Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site calgary.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!radford
From: radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Pollution: no libertarian solution!
Message-ID: <618@calgary.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Dec-85 22:17:17 EST
Article-I.D.: calgary.618
Posted: Thu Dec 12 22:17:17 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 01:53:50 EST
References: <876@water.UUCP> <28200245@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
Lines: 23

> >Here we get closer to the real issues.  It is impossible to do ANYTHING
> >without polluting at least a little bit.  Where do you draw the line?
> >More to the point, HOW do you draw the line?  I have yet to see a
> >reasonable response to any of these questions from any libertarian.

I think any libertarian who thinks about it will have to agree that there
is a problem here. Somehow one has to decide that certain things which 
could conceivably be made the subject of property rights are to be considered
"common" because their effects are too trivial, and the effects of making
them property are to severe.

This isn't particularly surprising. All political philosophies have
similar "weak points", arising because they are social approximations
to more base moral principles. I don't think it is a valid argument against
libertarianism to point this out.

Sometime I might get around to thinking about and posting how a libertarian
society would manage to gloss this one over. For now, about all I could
say is that much of the problem might go away in a society of diverse 
communities. People could chose the community that's in accord with their
views. Of course there's still inter-community pollution...

     Radford Neal