Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted 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? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted 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. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 > -----Original Message----- > From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...] > > 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? Well, one way of dealing with it would be a Pigouvian tax (i.e., pay-to-pollute). For example, you'd pay a surcharge on gas (with discounts for cleaner cars) based roughly on the amount of pollution you can be expected to do with it. Same deal with burning stuff, and factories and whatnot. This money would used only to pay out claims of damage from general pollution, not for miscellaneous government boondoggles, nor for damage by specific entities which could be held directly responsible (someone dumping toxic waste directly on your property, for example). If there's money left over at the end of the year (or quarter, or whatever), it's returned in the form of lower surcharges the next period. If there's not enough, the state sells bonds and raises surcharges to pay them off. Again, though, any time you get away from a pure market solution, there's tremendous potential for corruption and mismanagement. Some caveats specific to this system: -Managers of the damage fund would have to protect it zealously from fraudulent, erroneous, or excessive claims (i.e., claims that a given illness is caused by pollution are not to be accepted at face value). -There are many different pollutants, with no incontrovertible way to compare them, so the relative charges would be set by a political process. -Damages are not always objectively assessable. On the bright side, if juries were used, they'd be reluctant to grant extravagant awards (since they'd be paying for them). -There would be intense political pressure to use the funds for other things. Well...if we actually lived in a society free enough to make this discussion practically important, maybe there wouldn't. Obviously, I don't like this. But I don't have any better ideas at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 _____ From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...] Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 8:33 PM Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... 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 --------------------------- I believe there can be adjudication between groups: class action suits against whole industries. Therein both cumulative and individual damages could be accurately ascertained; and the limits and tolerances could have previously been accurately determined by the private sector. Gov legislators are by no means the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, and certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise. -Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 _____ From: Berg [mailto:bberg@...] Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 8:59 PM Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... * -----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. 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 like that better than what I just wrote. -Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.