A Question I got via PM

[superleeds]

your response sucked

[pvn]

[ 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)?

[nietzreznor]

[ 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) >>> 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.

[WordWhiz]

[ 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.

[slickpoppa]

[ 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?

[captZEEbo]

[ 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?

[tomdemaine]

[ 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.

[slickpoppa]

[ 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.

[slickpoppa]

[ 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.

[Kaj]

[ 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) >>> 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.