A Question I got via PM

[Phil153]

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.