resource and political/social capital on fighting against slavery. As for whether something appears unresolvable, I imagine that many people might weigh their chances of being accused of crimes for funding the enforcement of pre-born murder laws (or a prohibition against slavery), as compared to the chances of a victory through superior force.

[Augustine2004]

Exactly. Alice will not hire or submit to a "resoluter firm" that she thinks is mistaken about what is just /unjust. In the above example, she will not hire or submit to such a firm that does not recognize abortion as murder. Likewise Bob and Charlene will not hire or submit to a resoluter firm that does.

This is not just a problem for "hard cases," it is a problem in every case in which there is a disagreement about justice.I’ve already made the point about people not wanting to spend much resources on matters that seem unlikely to reach resolution that would “stick.” In Alice’s case (Scenario A, prolifer), she would likely not have sued in the first place, unless she wanted publicity for her cause (not likely either).

You don’t seem to understand that the government is unlikely to outlaw abortion if there remains overwhelming public support for it. At best, there is a draw as far as getting the desired outcome. However, I’ve already suggested that the Maybury world would be less expensive.


The parents. If they are forced to work off their obligations, that includes all their obligations. It may be that dependents are first in line (like in a proper bankruptcy where there is a priority of who gets paid first).I’m not sure how arrangements would be made. I imagine there would be a wide variety from case to case.


No, in the Maybury world where everyone has and follows the same system of justice, then the problems I'm describing will not occur. But then, law, security services and the like will be unnecessary in such a world. I meant, enough people follow the precepts so that free markets flourish everywhere, but some people are evildoers, necessitating a considerable amount of ‘insurance’ against them.


But I'm talking about the real world in which people do have differing beliefs about what is just.I’ve already conceded that point.


People would be spending only a small amount of resources to fund the seizing and redistributing of a much greater amount of resources. (Perhaps the firm would lower its prices by funding part of this action with the wealth it seizes.)The abortion party won’t allow that.


Which are necessarily based on ideas (e.g., of what is just).If there’s nothing to enforce, . . .


No, what I'm saying is that it does not make logical sense to talk about a free market for law enforcement. On the one hand you assume the people supports the government. On the other hand you assume the people does not support the resolution-enforcement market, even though you in effect assumed the Maybury precepts are generally followed.

As for whether something appears unresolvable, I imagine that many people might weigh their chances of being accused of crimes for funding the enforcement of pre-born murder laws (or a prohibition against slavery), as compared to the chances of a victory through superior force.Imagine away.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I havent read the thread yet, but I think a lot of the enviormental problems could be solved, or at least minimized by privatizing things that are not currently.

For example if we had privately owned streams, rivers, lakes and coastlines, then in order for a factory owner to dump trash and chemicles into a body of water, he would either have to purchase it(an additional expense for him) or get permission from whoever owns it, who probably wont be too excited by the idea of trash and poison being dumped into a body of water that could otherwise be used for fishing or recreation. Even if the factory owner paid the owner of the water to dump his stuff, thats still an additional expense for him, and an incentive to find other ways to get rid of the stuff, or better yet, to reduce the ammount of waste he produces. This would also help reduce over-fishing, since the owner would have an economic incentive to ensure that there would be pleanty of fish for him to keep making a profit over the long-haul.

Or if we had privately owned landfills, that charged people per-pound of trash they had to haul away and store in the landfill. Now people have an incentive to reduce the total ammount of trash they produce, and since trashing property you dont own wouldnt be allowed, dumping in their neighbors yard isnt an option, so they'll recycle more, or re-use items they might otherwise have thrown away, that torn shirt suddenly becomes a dishrag or whatever.

Air pollution and the use of pesetcides, or other dangerous chemicals are a trickier matter, runnof from the use of chemicals can affect areas far away from where initially used and can often go unnoticed(or the initial source unknown) for a long time. and its not practical to divide the air up into sections for private ownership. And its here that I think the government has a right to intervene. Although I would say that artifical limits on carbon output are not the way to go. Perhaps a better method would be a tax on carbon emissions, or for car manufactors, a tax on each vehicle based on hte ammount of carbon it emmits.

I'm sure this all been covered already, just thought I'd throw it out there.

[themuzicman]

Yeah, the libertarian society quickly becomes a very litigious society, where everyone has to sue everyone else for infringing upon them.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Yeah, the libertarian society quickly becomes a very litigious society, where everyone has to sue everyone else for infringing upon them.

I really do wonder what living in an overly litigious society would be like.

[Augustine2004]

Yeah, the libertarian society quickly becomes a very litigious society, where everyone has to sue everyone else for infringing upon them.A society is very unlikely to be libertarian if the great part of the people eschews anything like the Maybury precepts.

[Augustine2004]

I really do wonder what living in an overly litigious society would be like.This isn't a litigious society today?

[themuzicman]

Our present culture would seem tame in comparison to the number of lawsuits that would be flying around in a libertarian paradise.

[Augustine2004]

Our present culture would seem tame in comparison to the number of lawsuits that would be flying around in a libertarian paradise.I'm baffled how you could come to such a conclusion. You seem to have not thought at all about what my rejoinder means. I may also mention that litigation is expensive and the loser pays all the legal costs. If Abby knows she does not have a good case or thinks the odds against winning are long, she may not sue. If Barry, who is the defendant in a suit, fears that he is likely to lose, he may offer a quick out-of-court settlement.

[joel]

Yeah, the libertarian society quickly becomes a very litigious society, where everyone has to sue everyone else for infringing upon them.
How is it determined whether someone has to sue (civil suit) rather that it being able to be a criminal matter? I mean, if someone burns my house down, they will be charged with a crime. I don't have to sue right? I would think the same would (or could) be the case if someone otherwise vandalizes (including pollutes) my property. Why do you think everything would have to become a civil matter?

[themuzicman]

I'm baffled how you could come to such a conclusion. You seem to have not thought at all about what my rejoinder means. I may also mention that litigation is expensive and the loser pays all the legal costs. If Abby knows she does not have a good case or thinks the odds against winning are long, she may not sue. If Barry, who is the defendant in a suit, fears that he is likely to lose, he may offer a quick out-of-court settlement.

But that happens for the most part today. The problem isn't whether this happens or not, but the frequency with which a citizen would perceive infringement, and the cost of litigation. In essence, the poor would be screwed, as they could never afford legal representation to have their grievances heard and infringements remedied, due to the risk of losing.

[themuzicman]

How is it determined whether someone has to sue (civil suit) rather that it being able to be a criminal matter? I mean, if someone burns my house down, they will be charged with a crime. I don't have to sue right? I would think the same would (or could) be the case if someone otherwise vandalizes (including pollutes) my property. Why do you think everything would have to become a civil matter?

Well, the example was pollution. The solution was to sue whomever was polluting you.

Sounds good in theory, but in reality it would be a huge expense to even determine who was polluting (if possible), and a huge expense to conduct a civil trial. Most folks wouldn't even be able to afford the first part, much less take on the risk of losing the second.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Yeah, the libertarian society quickly becomes a very litigious society, where everyone has to sue everyone else for infringing upon them.

And thats different from the society we currently live in....how?

[themuzicman]

Well, i don't have to sue the company that is leaking oil into my water system. We have laws and agencies for that. I don't have to sue the company that's releasing poison gas upwind from me. We have laws for that.

In short, I don't have to invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars to engage in a lawsuit, because it's already against the law, and a criminal matter handled by the proper authorities.

[Augustine2004]

How is it determined whether someone has to sue (civil suit) rather that it being able to be a criminal matter? I mean, if someone burns my house down, they will be charged with a crime. I don't have to sue right? I would think the same would (or could) be the case if someone otherwise vandalizes (including pollutes) my property. Why do you think everything would have to become a civil matter?
Joel seems to assume that governments will handle criminal matters. Actually, insurance companies and similar ones can handle those things.

Say a company accidentally spills crude oil on Abby’s property. If the company is libertarian and has accident insurance from ABC Insurance, also libertarian, the latter company will handle the clean up and compensate Abby for any remaining damages.

Would the Muzicman like me to discuss cases in which one or more parties are not libertarian in a libertarian society? [Oh! I haven't really thought about the later posts yet. Please wait for me to catch up.]

[Augustine2004]

But that happens for the most part today. The problem isn't whether this happens or not, but the frequency with which a citizen would perceive infringement, and the cost of litigation. In essence, the poor would be screwed, as they could never afford legal representation to have their grievances heard and infringements remedied, due to the risk of losing.Why do you think there won't be pro bono work by lawyers? No not-for-profit organizations to help the poor? The poor can even form associations, as they did before the USFG erected the Welfare State.

[Augustine2004]

Well, the example was pollution. The solution was to sue whomever was polluting you.You seem to think pollution cases are special in ways that the libertarian society can't handle or would handle poorly compared to today.


Sounds good in theory, but in reality it would be a huge expense to even determine who was polluting (if possible), and a huge expense to conduct a civil trial. Most folks wouldn't even be able to afford the first part, much less take on the risk of losing the second.I would agree that it's true in a FEW cases. You appear to think that would be typical or more than typical. Why?

[themuzicman]

I would agree that it's true in a FEW cases. You appear to think that would be typical or more than typical. Why?

Because business people are interested in doing things in a cost effective way. If it is cheaper to hide the source of pollution such that homeowners wouldn't be able to afford the research to find the source, then that's what at least some business (the successful ones, due to cost) would do.

One odd thing about libertarianism is that you assume business people will be upright in dealing with problems the cause.

[joel]

Well, the example was pollution. The solution was to sue whomever was polluting you.

Sounds good in theory, but in reality it would be a huge expense to even determine who was polluting (if possible), and a huge expense to conduct a civil trial. Most folks wouldn't even be able to afford the first part, much less take on the risk of losing the second.
Well then solve that problem by making it a crime (like arson, or a form of vandalism) to pollute someone's property. Libertarian philosophy does not say it has to be civil suits. We could even conceive of a libertarian king that cracks down on all infringement of individual rights, without any civil suits at all. The libertarian says that rights should be protected. The mechanism for doing that is a secondary question, for which we should try to select the best from various options. (Some libertarians have strong opinions regarding this secondary question.)

[themuzicman]

Well then solve that problem by making it a crime (like arson, or a form of vandalism) to pollute someone's property. Libertarian philosophy does not say it has to be civil suits. We could even conceive of a libertarian king that cracks down on all infringement of individual rights, without any civil suits at all. The libertarian says that rights should be protected. The mechanism for doing that is a secondary question, for which we should try to select the best from various options. (Some libertarians have strong opinions regarding this secondary question.)

LOL.. you just stopped being a libertarian. Turn in your card.

[joel]

LOL.. you just stopped being a libertarian. Turn in your card.
How so? (Nowhere did I advocate or accept the infringement of any rights.)

[Augustine2004]

Because business people are interested in doing things in a cost effective way. If it is cheaper to hide the source of pollution such that homeowners wouldn't be able to afford the research to find the source, then that's what at least some business (the successful ones, due to cost) would do.That is possible. Such businesses are not libertarian. You seem to think that the effects of the pollution are somewhat obvious, yet it's hard--rather costly--to identify the generator of the pollution. Do you have a specific example? Why would it not apply to today?

You should keep in mind the slogan of virtually all the governments today: government of the people, by leaders of the Parasite Class, for the Parasite Class. If a class of 'criminal' or civil matters can't be politicized (or is for whatever reason not politicized), governments tend to treat it minimally--just barely adequate. That's why judical services are so bad today, for example. An example that IS being politicized: global warming. Do you agree that the case for it is rather doubtful and the remedies being proposed are--surprise!--things that appear to benefit the Parasite Class? The world as a whole won't be better off while governments make a great show of treating global warming.

If the pollution is a local thing, then today's governments may not care to spend vast sums, unless they can be funneled to the Parasite Class. Incidentally, didn't you notice that the worst polluted areas are or were in socialist countries? Switzerland is pristine in comparison.

If the pollution of a specific type occurs in many libertarian areas, then insurance companies may pay for investigations, because otherwise they would have to pay for expensive medical treatments.


One odd thing about libertarianism is that you assume business people will be upright in dealing with problems the cause.One odd thing about statism is that you assume people will support it despite its baneful actions--war, injustice, loss of liberty, etc. Also you assume that the society usually keeps bad people out of the government. Not so--Hitler is merely one of a great many examples.