A Question I got via PM
 

I got this question via PM:

[ QUOTE ]

How would an anarchist society deal with environmental concerns? Take pollution leading to global warming/other problems. What force in the market would hold companies responsible for not creating harm to the environment. I think pollution has a cost to it, but it's not one that the offending company has to bear. It's likely that the current generation wouldn't even be affected by it.


[/ QUOTE ]

This was my response:

While I don't have time to write a treatise, it comes down to the same thing that all worsening problems come down to: it's the government's fault. It used to be that you could sue over air pollution, and because property rights were respected, the courts would find in the favor of people who's property had been damaged from pollution. This was the norm through the first half of the 19th century, and the effect was that the costs of pollution were internalized. Simple market competition then acted to minimize pollution, just as it acts to minimize all costs. Fast forward to the latter half of the 19th century when activist judges, influenced by progressive pro-industrial nationalism, began finding that pollution was not actionable, as industry was "in the common good". Hence pollution costs were no longer internalized, and were in fact explicitly externalized (if not outright subsidized, as happened largely during wars, as government printed money to gain access to factory capacity to build tanks and destroyers and such, and cared not a whit for pollution), so of course pollution increased greatly.

Fast forward again to post WWII, when government protected externalization of pollution and pollution subsidy had really made quite a mess. As productive capacity was re-directed to the private sector, the environmental outcry from consumers began to be felt, and companies began responding by cleaning up their acts (purely in response to consumer preferences in the market mind you; it was still illegal to sue over air pollution). Well, this same outcry inspired government Johnny-come-latelies to began passing environmental regulations. Mind you, they didn't simply make it legal to sue over pollution; rather they claimed that the market had "failed" and instituted a bizarre system of pollution quotas, wherein some level of pollution, i.e. violation of someone else's property, is "ok", and does not have to be paid for, but above that level fines must be paid (which do not go to the damaged parties; oh no, they get spent on government programs).

Another effect is government refusal to allow private property rights to form or to recognize them in government monopoly courts, resulting in tragedies of the commons. In America, rivers and waterways cannot be privately owned; hence they became very polluted. Contrast this with the UK, where fishing rights to waterways could be privately owned, making pollution of them actionable, leading to UK waterways being very clean; with the notable exception of those waterways where the rights were NOT privately owned, for example the Thames.

Add to this that the largest polluter in the US is, by far, the Federal government itself. It exempts itself from all of the regulations it foists on everyone else, of course.

Then there is the public road system, especially the system of freeways around urban centers. By building roads that are supposedly "free", people are of course incentivized to drive (duh). The problem is that the gas tax on gasoline, while being far too high in most places, is actually much too *low* to internalize costs around major urban centers. So what you get is capitalist provided cars on "free" socialist provided roads, with the result that people sit in traffic jams wasting gasoline and churning out smog in the cities.

There are many other arguments and mountains of evidence, but this should at least get you thinking about the fact that the entire purpose of competition is to minimize costs, that this is the purpose of property rights, and that when the market is allowed to operate correctly, costs are internalized via property rights and then minimized by competition.

Here's an entertaining lecture by Walter Block on the topic:

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/block/Block-CKVU.wmv

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I realize that I did not specifically address global warming, but that takes basically a different argument, since people aren't going to be suing over increased C02 content in the air. I do have an answer for this, but I don't have time to write it up right now, so it will have to be a separate OP.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's an entertaining lecture by Walter Block on the topic:

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/block/Block-CKVU.wmv

[/ QUOTE ]


See also:

Stefan Molyneux - Environmental Protection Without the State [Live Speech]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j27XJ0vjr0Y
69m10s

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

When you have time, I would love to hear what you have to say about AC response to Global Warming. BTW, I appreciate your lengthy posts in here. Very informative.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

Or read any books by Murray Bookchin on eco-anarchism. Certainly provides a more viable and realistic anarchist society in harmony with nature then the catastrophic teachings of anarcho-capitalism.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

Borodog's summary of the history differs from my understanding. I'm not familiar with any judicial decisions restricting the right to sue for pollution, but I do know that it is possible to sue under common law nuisance and trespass "causes of action" for pollution to this day. I'm unsure how recent this is, but the common law dates back hundreds of years to colonial times. It is most definately possible to sue over the types of "pollution" problems someone in the 18th century would encounter: someone spilled their crap on my yard, someone makes too much noise, etc. It seems to me that lawsuits have been a potential remedy all through the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, government has made it much easier to sue for polluting by passing statutes designed to encourage those types of lawsuits.

Second, it is false to say that the government exempts itself from environmental regulations. I would say that the government is much more conscious of the environment than private industry. It lets huge tracts of the West lie fallow to protect the environment. It buys hybrid and natural gas cars at a much higher rate than the private sector and spends billions on. When I was working for the feds, we spent most of our time complying with state regulations that under the supremacy clause we didn't even have to comply with. The reason why the feds are the biggest polluter is not because they don't care, they are simply the biggest organization in the country.

Third, everything that Borodog likes to claim about how ownership of resources solves the problem can be applied to government as owner. Essentially, the government owns resources like the atmosphere, rivers, etc. And unlike a private landowner, the government's actual goal is protection of the resource.

Finally, determining who is responsible for pollution and therefore prosecuting a lawsuit is very difficult. See this post for more on that.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]

Second, it is false to say that the government exempts itself from environmental regulations. I would say that the government is much more conscious of the environment than private industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go to the gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah Kentucky, then the Lowry landfill outside of Denver, the to Ft Lewis in Wa. These three sites are each larger than any private ground water cleanup I have ever heard about by orders of magnitude in the amount of waste in the ground and volume that needs to be treated.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
Third, everything that Borodog likes to claim about how ownership of resources solves the problem can be applied to government as owner. Essentially, the government owns resources like the atmosphere, rivers, etc. And unlike a private landowner, the government's actual goal is protection of the resource.

[/ QUOTE ]
The government may act as an owner by denying others the ability to own the resources, but that doesn't mean those running the government have the same types of incentives as an owner does and the fact that this isn't clear to you is a bit scary. Elected officials can be out of office after only one term so the incentive can be to plunder what you can while you can. Private owners have the incentive to preserve their resources either for their own consumption or to sell to someone down the line. Government officials do not bear the direct consequences of their actions upon the resources they "own" as private owners do. There's no internalization of the costs of government action. How can this not be clear after 30 seconds of thinking about it?

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

election cycles leave about an 18 month window to do any governing. Government is short termist by design. A week is a ong time in politics and to solve the problem of global warming you need to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of years. It's 100% incompatible.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can this not be clear after 30 seconds of thinking about it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because while there is value in preserving a resource, there is often much greater value in exploiting it. When a forest is controlled by a private landowner, he may see the forest as nothing but valuable lumber. If he sells the lumber, he will become wealthy. If a regulator sells the lumber, he doesn't even get a bonus (barring corruption).

The private landowner may choose to preserve the forest for future sale and hope the asset appreciates, but the value of that forest is likely tied up in the lumber available, so the next owner will also have strong incentive to exploit it.

As far as global warming goes, I'm usually able to predict what the anarchist arguments will be, particularly on a topic I'm interested in like the environment and I have no idea where Borodog is going with that.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can this not be clear after 30 seconds of thinking about it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because while there is value in preserving a resource, there is often much greater value in exploiting it. When a forest is controlled by a private landowner, he may see the forest as nothing but valuable lumber. If he sells the lumber, he will become wealthy. If a regulator sells the lumber, he doesn't even get a bonus (barring corruption).

[/ QUOTE ]


wow

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

The history of private enterprise in unregulated regions makes the "private owners look after their land" argument kind of laughable.

People and companies are often greedy, short sighted and lacking in broad skills. Hence, when McDonalds wants to buy beef, a rancher in the Amazon clear fells a large area of his land, to grow grass for cattle. The land turns worthless after a decade; but he doesn't care - he made his money. And he goes on to buy some other cheap land. That the land is much more profitable in the long term through managed timber extraction, forest plantations and other means, doesn't matter. He wants cash money NOW.

The idea that private owners have more incentive is theoretically true, on the ASSUMPTION that land prices represent close to their true productive value, that land is scarce, that almost all people are rational, think about the long term, have sufficient perspective, and aren't taken by greed. Needless to say these assumptions aren't often borne out in the real world, least of all in the places that most need protection.

I don't find litigation compelling, it will only be effective on some things. How do you litigate for acid rain? How about dead or contaminated fish in the ocean, that a poor fishing community relied on? How on earth do you litigate something like CFC usage? There is no direct link to that particular polluter and no direct damage. If the Smith company is struggling and can power their fridges with CFC at half the price of alternatives, why wouldn't they use them? Isn't that the very premise of capitalism? To this, ACists often argue that reputation will keep companies in line. I don't think that's evidenced in the real world, with the exception of few marginally effective boycotts. Most consumers have no idea where their produce comes from, and what conditions it was made under, and many just don't care. This becomes even more true the more you decentralize a market system.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

The land in the amazon isn't owned it's supposedly controlled by the government.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can this not be clear after 30 seconds of thinking about it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because while there is value in preserving a resource, there is often much greater value in exploiting it. When a forest is controlled by a private landowner, he may see the forest as nothing but valuable lumber. If he sells the lumber, he will become wealthy. If a regulator sells the lumber, he doesn't even get a bonus (barring corruption).

The private landowner may choose to preserve the forest for future sale and hope the asset appreciates, but the value of that forest is likely tied up in the lumber available, so the next owner will also have strong incentive to exploit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And he can make *even more* money by selling the lumber, then replanting. Duh.

Plus, young trees are much, much better carbon sinks than old trees. Using MORE wood is *good* for the environment.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...b-28492a462651

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

I did a quick search of Brazil's ownership rights, and came up with this:

[ QUOTE ]
In Brazil, colonists and developers can gain title to Amazon lands by simply clearing forest and placing a few head of cattle on the land.

[/ QUOTE ]

SOUND LIKE AC MUCH?? :lmfao:

[ QUOTE ]
Brazil

Non-Brazilians can buy almost any property in Brazil, enjoying similar rights to nationals of this country. There are only restrictions for foreign ownership of property situated in or near areas of national security, near the coast, and near borders with other countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I'm not sure your statement is accurate.

Certainly countries like Ecuador allow land ownership, and they have also suffered terribly at the hands of greedy corporations seeking a quick buck. Note also that where land is already owned in these poor countries, companies use tactics of intimidation and rely on the native's naivety to gain legal rights to the land.

That's not to say that government policies can't and don't hurt the situation. Some do. But "land ownership" is not a magical solution to environmental destruction, especially when poor people are involved. To suggest that land ownership will do away with or even lessen environmental problems is terribly myopic. Certainly it helps with some types, but there are many types it doesn't, or even worsens the problems.

Borodog is extrapolating his basic concepts so far that he's once again running out of air. For anyone reading his OP, this should give you pause: "it comes down to the same thing that all worsening problems come down to: it's the government's fault."

What sane person claims that there would be no worsening problems without government?

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog's summary of the history differs from my understanding. I'm not familiar with any judicial decisions restricting the right to sue for pollution, but I do know that it is possible to sue under common law nuisance and trespass "causes of action" for pollution to this day. I'm unsure how recent this is, but the common law dates back hundreds of years to colonial times. It is most definately possible to sue over the types of "pollution" problems someone in the 18th century would encounter: someone spilled their crap on my yard, someone makes too much noise, etc. It seems to me that lawsuits have been a potential remedy all through the 19th and 20th centuries. Indeed, government has made it much easier to sue for polluting by passing statutes designed to encourage those types of lawsuits.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It is important to realize that this failure has not been a question purely of ignorance, a simple time lag between recognizing a new techno*logical problem and facing up to it. For if some of the modern pollutants have only recently become known, factory smoke and many of its bad effects have been known ever since the Industrial Revolution, known to the extent that the American courts, during the late?and as far back as the early?nineteenth century made the deliberate decision to allow property rights to be violated by industrial smoke. To do so, the courts had to?and did?systematically change and weaken the defenses of property right embedded in Anglo-Saxon common law. Before the mid and late nineteenth 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. But during the nineteenth century, the courts systematically altered the law of negligence and the law of nuisance to permit any air pollution which was not unusually greater than any similar manufacturing firm, one that was not more extensive than the customary practice of fellow polluters.
<font color="white"> . </font>
As factories began to arise and emit smoke, blighting the orchards of neighboring farmers, the farmers would take the manufacturers to court, asking for damages and injunctions against further invasion of their property. But the judges said, in effect, "Sorry. We know that indus*trial smoke (i.e., air pollution) invades and interferes with your property rights. But there is something more important than mere property rights: and that is public policy, the 'common good.' And the common good decrees that industry is a good thing, industrial progress is a good thing, and therefore your mere private property rights must be overridden on behalf of the general welfare." And now all of us are paying the bitter price for this overriding of private property, in the form of lung disease and countless other ailments. And all for the "common good"!17
<font color="white"> . </font>
That this principle has guided the courts during the air age as well may be seen by a decision of the Ohio courts in Antonik v. Chamberlain (1947). The residents of a suburban area near Akron sued to enjoin the defendants from operating a privately owned airport. The grounds were invasion of property rights through excessive noise. Refusing the injunc*tion, the court declared:
<font color="white"> . </font>
In our business of judging in this case, while sitting as a court of equity, we must not only weigh the conflict of interests between the airport owner and the nearby landowners, but we must further recognize the public policy of the generation in which we live. We must recognize that the establishment of an airport? is of great concern to the public, and if such an airport is abated, or its establishment prevented, the consequences will be not only a serious injury to the owner of the port property but may be a serious loss of a valuable asset to the entire community.18
<font color="white"> . </font>
To cap the crimes of the judges, legislatures, federal and state, moved in to cement the aggression by prohibiting victims of air pollution from engaging in "class action" suits against polluters. Obviously, if a factory pollutes the atmosphere of a city where there are tens of thousands of victims, it is impractical for each victim to sue to collect his particular damages from the polluter (although an injunction could be used effec*tively by one small victim). The common law, therefore, recognizes the validity of "class action" suits, in which one or a few victims can sue the aggressor not only on their own behalf, but on behalf of the entire class of similar victims. But the legislatures systematically outlawed such class action suits in pollution cases. For this reason, a victim may successfully sue a polluter who injures him individually, in a one-to-one "private nuisance" suit. But he is prohibited by law from acting against a mass polluter who is injuring a large number of people in a given area! As Frank Bubb writes, "It is as if the government were to tell you that it will (attempt to) protect you from a thief who steals only from you, but it will not protect you if the thief also steals from everyone else in the neighborhood?"19

[/ QUOTE ]

Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty. References included.

[ QUOTE ]

Second, it is false to say that the government exempts itself from environmental regulations. I would say that the government is much more conscious of the environment than private industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask the people of Vieques and get back to me on that.

[ QUOTE ]
It lets huge tracts of the West lie fallow to protect the environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that this harms the environment more often that not; for example by refusing to allow underbrush to be cleared from public lands those lands have become prone to enormous wildfires.

[ QUOTE ]
It buys hybrid and natural gas cars at a much higher rate than the private sector and spends billions on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is incredibly wasteful and harmful to the environment, since a hybrid Prius has a larger environmental footprint than a Hummer.

[ QUOTE ]
When I was working for the feds, we spent most of our time complying with state regulations that under the supremacy clause we didn't even have to comply with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why the feds are the biggest polluter is not because they don't care, they are simply the biggest organization in the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say this like its an excuse. They foist those pollutants, those costs, off on the public, and here you are constructing apologetics for them. Sometimes I really don't understand your knee-jerk defense of evil just because it is undertaken by bureaucrats, Iron.

[ QUOTE ]
Third, everything that Borodog likes to claim about how ownership of resources solves the problem can be applied to government as owner. Essentially, the government owns resources like the atmosphere, rivers, etc. And unlike a private landowner, the government's actual goal is protection of the resource.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't. Government officials cannot sell the resources and keep the procedes. They don't care at all about protecting the capital value of the land, water, air or other resources they supposedly "own". All they are interested in is the current income that can be generated.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, determining who is responsible for pollution and therefore prosecuting a lawsuit is very difficult. See this post for more on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because the field of environmental forensics was euthanized in it's crib over a century ago by government actions already discussed. Why bother to figure out who is doing the damage if you can't make them pay for it?

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Third, everything that Borodog likes to claim about how ownership of resources solves the problem can be applied to government as owner. Essentially, the government owns resources like the atmosphere, rivers, etc. And unlike a private landowner, the government's actual goal is protection of the resource.

[/ QUOTE ]
The government may act as an owner by denying others the ability to own the resources, but that doesn't mean those running the government have the same types of incentives as an owner does and the fact that this isn't clear to you is a bit scary. Elected officials can be out of office after only one term so the incentive can be to plunder what you can while you can. Private owners have the incentive to preserve their resources either for their own consumption or to sell to someone down the line. Government officials do not bear the direct consequences of their actions upon the resources they "own" as private owners do. There's no internalization of the costs of government action. How can this not be clear after 30 seconds of thinking about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Private owners have the incentive to preserve their resources either for their own consumption or to sell to someone down the line."

Exactly. Private owners have two goals -- consume or make money off the investment.

"There's no internalization of the costs of government action."

Exactly. Which is why government can often do a better job than private sector in taking care of the land. Because it doesn't have a profit-based bottomline. Which is why your national parks are so well cared for.

Those seeking profit are the ones who are more likely to plunder while they can. Not too many local governments are plundering the parks and forest reserves. Unlike the private sector, elected officials are accountable to the people who actually live in the area. Corporations are responsible to their shareholders -- they don't live in the area being affected by the corporation's actions. If Councilman Bob authorizes the metropark's ecosystem to be encroached or destroyed, he'll have a whole city calling for his head, if they don't want it. If Chairperson Bob authorizes the company backyard's ecosystem to be encroached or destroyed, he probably is improving the bottomline for his shareholders and will get a bonus, and the local residents affected by his actions are not those he is ultimately accountable to.

Your whole analysis is 180 degrees off.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

Private lawsuits cannot effectively prevent air pollution. It is as simple as that. Let's say I step out on my porch and test for hazardous substances and find some cancer causing agent in the air. How the hell am I supposed to know who to sue?

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
Private lawsuits cannot effectively prevent air pollution. It is as simple as that. Let's say I step out on my porch and test for hazardous substances and find some cancer causing agent in the air. How the hell am I supposed to know who to sue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Call a lawyer. They will investigate. They would probably use an environmental forensics company to discover the source of the pollution. Perhaps they would employ computational fluid dynamics modelling. You know, like the EPA does.

Why does everyone assume that private individuals are too incompetent to figure anything out yet assume that bureaucrats are infallible?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]

People and companies are often greedy, short sighted and lacking in broad skills. Hence, when McDonalds wants to buy beef, a rancher in the Amazon clear fells a large area of his land, to grow grass for cattle. The land turns worthless after a decade; but he doesn't care - he made his money. And he goes on to buy some other cheap land. That the land is much more profitable in the long term through managed timber extraction, forest plantations and other means, doesn't matter. He wants cash money NOW.

[/ QUOTE ]

There seems to be a simple solution. A greedy capitalist could buy the land off the farmer for a lump sum payment &gt; what the farmer could earn, but &lt; the total value of the land if it is profitably managed.

You seem to anticipate this objection in your next paragraph when you say that the free market only works when people act rationally, have complete information, etc. But the same objections apply to govt regulation, only moreso. In my example, all it takes is 1 greedy capitalist in the world to fix the problem. In a regulatory world, one weak link anywhere can lead to imperfect and even perverse outcomes. The idea that govt will act rationally and correctly is rarely "borne out in the real world, least of all in the places that most need protection."

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Private lawsuits cannot effectively prevent air pollution. It is as simple as that. Let's say I step out on my porch and test for hazardous substances and find some cancer causing agent in the air. How the hell am I supposed to know who to sue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Call a lawyer. They will investigate. They would probably use an environmental forensics company to discover the source of the pollution. Perhaps they would employ computational fluid dynamics modelling. You know, like the EPA does.

Why does everyone assume that private individuals are too incompetent to figure anything out yet assume that bureaucrats are infallible?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

But if there are several companies which release that pollutant it is essentially impossible to prove which one released the particles that are in your yard. What are you supposed to do if the pollutant is something produced by the hundreds of millions of [censored] unregulated cars being driven in China?

Moreover, there is the problem of proving damages. Lets say you notice the pollutant really quickly and somehow are able to prove how released the particles that ended up in yard. How much money are you going to be able to collect for being exposed to a cancer causing agent for 1 week? Probably not much. And probably not enough to incentivize you to take up the costs of hiring a lawyer and filing a lawsuit. So the polluters will keep on polluting because of people catching them is so prohibitively high.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Private lawsuits cannot effectively prevent air pollution. It is as simple as that. Let's say I step out on my porch and test for hazardous substances and find some cancer causing agent in the air. How the hell am I supposed to know who to sue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Call a lawyer. They will investigate. They would probably use an environmental forensics company to discover the source of the pollution. Perhaps they would employ computational fluid dynamics modelling. You know, like the EPA does.

Why does everyone assume that private individuals are too incompetent to figure anything out yet assume that bureaucrats are infallible?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

But if there are several companies which release that pollutant it is essentially impossible to prove which one released the particles that are in your yard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this is just wrong. Pollutants are not indistinguishable things; they have chemical fingerprints, and it is really quite easy to tell where they come from. Plus, if there are several companies polluting your property, you would just sue them all.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, there is the problem of proving damages. Lets say you notice the pollutant really quickly and somehow are able to prove how released the particles that ended up in yard. How much money are you going to be able to collect for being exposed to a cancer causing agent for 1 week? Probably not much. And probably not enough to incentivize you to take up the costs of hiring a lawyer and filing a lawsuit. So the polluters will keep on polluting because of people catching them is so prohibitively high.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're totally ignoring class action suits, which bring transaction costs for individual claimants down to extremely low levels.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Private lawsuits cannot effectively prevent air pollution. It is as simple as that. Let's say I step out on my porch and test for hazardous substances and find some cancer causing agent in the air. How the hell am I supposed to know who to sue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Call a lawyer. They will investigate. They would probably use an environmental forensics company to discover the source of the pollution. Perhaps they would employ computational fluid dynamics modelling. You know, like the EPA does.

Why does everyone assume that private individuals are too incompetent to figure anything out yet assume that bureaucrats are infallible?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

But if there are several companies which release that pollutant it is essentially impossible to prove which one released the particles that are in your yard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this is just wrong. Pollutants are not indistinguishable things; they have chemical fingerprints, and it is really quite easy to tell where they come from. Plus, if there are several companies polluting your property, you would just sue them all.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, there is the problem of proving damages. Lets say you notice the pollutant really quickly and somehow are able to prove how released the particles that ended up in yard. How much money are you going to be able to collect for being exposed to a cancer causing agent for 1 week? Probably not much. And probably not enough to incentivize you to take up the costs of hiring a lawyer and filing a lawsuit. So the polluters will keep on polluting because of people catching them is so prohibitively high.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're totally ignoring class action suits, which bring transaction costs for individual claimants down to extremely low levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boro see my addition re: auto emmissions

Not all pollutants have identifiable fingerprints and you are either uniformed or being extremely disingenuous by using that as your trump card.

And for your solution of suing them all: That doesn't work because you cannot prove which, if any of the polluters is responsible for the pollutants in your yard. You simply cannot prove which Chinese guy's car produced the NO2 that is in your backyard.

Are you seriously suggesting that there could be successful class action lawsuits with literally hundreds of millions of defendants? Class action lawsuits are good when there is one defendant and a lot of plaintiffs, but not when every person who owns a car is a defendant.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

"How would an anarchist society deal with X" always seems like a silly question to me. Some of the answer is always gonna be "How the [censored] do I know?" Right? The whole point of anarchy is that unrestricted voluntary action is always better than manually determined action. In other words, the force of the market does things that we aren't capable of. So why then does it make sense to ask "How exactly would the market find a solution to THIS!?" If I could answer that, I'd probably think I should be dictator rather than think we should all trust voluntary action.

The point, partly, is that NOBODY KNOWS OR CAN KNOW what exactly the market would do. The market is better than us. It finds solutions that we can't. People can speculate pretty well on how the market might behave, but never having experienced a truly free market, there will always be some solution that we can't know or empirically prove. There has to be. Otherwise you don't believe in the free market in the first place.

The real question is what would YOU do (about this thing that you apparently care about). And then from there you can ask yourself whether centralized regulation would help you or hurt you. If it helps, your idea is probably a bad one. I'd ask why these people have to be forced into this idea of yours that is supposedly critical for their best interest. Doesn't seem to add up.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

Most of this post will be a critique of the Rothbird passage. I will address a couple other of Borodog's points towards the end.

The reason it is unwise for Rothbird to rely on a case like Antonik is that most decisions are irrelevant to larger society. Basically, the only decisions that matter are 1. Decisions that are made by the SCOTUS that are binding and 2. Decisions that other courts have generally agreed with and cited frequently. The classic case regarding nuisance environmental law is [Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. (PDF) . Here's a little about the case's importance you can skip if you want:

[ QUOTE ]
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.1 has become an established part of
the legal canon. It looms large, not just in environmental law, but also in
property, remedies, and torts. Its lasting fame is reflected in a law review
symposium on the case some twenty years after the decision. The
introductory article to the symposium observed that ‘‘for many years the
case was taught in three first year courses—Property, Torts, and Civil
Procedure–and in two upper class courses–Remedies and Environmental
Law.’’2 On this basis, Boomer was called ‘‘the great fertile crescent of the
first year curriculum, and it seems that the whole first semester of law
school could be taught out of that one case.’’3 It is now fifteen years after
that symposium, making this Boomer’s thirty-fifth birthday. But the case
remains a staple of the law school curriculum and a constant preoccupation
of legal scholars.

[/ QUOTE ]
In this 1970 case, a cement plant had caused dust and vibrations to migrate onto many neighbors' property (i.e., an arguably public nuisance). The court held that the neighbors were entitled to damages in some cases exceeding the value of their property. The decision cited three other decisions awarding damages or injunctions against polluters. The bottom line is Rothbird argues that the public nuisance doctrine prevents private action on pollution problems, but it seems that if a pollution nuisance is deemed public it is likely such a broad problem that determining its source is impractical.

The doctrine that Rothbird calls "the public good" (known legally as "balance the equities") is sometimes used to throw out environmental suits. But this doctrine does not preclude the bringing of these suits, it merely requires that they be reasonable. Numerous common law nuisance suits have been successful, but if an injunction is required that would shut down a factory and put thousands of people out of work, that could easily be silly. The court may find for damages instead of an injunction if the nuisance isn't deemed public.

A problem with holding this discussion is that nuisance law is only one aspect of environmental law. There are many ways to sue polluters. For instance, trespass is another common law tool used to sue polluters:

[ QUOTE ]
The Alberta Supreme Court held in 1976 that fly ash and sawdust from a lumber company constituted a trespass against a nearby motel. In a decision that should have sweeping implications for air pollution of all kinds, the court explained that it is a trespass to cause any noxious substance to cross the boundary of another's land. source

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that these remedies have existed all along and Rothbird overstates his case when he argues that "balancing the equities" led to the elimination of environmental lawsuits. I wanted to investigate the sources Rothbird used, but they weren't immediately apparent in the link.

As for some of your other points, I absolutely think it is reasonable for the feds to get a size excuse when judging the quantity of pollution. I don't expect GM to emit the same pollution as a mechanic's shop.

Also, governments sell assets all the time. Two recent examples I can think of is portions of the broadcast spectrum and oil drilling rights off the coast of Florida. In the Florida case, the Bush Admin proposed leasing big chunks of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil companies to drill. However the Florida Congressional delegation blocked the plan (I love when I can make a point against libertarians and Bush in one swoop).

Also, I should point out that while under common law multiple plaintiffs could sue a defendant the idea of a class action lawsuit was created by statute. Other statutes allow individuals with minimal connection to a particular environmental problem to sue for the damage suffered by many or even for breaking environmental regulations where no damage is measurable.

I can also confirm Slickpoppas assertions that it is often impossible to trace the source of a contaminant.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not all pollutants have identifiable fingerprints and you are either uniformed or being extremely disingenuous by using that as your trump card.

And for your solution of suing them all: That doesn't work because you cannot prove which, if any of the polluters is responsible for the pollutants in your yard. You simply cannot prove which Chinese guy's car produced the NO2 that is in your backyard.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does government help in either of these cases? If a pollutant can't be identified, how is the government going to hunt down the polluter? If I can't prove which chinese guy is producing the N02 that's floating into my backyard, what is government going to do?

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
"How would an anarchist society deal with X" always seems like a silly question to me. Some of the answer is always gonna be "How the [censored] do I know?" Right? The whole point of anarchy is that unrestricted voluntary action is always better than manually determined action. In other words, the force of the market does things that we aren't capable of. So why then does it make sense to ask "How exactly would the market find a solution to THIS!?" If I could answer that, I'd probably think I should be dictator rather than think we should all trust voluntary action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I can't prove which chinese guy is producing the N02 that's floating into my backyard, what is government going to do?

[/ QUOTE ]
Require the chinese guy to hook a NO2 monitor to his smokestack and require him to only emit so much NO2. This is extremely common for dischargers.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not all pollutants have identifiable fingerprints and you are either uniformed or being extremely disingenuous by using that as your trump card.

And for your solution of suing them all: That doesn't work because you cannot prove which, if any of the polluters is responsible for the pollutants in your yard. You simply cannot prove which Chinese guy's car produced the NO2 that is in your backyard.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does government help in either of these cases? If a pollutant can't be identified, how is the government going to hunt down the polluter? If I can't prove which chinese guy is producing the N02 that's floating into my backyard, what is government going to do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Restrict the sale of devices which produce that pollutant.

Take a trip to Bejing and compare the air quality there to the air quality of even he worst city in the US and you will see how government regulation can be effective. And don't try to pretend that private lawsuits would solve the problems in Bejing if only the Chinese weren't getting in the way.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]

And for your solution of suing them all: That doesn't work because you cannot prove which, if any of the polluters is responsible for the pollutants in your yard. You simply cannot prove which Chinese guy's car produced the NO2 that is in your backyard.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't need to. See, e.g., the DES market share tort liability cases (Hymowitz vs. Lilly, 73 NY2d 487).

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And for your solution of suing them all: That doesn't work because you cannot prove which, if any of the polluters is responsible for the pollutants in your yard. You simply cannot prove which Chinese guy's car produced the NO2 that is in your backyard.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't need to. See, e.g., the DES market share tort liability cases (Hymowitz vs. Lilly, 73 NY2d 487).

[/ QUOTE ]

Those cases are contrary to the libertarian norms of not being liable until proven beyond a reasonable doubt and strict causality.

"But the best standard for any proof of guilt is the one commonly used in criminal cases: Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Obviously, some doubt will almost always persist in gauging people's actions, so that such a standard as "beyond a scintilla of doubt" would be hopelessly unrealistic. But the doubt must remain small enough that any "reasonable man" will be convinced of the fact of the defendant's guilt. Conviction of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" appears to be the standard most consonant with libertarian principle.
...
What the plaintiff must prove, then, beyond a reasonable doubt is a strict causal connection between the defendant and his aggression against the plaintiff. He must prove, in short, that A actually "caused" an invasion of the person or property of B."

http://www.mises.org/story/2120

If the market is going to bend the rules of libertarian justice anyway, why not just go all the way and allow the even more effective solution of preemptive regulation?

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

your response sucked

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I can't prove which chinese guy is producing the N02 that's floating into my backyard, what is government going to do?

[/ QUOTE ]
Require the chinese guy to hook a NO2 monitor to his smokestack and require him to only emit so much NO2. This is extremely common for dischargers.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The US government is regulating chinese polluters?

2) how is setting a limit for polluters stopping NO2 from getting in my backyard? Would you be OK with a regulation that allowed me to kick you in the nads as long as I kept the number of kicks below some arbitrarily-determined "acceptable limit" (and in fact, prohibited you from doing anything about it unless I exceeded the recommended allowance)?

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Which is why government can often do a better job than private sector in taking care of the land. Because it doesn't have a profit-based bottomline. Which is why your national parks are so well cared for.

Those seeking profit are the ones who are more likely to plunder while they can. Not too many local governments are plundering the parks and forest reserves. Unlike the private sector, elected officials are accountable to the people who actually live in the area. Corporations are responsible to their shareholders -- they don't live in the area being affected by the corporation's actions. If Councilman Bob authorizes the metropark's ecosystem to be encroached or destroyed, he'll have a whole city calling for his head, if they don't want it. If Chairperson Bob authorizes the company backyard's ecosystem to be encroached or destroyed, he probably is improving the bottomline for his shareholders and will get a bonus, and the local residents affected by his actions are not those he is ultimately accountable to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I more or less agree with your analysis on why big corporations have little incentive to do what is in the interests of the people wrt the environment. (Kevin Carson has some good points to make on this topic in an upcoming Freeman article).

But I disagree with the assessment that government would do a 'better' job. Part of the problem for me is that your analysis seems to assume that the private ownership in question is in the form of large corporations, while government ownership and regulation is local government. I tend to agree with you that local government control (like city-level) &gt;&gt;&gt; letting big corporations run wild; but big corporations only have the power they do (and only get big) because of the influence of federal government. So saying that private ownership and control over these situations would be worse than government is only true if we allow for the existence of a type of institution that would only exist if there was massive government intervention on their behalf (and thus wouldn't fit into any anarchist picture, "capitalist" or otherwise).

And I don't know much about the situation wrt national parks, but much of the detestable environmental regulation is federal, and federal officials have even less incentive to not ruin the land than corporation CEOs do, since not only are they far removed from specific local areas (unlike local Councilman Bob), but they also have no future vested interest the land since they 'own' it (for a set time limit) and can do whatever w/o any real consequences or any concern with how their actions will affect the land in the future (just like the CEO of a big corporation, only moreso).

So I really don't think the issue is one of 'private vs public' ownership, but one of centralization vs. decentralization--if things are highly decentralized, then it won't matter much whether environment stuff is regulated by the people in the form of a local city council, or 'regulated' by the people in the form of natural market checks on abusive private owners.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And for your solution of suing them all: That doesn't work because you cannot prove which, if any of the polluters is responsible for the pollutants in your yard. You simply cannot prove which Chinese guy's car produced the NO2 that is in your backyard.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't need to. See, e.g., the DES market share tort liability cases (Hymowitz vs. Lilly, 73 NY2d 487).

[/ QUOTE ]

Those cases are contrary to the libertarian norms of not being liable until proven beyond a reasonable doubt and strict causality.

"But the best standard for any proof of guilt is the one commonly used in criminal cases: Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Obviously, some doubt will almost always persist in gauging people's actions, so that such a standard as "beyond a scintilla of doubt" would be hopelessly unrealistic. But the doubt must remain small enough that any "reasonable man" will be convinced of the fact of the defendant's guilt. Conviction of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" appears to be the standard most consonant with libertarian principle.
...
What the plaintiff must prove, then, beyond a reasonable doubt is a strict causal connection between the defendant and his aggression against the plaintiff. He must prove, in short, that A actually "caused" an invasion of the person or property of B."

http://www.mises.org/story/2120

If the market is going to bend the rules of libertarian justice anyway, why not just go all the way and allow the even more effective solution of preemptive regulation?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to take that one up with the Austrians. I disagree with the ideas outlined in the linked article, as do, I bet, most law-and-econ people. As a free market system of law would likely tend toward efficiency, I don't think these Misesian ideas would prevail.

And the issue of whether preemptive regulation actually works better is far from settled. To paraphrase Coase, in the real world, there are no perfect solutions, just a choice between imperfect govt solutions and imperfect market solutions.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And for your solution of suing them all: That doesn't work because you cannot prove which, if any of the polluters is responsible for the pollutants in your yard. You simply cannot prove which Chinese guy's car produced the NO2 that is in your backyard.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't need to. See, e.g., the DES market share tort liability cases (Hymowitz vs. Lilly, 73 NY2d 487).

[/ QUOTE ]

Those cases are contrary to the libertarian norms of not being liable until proven beyond a reasonable doubt and strict causality.

"But the best standard for any proof of guilt is the one commonly used in criminal cases: Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Obviously, some doubt will almost always persist in gauging people's actions, so that such a standard as "beyond a scintilla of doubt" would be hopelessly unrealistic. But the doubt must remain small enough that any "reasonable man" will be convinced of the fact of the defendant's guilt. Conviction of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" appears to be the standard most consonant with libertarian principle.
...
What the plaintiff must prove, then, beyond a reasonable doubt is a strict causal connection between the defendant and his aggression against the plaintiff. He must prove, in short, that A actually "caused" an invasion of the person or property of B."

http://www.mises.org/story/2120

If the market is going to bend the rules of libertarian justice anyway, why not just go all the way and allow the even more effective solution of preemptive regulation?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to take that one up with the Austrians. I disagree with the ideas outlined in the linked article, as do, I bet, most law-and-econ people. As a free market system of law would likely tend toward efficiency, I don't think these Misesian ideas would prevail.

And the issue of whether preemptive regulation actually works better is far from settled. To paraphrase Coase, in the real world, there are no perfect solutions, just a choice between imperfect govt solutions and imperfect market solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The market-share tort liability model works okay when you're dealing with a situation like 5 companies who manufactured the same drug that caused birth defects. But do you really think that would be a helpful model for dealing with hundreds of millions of people polluting with their cars?

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And for your solution of suing them all: That doesn't work because you cannot prove which, if any of the polluters is responsible for the pollutants in your yard. You simply cannot prove which Chinese guy's car produced the NO2 that is in your backyard.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't need to. See, e.g., the DES market share tort liability cases (Hymowitz vs. Lilly, 73 NY2d 487).

[/ QUOTE ]

Those cases are contrary to the libertarian norms of not being liable until proven beyond a reasonable doubt and strict causality.

"But the best standard for any proof of guilt is the one commonly used in criminal cases: Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Obviously, some doubt will almost always persist in gauging people's actions, so that such a standard as "beyond a scintilla of doubt" would be hopelessly unrealistic. But the doubt must remain small enough that any "reasonable man" will be convinced of the fact of the defendant's guilt. Conviction of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" appears to be the standard most consonant with libertarian principle.
...
What the plaintiff must prove, then, beyond a reasonable doubt is a strict causal connection between the defendant and his aggression against the plaintiff. He must prove, in short, that A actually "caused" an invasion of the person or property of B."

http://www.mises.org/story/2120

If the market is going to bend the rules of libertarian justice anyway, why not just go all the way and allow the even more effective solution of preemptive regulation?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to take that one up with the Austrians. I disagree with the ideas outlined in the linked article, as do, I bet, most law-and-econ people. As a free market system of law would likely tend toward efficiency, I don't think these Misesian ideas would prevail.

And the issue of whether preemptive regulation actually works better is far from settled. To paraphrase Coase, in the real world, there are no perfect solutions, just a choice between imperfect govt solutions and imperfect market solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The market-share tort liability model works okay when you're dealing with a situation like 5 companies who manufactured the same drug that caused birth defects. But do you really think that would be a helpful model for dealing with hundreds of millions of people polluting with their cars?

[/ QUOTE ]Well why couldn't a market solution be to sue the companies that produce the cars or something along those lines?

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And for your solution of suing them all: That doesn't work because you cannot prove which, if any of the polluters is responsible for the pollutants in your yard. You simply cannot prove which Chinese guy's car produced the NO2 that is in your backyard.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't need to. See, e.g., the DES market share tort liability cases (Hymowitz vs. Lilly, 73 NY2d 487).

[/ QUOTE ]

Those cases are contrary to the libertarian norms of not being liable until proven beyond a reasonable doubt and strict causality.

"But the best standard for any proof of guilt is the one commonly used in criminal cases: Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Obviously, some doubt will almost always persist in gauging people's actions, so that such a standard as "beyond a scintilla of doubt" would be hopelessly unrealistic. But the doubt must remain small enough that any "reasonable man" will be convinced of the fact of the defendant's guilt. Conviction of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" appears to be the standard most consonant with libertarian principle.
...
What the plaintiff must prove, then, beyond a reasonable doubt is a strict causal connection between the defendant and his aggression against the plaintiff. He must prove, in short, that A actually "caused" an invasion of the person or property of B."

http://www.mises.org/story/2120

If the market is going to bend the rules of libertarian justice anyway, why not just go all the way and allow the even more effective solution of preemptive regulation?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to take that one up with the Austrians. I disagree with the ideas outlined in the linked article, as do, I bet, most law-and-econ people. As a free market system of law would likely tend toward efficiency, I don't think these Misesian ideas would prevail.

And the issue of whether preemptive regulation actually works better is far from settled. To paraphrase Coase, in the real world, there are no perfect solutions, just a choice between imperfect govt solutions and imperfect market solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The market-share tort liability model works okay when you're dealing with a situation like 5 companies who manufactured the same drug that caused birth defects. But do you really think that would be a helpful model for dealing with hundreds of millions of people polluting with their cars?

[/ QUOTE ]Well why couldn't a market solution be to sue the companies that produce the cars or something along those lines?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or the companies who own the roads will be worried about their legal liability so will require your car have a certain low level of pollution output before you can drive on their roads. There are a million and one solutions.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And for your solution of suing them all: That doesn't work because you cannot prove which, if any of the polluters is responsible for the pollutants in your yard. You simply cannot prove which Chinese guy's car produced the NO2 that is in your backyard.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't need to. See, e.g., the DES market share tort liability cases (Hymowitz vs. Lilly, 73 NY2d 487).

[/ QUOTE ]

Those cases are contrary to the libertarian norms of not being liable until proven beyond a reasonable doubt and strict causality.

"But the best standard for any proof of guilt is the one commonly used in criminal cases: Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Obviously, some doubt will almost always persist in gauging people's actions, so that such a standard as "beyond a scintilla of doubt" would be hopelessly unrealistic. But the doubt must remain small enough that any "reasonable man" will be convinced of the fact of the defendant's guilt. Conviction of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" appears to be the standard most consonant with libertarian principle.
...
What the plaintiff must prove, then, beyond a reasonable doubt is a strict causal connection between the defendant and his aggression against the plaintiff. He must prove, in short, that A actually "caused" an invasion of the person or property of B."

http://www.mises.org/story/2120

If the market is going to bend the rules of libertarian justice anyway, why not just go all the way and allow the even more effective solution of preemptive regulation?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to take that one up with the Austrians. I disagree with the ideas outlined in the linked article, as do, I bet, most law-and-econ people. As a free market system of law would likely tend toward efficiency, I don't think these Misesian ideas would prevail.

And the issue of whether preemptive regulation actually works better is far from settled. To paraphrase Coase, in the real world, there are no perfect solutions, just a choice between imperfect govt solutions and imperfect market solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The market-share tort liability model works okay when you're dealing with a situation like 5 companies who manufactured the same drug that caused birth defects. But do you really think that would be a helpful model for dealing with hundreds of millions of people polluting with their cars?

[/ QUOTE ]Well why couldn't a market solution be to sue the companies that produce the cars or something along those lines?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a potential market solution, but again it blatantly violates libertarian norms. If we're operating in a theoretical AC world in which people are only held liable for their own acts of aggression, then why should a company be liable for manufacturing products which may cause pollution when used by their consumers? Should gun manufacturers also be civilly liable for murders?

If we're going to consider market solutions that violate principles of nonaggression, then we should also consider regulatory solutions which considerably lower transaction costs.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]

Or the companies who own the roads will be worried about their legal liability so will require your car have a certain low level of pollution output before you can drive on their roads. There are a million and one solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can only think of solutions that involve enforcement of extremely expansive concepts of vicarious liability, then you're really not proposing anything less unjust than government regulation.

Re: A Question I got via PM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Which is why government can often do a better job than private sector in taking care of the land. Because it doesn't have a profit-based bottomline. Which is why your national parks are so well cared for.

Those seeking profit are the ones who are more likely to plunder while they can. Not too many local governments are plundering the parks and forest reserves. Unlike the private sector, elected officials are accountable to the people who actually live in the area. Corporations are responsible to their shareholders -- they don't live in the area being affected by the corporation's actions. If Councilman Bob authorizes the metropark's ecosystem to be encroached or destroyed, he'll have a whole city calling for his head, if they don't want it. If Chairperson Bob authorizes the company backyard's ecosystem to be encroached or destroyed, he probably is improving the bottomline for his shareholders and will get a bonus, and the local residents affected by his actions are not those he is ultimately accountable to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I more or less agree with your analysis on why big corporations have little incentive to do what is in the interests of the people wrt the environment. (Kevin Carson has some good points to make on this topic in an upcoming Freeman article).

But I disagree with the assessment that government would do a 'better' job. Part of the problem for me is that your analysis seems to assume that the private ownership in question is in the form of large corporations, while government ownership and regulation is local government. I tend to agree with you that local government control (like city-level) &gt;&gt;&gt; letting big corporations run wild; but big corporations only have the power they do (and only get big) because of the influence of federal government. So saying that private ownership and control over these situations would be worse than government is only true if we allow for the existence of a type of institution that would only exist if there was massive government intervention on their behalf (and thus wouldn't fit into any anarchist picture, "capitalist" or otherwise).

......

So I really don't think the issue is one of 'private vs public' ownership, but one of centralization vs. decentralization--if things are highly decentralized, then it won't matter much whether environment stuff is regulated by the people in the form of a local city council, or 'regulated' by the people in the form of natural market checks on abusive private owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Good post.