Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Pollution (Eminent Domain)
Message-ID: <12032@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 25-Feb-86 07:01:45 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12032
Posted: Tue Feb 25 07:01:45 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Feb-86 05:31:02 EST
References: <421@umich.UUCP> <28200611@inmet.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 70

In article <28200611@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>..........
>Both conditions are necessary.
>E.g., if I propose to buy your  car  and  you  refuse,  no  court
>should  be  able  to appoint a price at which you *have* to sell.
>Thus, eminent domain is morally unjustifiable.

   When you use words like "should," it seems you take on the
responsibility to justify what you say, and not just present it
as a fact.  It seems to me that there are many examples where it
is in the public interest to do precisely what you refer to above.
   For example, suppose I patent an invention and then refuse to
allow it to be used.  Is it not in the public interest to require
that I make my invention available to others at a reasonable price?
Or suppose I have a natural monopoly on the production of some
essential item.  Should I be allowed to take advantage of this to
wield power over individuals?
   Note that the problem as stated would never occur for rational
individuals, since to a rational being the value of every commodity,
even his life, is finite.  But (1) not all individuals behave
rationally, and (2) an equivalent problem occurs if I seek to form
a monopoly and demand unreasonable profits.  Government intervention
becomes necessary (or at least desirable) in both of these situations.

>Now suppose I smashed your car in an accident. Compensation  will
>*not*  be  determined  by  you  unilaterally  (e.g.,  a pound of
>flesh). I am wrong, but I still have my rights.

   Why is there a difference?  If the cost to you is the same,
why should the compensation differ.  It seems that it is your
position which is logically unjustifiable.

>Now consider two people breathing in a stuffy  room.  *Both*  are
>polluters,  both  victims  and  by the same process. None holds a
>moral trump card. If, for whatever reason (say,  a garlic  diet),
>one  pollutes  *more*,  there  is  still  no trump card - it is a
>matter of degree; he has a right to breath;  finite  compensation
>is appropriate.

   No question here.

>"A right not to be imposed upon" is ambiguous.
>You interpret it as "right not to be harmed or inconvenienced".
>By your definition, if the *existence* of someone gets on
>my nerves and shortens my life, that person owes me whatever
>I ask (such as to terminate his existence). And for some
>reason you consider this bizarre position libertarian.

   It seems that *you* are the one who has said that the individual,
not the courts, decides the cost.  Agreed the position as stated is
absurd, but if we modify it so that the cost is decided by the courts
(what I will call the "true cost") then it seems perfectly correct.
   You have to be careful here.  Suppose we postulate the existence
of a parasitic life form, which cannot exist without harming another
individual.  My position would be that its continued existence would
be dependent on its willingness and ability to pay the cost (the true
cost, not whatever may be asked) to the host of its existence.
   Is your position that if the parasite has no ability to pay then
its right to exist should override the host's rights to avoid
inconvenience?  This seems to be what you are saying...

   -- David desJardins

   [Note: the above can be reread in two ways.  First let "parasitic
list form" = "vampire," and consider whether it has a right to suck
your blood.  Then let "parasitic life form" = "human fetus" and consider
whether it has a right to be carried to term.]

Disclaimer: I am not a libertarian.  To some this will be sufficient
reason to ignore everything I say...