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: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis
Message-ID: <4@calgary.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Dec-85 19:18:25 EST
Article-I.D.: calgary.4
Posted: Mon Dec 16 19:18:25 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Dec-85 07:42:40 EST
References: <266@meccts.UUCP> <4340005@csd2.UUCP> <879@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
Lines: 45

> [ POSTINGS ON PROBLEM OF POLLUTION ]
> 
> I propose that it be handled by democratic political processes, as it is
> in the U.S., Europe, and Japan today.  With notable success, I might add.
> The only really serious problems are those crossing national borders --
> e.g., acid rain, which is disproportionately produced in the U.S., and
> lands in Canada.  (With similar problems in Europe.)  Likewise ocean
> pollution.  The solution to that part of the problem is not the subject
> of this essay.
> 
> The problem with this solution for the libertarians is that it requires
> a powerful central government, with the ability to collect taxes.  I
> don't see any solutions which are compatible with libertarian ideas on
> government.
> 
> (I do quibble with the details of how our government deals with the problem.
> Instead of regulations limiting the permitted pollutants, there should be
> taxes on the amount of pollutants emitted, with an effort made to match
> the tax to the costs imposed on others thereby -- this is hard to do when
> health and life are at stake, but not impossible.  This would not diminish
> the need for a powerful central government.)
> 
> Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka

I'm not sure if I'm in favour of the following, but it does show that
regulation of pollution need not vastly increase government power. It 
bears some similarity to your above proposal:

   Have the government monitor the levels of pollution emitted by
   industry and (roughly) the geographic area affected. They require
   that industry buy a "license" to emit that much in that area.
   Licenses are auctioned to the highest bidder. The total number of
   licenses to, say, emit one tonne of nitrous oxide in Kentucky, is
   set by popular vote of the people of Kentucky.

   Now a critical point: The money from sale of these licenses is not
   kept by the government but distributed equally amongst the affected
   people. This prevents the income from increasing the size of the
   government, compensates the victims, and provides feedback on the
   appropriate number of licenses.

This restricts the impact of pollution laws on government size to something
comparable to the requirements for enforcing other laws.

    Radford Neal