Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N...

February 22, 2005

In a message dated 2/22/05 5:54:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> Unfortunately, having a legislative body determine such introduces many

> other factors not at all related to the truth of the matter or the big

> picture - i.e. politics.

____

I agree. I wasn't in any way suggesting that legislation was immune from

problems. Only that both legislating this issue *and* adjudicating it seem to

be

rife with many problems. And, as yet, I'm not convinced that adjudication

can sufficiently deal with them without legislation, although I'm certainly open

to the arguments. (And I can probably be faulted for not doing my homework

in this area, as I've paid little attention to it.)

____

> Only if you narrowly define harm. When I said harm above I was only

> giving an example related to someone's body. It may in fact be that

> pollution from a nearby factory " harmed " my quality of life on my farm

> by regularly changing the fresh air that I breathe, etc. So I apologize

> for giving you just one narrow definition of harm.

_____

So one could sue because the air doesn't taste the same or you can't see as

well, or the light pollution is obscuring the stars you love to gaze at?

Wouldn't a judge in any court today dismiss such charges as frivolous? And, if

so,

what would keep them from being dismissed as frivolous in a libertarian

society?

These are all obviously subjective and difficult to adjudicate over.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

February 23, 2005

In a message dated 2/23/05 12:24:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Seriously, I'd think this should be obvious, but the apotheosis of property

> rights is inimical to the concept of a commons.

___

You could look at it from both perspectives. The air could be seen as

commons, or could be seen as a form of transfer between properties. It really

is

commons, because there's no way to entrap the same air to the same property, but

it could legally be treated as property, in that a collectivist view of

damage to the common property would correspond to an individualist view of

damage

to others property (both being damage to the air.)

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

February 23, 2005

Chris-

>The air could be seen as

>commons, or could be seen as a form of transfer between properties.

You can look at anything as anything, but inasmuch as the air is a thing

unto itself, and not merely a transmission vector, it's a commons.

>but

>it could legally be treated as property,

How? Who owns which molecules of air?

-

February 23, 2005

>>[Chris] but it could legally be treated as property,

>>

>How? Who owns which molecules of air?

>

>-

>

Let's not forget water and waste. How do nature's fluids and solids

figure in this libertarian idealism at all without a protective

spherical bubble to keep property in or out? And how big a radius is

necessary? Your poop and urine need to stay on YOUR property. The O2

and agua will only hold out so long though without influx and outflow of

these fluids. Thus the whole idea kills because it is not homeostatic,

as it artificially attempts to close off otherwise open systems. Not

possible in reality.

Deanna

February 23, 2005

Deanna-

>Let's not forget water and waste.

Oh, I wasn't saying air is the only commons; air just happened to be the

one under discussion.

-

February 23, 2005

_____

From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:59 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

Chris-

>The air could be seen as

>commons, or could be seen as a form of transfer between

properties.

You can look at anything as anything, but inasmuch as the air is

a thing

unto itself, and not merely a transmission vector, it's a

commons.

>but

>it could legally be treated as property,

How? Who owns which molecules of air?

-

--------------------

,

In context to air-pollution, I would say that you own the

molecules of air that are on your property. Do you not own any

other natural resource that moves onto your land (water, soil,

earthworms, sunlight)? Pollution is the damaging of those

resources (the ones that move onto your property) by another.

-Mark

February 23, 2005

_____

From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...]

Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:22 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

>>[Chris] but it could legally be treated as property,

>>

>How? Who owns which molecules of air?

>

>-

>

Let's not forget water and waste. How do nature's fluids and

solids

figure in this libertarian idealism at all without a protective

spherical bubble to keep property in or out? And how big a

radius is

necessary? Your poop and urine need to stay on YOUR property.

The O2

and agua will only hold out so long though without influx and

outflow of

these fluids. Thus the whole idea kills because it is not

homeostatic,

as it artificially attempts to close off otherwise open systems.

Not

possible in reality.

Deanna

-----------------------

Deanna,

You appear to be criticizing Libertarian-property-rights concepts

by claiming that sending your manure onto my property is

unavoidable. I hope you are not my neighbor - maybe you should

get your septic system checked out. Good septic tanks are very

possible in reality.

-Mark

February 23, 2005

>Deanna,

>

>You appear to be criticizing Libertarian-property-rights concepts

>by claiming that sending your manure onto my property is

>unavoidable. I hope you are not my neighbor - maybe you should

>get your septic system checked out. Good septic tanks are very

>possible in reality.

>

>-Mark

>

By the same token, Mark, I might divert a river on my upstream property

from ever reaching your downstream land, thus depriving you of

life-giving water so that I might have a lake. My point was we live in

an open system, which is what we need to live in to survive as animals.

I actually do have a septic system, lol. But your smoke from your

chimney, your farm waste, your trash may well migrate onto my land. Is

the river that is the source of your well water yours? Do we slice out

sectors of earth from the core to the stratosphere that we own as our

own? No, we live in a dynamic world. Can you prevent my home from

sliding down the mud into yours in a mudslide? Are you going to sue me

for the tornado that came from my property onto yours? It is ludicrous

to take such ideals seriously.

Deanna

February 23, 2005

_____

From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...]

Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:02 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

>Deanna,

>

>You appear to be criticizing Libertarian-property-rights

concepts

>by claiming that sending your manure onto my property is

>unavoidable. I hope you are not my neighbor - maybe you should

>get your septic system checked out. Good septic tanks are very

>possible in reality.

>

>-Mark

>

By the same token, Mark, I might divert a river on my upstream

property

from ever reaching your downstream land, thus depriving you of

life-giving water so that I might have a lake. My point was we

live in

an open system, which is what we need to live in to survive as

animals.

I actually do have a septic system, lol. But your smoke from

your

chimney, your farm waste, your trash may well migrate onto my

land. Is

the river that is the source of your well water yours? Do we

slice out

sectors of earth from the core to the stratosphere that we own as

our

own? No, we live in a dynamic world. Can you prevent my home

from

sliding down the mud into yours in a mudslide? Are you going to

sue me

for the tornado that came from my property onto yours? It is

ludicrous

to take such ideals seriously.

Deanna

-----------

Deanna,

Fair enough response with good examples. Let's take them one by

one.

Feel free to dam a stream upstream from me to make a lake. In

doing so, you will not foul or deprive me of any significant

resource. Once your lake is full, my stream water will continue

to flow. I can not complain for the small amount of water you

" take " : 1) it is yours to take; 2) streams often stop flowing

naturally.

If my smoke, waste, or trash does migrate to your property, you

have a legitimate case against me. That is pollution. Correct?

Is the river mine? I'm not sure, but I think river beds are

technically owned by the state. Nonetheless, if I take water from

it (because it borders my land), I can use it as my resource (own

what I take) and should be able to sue and win if it's been

damaged.

Do we slice out sectors of earth from the core to the

stratosphere that we own as our own? No, we live in a dynamic

world.

Yes, more or less (although I'm not sure the heights have yet

been established). If you bought property, that's what you did.

Property rights are the cornerstone of freedom.

Regarding mudslides and tornados, I don't believe we are truly

liable for catastrophic acts of nature.

-Mark

February 24, 2005

In a message dated 2/23/05 6:07:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> You can look at anything as anything, but inasmuch as the air is a thing

> unto itself, and not merely a transmission vector, it's a commons.

>

> >but

> >it could legally be treated as property,

>

> How? Who owns which molecules of air?

_____

I agree that the air itself is a commons, but I meant that prevention of

damage to that commons could be opposed without any development of a

philosophical

method with which to treat the commons, because damage to that commons

inherently and inevitably transmits the damage to private person and property.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

February 24, 2005

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 6:35 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

In a message dated 2/23/05 6:07:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> You can look at anything as anything, but inasmuch as the air

is a thing

> unto itself, and not merely a transmission vector, it's a

commons.

>

> >but

> >it could legally be treated as property,

>

> How? Who owns which molecules of air?

_____

I agree that the air itself is a commons, but I meant that

prevention of

damage to that commons could be opposed without any development

of a philosophical

method with which to treat the commons, because damage to that

commons

inherently and inevitably transmits the damage to private person

and property.

Chris

-----------------

But pollution could still better be seen as a property rights

issue, and better solved in that context. " I do not want YOUR

garbage on MY property. If you put it on my property again

without my consent, there will be hell to pay. " This holds true

for household trash carried by a human. Why should it not also

hold true for industrial trash carried by water or air? The

vector is actually not all that relevant. The non-consensual

delivery of unwanted materials is the issue.

-Mark

February 25, 2005

In a message dated 2/25/2005 2:41:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

I agree that the air itself is a commons, but I meant that

prevention of

damage to that commons could be opposed without any development

of a philosophical

method with which to treat the commons, because damage to that

commons

inherently and inevitably transmits the damage to private person

and property.

Chris

-----------------

But pollution could still better be seen as a property rights

issue, and better solved in that context. " I do not want YOUR

garbage on MY property. If you put it on my property again

without my consent, there will be hell to pay. " This holds true

for household trash carried by a human. Why should it not also

hold true for industrial trash carried by water or air? The

vector is actually not all that relevant. The non-consensual

delivery of unwanted materials is the issue.

______

I think that's precisely what I said.

Chris

February 25, 2005

In a message dated 2/25/2005 6:32:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

Neither, necessarily, does one possess mineral or water rights under the

ground of one's property, depending on where you live. My well flows

from elsewhere and travels on down. Do y'all even own property? If so,

do you own the birds that fly overhead too? You just can't shoot them

at will ya know, they might be endangered or you may not have the right

anyway depending on your local laws?

______

I think you raise some valid questions in your email that are similar to

one's I've asked and can be subjects of legitimate debate.

I would like to take note, here, that it seems to me that you very commonly

refer to laws and judicial precedents in your arguments as if either were

somehow a criterion of justice, rightnes, logic, or any such thing pertinent to

the argument, when they aren't. In this example, what the state allows in

some localities versus others has nothing to do with natural property law, and

it is particularly irrelevant to a discussion that clearly pits what property

*should* be like due to its nature against how property is currently enforced

by the state. Also note that your deference to local and state laws appears

to suggest that property laws are derivative of the state, whereas you are

in the midst of a discussion begun by and largely dominated by people who

don't believe this, some of whom do not even believe in the legitimacy of the

state itself.

It makes more sense to continue in the vein of the preceding discussion by

approaching the issue by asking what property law should be like given the

nature of that property or potential property.

Chris

February 25, 2005

In a message dated 2/25/2005 10:44:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

Oh. Cool. Apparently I have misunderstood you to be suggesting

that some pollution problems are best addressed under principles

of COMMON ownership, and not private property ownership.

____

Well, I think that may well be the case, but in the particular post you

responded to, I was saying to that the fact that air itself is a commons

does not require one to introduce the complexity of how to treat a commons in

one's political philosophy, because the damage inherently transfers to private

person and property, so an individualist property-based philosophy is

sufficient in itself to consider pollution and violation of private property.

Now, how to deal with that? I do see problems in dealing with a purely

private property perspective. I explained them before. Did you miss it? If

so,

essentially, to recap in a briefer version:

Many, perhaps most, results of pollution are multi-factorial. The 1)

contributory effects of other polluters and 2) distribution of responsibility

among

many levels (a car manufacturer, e.g. sells a car to one person, but has no

control over the amount the person uses or the quality of the gasoline, which

both determine concentration of pollution) both grant plausible denial of

responsibility to all parties.

Since no party can be held responsible, and therefore individually

sanctioned for exceeding certain rations, and if no legislative principle of

rationing

is made, there is a similar dynamic to the tragedy of the commons. There is

a certain COLLECTIVE threshold of pollution that is unsafe (no pollutant

acts individually, but effects can multiply exponentially by combinations of

different pollutnats) to cross, but no individual or business crosses it

themselves, therefore each will benefit from making their partial contribution

to

the pollution over not making it. If there is enough air in relation to

pollution for 10 producers to pollute one producer-unit of pollution, but a

producer will only be held accountable if she personally is responsible for

producing the 10 producer-unit threshold limit of pollution, an eleventh

producer has

every incentive to cross the threshold.

Of course, the math here is a gross oversimplification, but it demonstrates

the point.

Chris

February 25, 2005

>But pollution could still better be seen as a property rights

>issue, and better solved in that context. " I do not want YOUR

>garbage on MY property. If you put it on my property again

>without my consent, there will be hell to pay. " This holds true

>for household trash carried by a human. Why should it not also

>hold true for industrial trash carried by water or air? The

>vector is actually not all that relevant. The non-consensual

>delivery of unwanted materials is the issue.

>

>______

>

>I think that's precisely what I said.

>

>Chris

>

But how does one enforce such an ideal, especially across international

borders? How do I, property owner X keep country Y from spewing

pollutant Z on my property without federal intervention? And as far as

owning air molecules, come on. The replenishing of air is necessary,

thus your supply is always in flux and variable. If you want to go for

ownership, then your supply runs our after time, unless you have lots of

green plants in your finite space bubble, which last I checked does not

exist. Air flows round the globe, if you want to keep pollution on your

property, then stop the flow, I dare you to try.

Neither, necessarily, does one possess mineral or water rights under the

ground of one's property, depending on where you live. My well flows

from elsewhere and travels on down. Do y'all even own property? If so,

do you own the birds that fly overhead too? You just can't shoot them

at will ya know, they might be endangered or you may not have the right

anyway depending on your local laws? Although, here in TX, you come on

my land and do something malicious, you are fair game birdyloo. Don't

mess with Texas, yeeeee haaaaaaH! I bet my property rights are stronger

than just about anywhere else in the country, but is that always so

good? To a point, yes. But Wanita brought up a good counter argument.

Here's some supposed reality:

http://www.ashevilletribune.com/hage1.htm

AND, there is a case in the US Supreme Court concerning CT right now,

where the state wants to buy decrepit land for private redevelopment.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4508086

Deanna

Local Chapter Webmistress

http://www.salvonix.com/WAP/

Texas Ambassador

Organic Wine Company

http://www.theorganicwinecompany.com

February 25, 2005

>

> Here's some supposed reality:

> http://www.ashevilletribune.com/hage1.htm

>

> Deanna

WOW! Those are some hefty freedom fries! Rock hound friend of our's has

mentioned lands being bought up, protected where he knew deposits to be. In

Collapse, Diamond's first chapter is in Montana. He talks about mining,

shutdowns, pollution left but not that Montana isn't Montanaian's anymore.

We're deeper now than ever before with the deficit being funded everyday

from mostly the U.K., Japan and China, iirc. Seymour Hersch has said if the

dollar continues to fall at it's current rate he gives it a year until any

funder begins to ask for treasury bills. Meanwhile it's increase spending to

everything except what directly benefits the source the funds come from to

spend.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005

February 25, 2005

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 5:40 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

In a message dated 2/25/2005 2:41:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

I agree that the air itself is a commons, but I meant that

prevention of

damage to that commons could be opposed without any development

of a philosophical

method with which to treat the commons, because damage to that

commons

inherently and inevitably transmits the damage to private person

and property.

Chris

-----------------

But pollution could still better be seen as a property rights

issue, and better solved in that context. " I do not want YOUR

garbage on MY property. If you put it on my property again

without my consent, there will be hell to pay. " This holds true

for household trash carried by a human. Why should it not also

hold true for industrial trash carried by water or air? The

vector is actually not all that relevant. The non-consensual

delivery of unwanted materials is the issue.

______

I think that's precisely what I said.

Chris

--------------

Oh. Cool. Apparently I have misunderstood you to be suggesting

that some pollution problems are best addressed under principles

of COMMON ownership, and not private property ownership.

-mark

February 26, 2005

In a message dated 2/26/2005 8:17:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

Are you sure that legislative principles are better at attaching

more accurate and detailed accountability/responsibility to many

different individual polluters? I don't think that complexity or

constantly changing allowances/tolerances necessitate government

intrusion; governments are generally inefficient at everything.

_____

I don't think that legislative principles would have better accuracy. I

think that legislation has the terrible flaw of introducing politics into the

situation. However, the (seemingly fatal) flaw of adjudicating disputes

between individual polluters is that in many or most cases, not

pollution-related

disease or harms are committed by *individual* polluters. It isn't that

legislation would approach the situation more efficiently or more accurately or

more honestly; it's that legislation seems like the only possible way to

approach the issue collectively, as it needs to be, at all.

Legislation can take into account the cumulative effect of many producers

causing small amounts of pollution and can legislate what can be allowed to

avoid harm, but adjudicating disputes between individuals can only take into

account what the individual defendant pollutes. If each indiviudal defendant

isn't polluting enough by itself to cause a plaintiff harm, but the cumulative

effect of many polluters does cause many plaintiffs harm, how can the

situation be resolved through adjudication?

Chris

February 26, 2005

In a message dated 2/26/2005 8:59:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

This is a dangerous--and incorrect--line of reasoning, similar to the one

used to justify lawsuits against gun manufacturers and fast food

restaurants. As long as a product works (or, in this case, pollutes) as

advertised, without any unexpected side effects, there is no shared

responsibility. The customer is responsible for the effects of any use of

that product. As you say, car manufacturers and oil companies can't be

expected to know how much and in what way their products can be used, so

they can't be held responsible unless they actively or negligently fail to

inform consumers of relevant information.

Obviously most consumers don't have pollution data now, but that's because

they don't need it. In an environment in which they were held responsible

for pollution, this information would come furnished with the cars. Of

course, car manufacturers and oil companies would then compete to lower

total cost of ownership by making cleaner cars.

All this makes me very uncomfortable, though. When we start talking about

how much people are going to be allowed to pollute and/or how much they'll

have to pay for it, then we're talking about major government intrusion. And

the best-laid plans of geese and governments *always* go awry.

_____

I don't like the idea either, but I don't feel very " uncomfortable " talking

about it. You responded to one of my line's of reasoning-- the distribution

of responsibility along different levels-- and your responsible was sensible

and compelling. But you didn't respond to the other point, which I consider

more compelling and harder to deal with-- that pollution-related problems are

multi-factorial.

Say consumers are held responsible for their pollution. How? What

determines how much they can pollute and how much they can't? If 100 million

people

are driving cars that wreck the air molecules that float over my house and

transfer that destruction to my person and property, which one of them do I

sue? Can I wage one lawsuit against all of them? If I sue one of them, can he

not just rightly deny any personal responsibility when the damage only

occurred through the cumulative effect?

Chris

February 26, 2005

In a message dated 2/26/2005 11:32:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

Obviously, I don't like this. But I don't have any better ideas at the

moment.

____

Well it sounds better than whatever else has been offered, but it seems to

support my point that the issue has to be dealt with from a big-picture

collective perspective by a legislative body rather than through adjudicating

between individuals.

Interesting idea. Thanks.

Chris

February 26, 2005

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 11:24 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

In a message dated 2/25/2005 10:44:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

Oh. Cool. Apparently I have misunderstood you to be suggesting

that some pollution problems are best addressed under principles

of COMMON ownership, and not private property ownership.

____

Well, I think that may well be the case, but in the particular

post you

responded to, I was saying to that the fact that air itself

is a commons

does not require one to introduce the complexity of how to treat

a commons in

one's political philosophy, because the damage inherently

transfers to private

person and property, so an individualist property-based

philosophy is

sufficient in itself to consider pollution and violation of

private property.

Now, how to deal with that? I do see problems in dealing with a

purely

private property perspective. I explained them before. Did you

miss it? If so,

essentially, to recap in a briefer version:

Many, perhaps most, results of pollution are multi-factorial.

The 1)

contributory effects of other polluters and 2) distribution of

responsibility among

many levels (a car manufacturer, e.g. sells a car to one person,

but has no

control over the amount the person uses or the quality of the

gasoline, which

both determine concentration of pollution) both grant plausible

denial of

responsibility to all parties.

Since no party can be held responsible, and therefore

individually

sanctioned for exceeding certain rations, and if no legislative

principle of rationing

is made, there is a similar dynamic to the tragedy of the

commons. There is

a certain COLLECTIVE threshold of pollution that is unsafe (no

pollutant

acts individually, but effects can multiply exponentially by

combinations of

different pollutnats) to cross, but no individual or business

crosses it

themselves, therefore each will benefit from making their partial

contribution to

the pollution over not making it. If there is enough air in

relation to

pollution for 10 producers to pollute one producer-unit of

pollution, but a

producer will only be held accountable if she personally is

responsible for

producing the 10 producer-unit threshold limit of pollution, an

eleventh producer has

every incentive to cross the threshold.

Of course, the math here is a gross oversimplification, but it

demonstrates

the point.

Chris

-----------------------

(Thanks for explaining. Your vocabulary is a bit above mine, but

I believe I understand you better now.)

Are you sure that legislative principles are better at attaching

more accurate and detailed accountability/responsibility to many

different individual polluters? I don't think that complexity or

constantly changing allowances/tolerances necessitate government

intrusion; governments are generally inefficient at everything.

-Mark

February 26, 2005

> -----Original Message-----

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

>

> Many, perhaps most, results of pollution are multi-factorial.

> The 1) contributory effects of other polluters and 2)

> distribution of responsibility among many levels (a car

> manufacturer, e.g. sells a car to one person, but has no

> control over the amount the person uses or the quality of the

> gasoline, which both determine concentration of pollution)

> both grant plausible denial of responsibility to all parties.