Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Pollution: no libertarian solution!
Message-ID: <905@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Dec-85 10:13:07 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.905
Posted: Tue Dec 17 10:13:07 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 21:53:10 EST
References: <876@water.UUCP> <28200245@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 45

In article <618@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
>> >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.

The problem is the in between cases.  At one time putting smoke in the air
was a "common" right, because its effects were too trivial.  Today, that it
is no longer true.  Yet you cannot make the air property; the effects are
too severe.  The only solution I can think of is government regulation.

>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.

The question is, how useful is the approximation?  Pollution is not exactly
an esoteric issue.

>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...

Let me get something off my chest:

IT'S ALL INTER-CONNECTED AND YOU CAN'T TAKE IT APART.

Thank you.  That feels much better.

Pollution is *mostly* an inter-community problem.  If a community doesn't
like its own wastes, it gets rid of them.  (Note that the worst outstanding
pollution problems are the international ones.)  The situation improves
as you approximate one large community, and gets worse if you split into
many small ones.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108