Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!amd!amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V Torek)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Pollution: no libertarian soluti
Message-ID: <2628@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Dec-85 12:30:13 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2628
Posted: Mon Dec 23 12:30:13 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Dec-85 01:01:00 EST
References: <365@umich.UUCP> <28200417@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 32

In article <28200417@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>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.

I can think of a few problems offhand.  First, a significant number of
people sincerely feel that the value of their lives is INFINITE.  If you
don't believe me, ask around.  Second, it's going to be hard to determine
who is put at risk by how much, and the likely solution will be to
overestimate the risk in most cases -- i.e. compensate most people by much
larger amounts than is really required, just to be on the safe side and
avoid hassles.  This wouldn't be a total disaster, but it would lead to
quite severe restrictions on pollution, I think; such that the cost of
living goes up considerably.

Third, and worst, what about the ETHICAL problem for libertarians -- do I
have a right to impose ANY risks on anyone without their consent?  It would
seem that the only principled libertarian answer is NO!, and that this
prohibits me from pissing in the toilet, because SOMEONE somewhere would be
unwilling to accept compensation only for *statistical risk*.

--Paul V. Torek					(temporarily) flink@umcp-cs