Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Pollution: no libertarian soluti
Message-ID: <28200417@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 18:08:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200417
Posted: Thu Dec 19 18:08:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Dec-85 03:04:54 EST
References: <365@umich.UUCP>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:umich:-36500:inmet:28200417:000:1024
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Dec 19 18:08:00 1985


I must be missing something but why wouldn't the standard default
libertarian solution for most things, namely litigation or the
possibility of it - work for pollution ?
I *can* see some objections but none that convinces me, so far.

One thing that seems necessary is that  compensation  be  allowed
for  *statistical risk* of damage, as well as actual damage.
E.g., if A, by her smoking, gives B one chance  of  cancer  in  a
million,  and  if  B's  health is worth 10 million, B should be
able to collect 10 bucks immediately (forgoing, in all  fairness,
her right to sue for actual damage). Since statistical correla-
tions are much easier to prove than who caused what to whom, this
would tilt the balance against the polluters.

As for the great number of claimants, this is not a strong
objection, since a lawyer corporation could buy up millions
of potential claims and then collect. The actual victims would
get less (but save on legal fees); but the deterrent effect
on polluters would be large.

		Jan Wasilewsky