Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or Not)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/20/05 5:44:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> [Chris] -

> First, " pollutant " must be defined.

>

> [] - Of course, but that is not a problem unique to this remedy but

*

> any* remedy. Today, when the EPA charges people or companies with a

violation

> of the clean air act, for example, they do so on the basis of some

definition

> of pollutants which they deem harmful. So you are only stating something

> which is true *regardless* of the approach.

____

I agree. I made my response in part because I may have misunderstood

Rothbard's quote out of its context. I thought he was saying that the

arbitration

over harmful versus innocuous levels of pollutants could be reduced to a single

general principle, that NO pollutants should be allowed to enter another's

person or property, regardless of concentration.

____

[snip]

> [] - They have to do that now so I'm not sure what your objection

is.

> In the scenario posited above, if harm can be proven (i.e. the pollutants

in

> the air entered my body *and* caused damage) then compensation must be made

> for damage to my body. If not, there is no case. Farting might cause

> temporary unpleasantness to the air I breathe, but one would be hard put to

> prove harm in a court of law.

_____

But this approach suffers from a flaw that I'm afraid might be fatal. The

problem is that this approach uses methodological individualism-- treating both

the defendant, and the perpetrating chemical as individuals, while the

problematic results of pollution are multi-factorial.

Say, for example, cancer. Cancer is, to the best of our current

understanding, a multi-factorial disease that cannot be traced to an individual

chemical

cause. Putting aside the issue of diet mediating the the post-initiation

development of cancer, the initiation of foci will be caused in a given human by

many different chemicals from different sources. A given chemical may be safe

in a certain concentration, but when mixed with another chemical that is safe

at its own given concentration, may multiply their effects in combination to

form an unsafe combination.

Pollution, it seems to me at this point NEEDS to be treated as a COLLECTIVE

phenomenon, not an individual one, because its effects by their very *nature*

are *collective.*

If a person is exposed to three carcinogens not of his own making and

develops cancer, and his case against the three different offenders who produced

the

respective carcinogens is treated individually, he wouldn't necessarily be

able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any one of the three offending

chemicals caused his cancer. Each defendant would be able to reason that he was

exposed to the two other chemicals that are carcinogenic, each of which could

have caused his cancer in and of themselves and therefore cast reasonable doubt

upon the case against them. An alternate defense would be that even though

the chemical they produced is carcinogenic, it is safe at the level in which it

entered the plaintiff's property and person, and wouldn't pose a threat except

in combination with the other two chemicals. The defendant could argue,

rightly, that they couldn't be held responsible for the actions of the *other*

offenders, only through which their chemical became harmful.

The only way I see to treat the issue collectively, as it needs to be, so far

as I can see, is for some kind of legislative body to develop standards that

take into account the big picture. The situation must take into account the

collective action of all chemicals produced by all producers, rather than

individual chemicals produced by individual producers.

The other alternative is for individuals or communities to decide for

themselves the quality of air they want on their property or in their community,

and

then sue those who produce pollutants that find their way into that community

or property for violating those standards. But in that case they wouldn't

have to prove harm.

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

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:51:49 EST

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> Pollution, it seems to me at this point NEEDS to be treated as a COLLECTIVE

> phenomenon, not an individual one, because its effects by their very *nature*

> are *collective.*

I think that might be true in some cases though not necessarily all.

<snip>

> The only way I see to treat the issue collectively, as it needs to be, so far

> as I can see, is for some kind of legislative body to develop standards that

> take into account the big picture. The situation must take into account the

> collective action of all chemicals produced by all producers, rather than

> individual chemicals produced by individual producers.

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.

> The other alternative is for individuals or communities to decide for

> themselves the quality of air they want on their property or in their

community, and

> then sue those who produce pollutants that find their way into that community

> or property for violating those standards. But in that case they wouldn't

> have to prove harm.

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.

" I feel sorry for all those health food

people. Someday, they will be lying in a hospital bed,

dying of nothing. "

Redd Foxx

=================================================

" This is what the king who will reign over you will do:

He will take... He will take... He will take... He will take...

... he will take... He will take... "

(I 8:11-17)

=================================================

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Pollution, it seems to me at this point NEEDS to be treated as a COLLECTIVE

>phenomenon, not an individual one, because its effects by their very *nature*

>are *collective.*

Why, that's positively communist of you! <g>

>The only way I see to treat the issue collectively, as it needs to be, so far

>as I can see, is for some kind of legislative body to develop standards that

>take into account the big picture. The situation must take into account the

>collective action of all chemicals produced by all producers, rather than

>individual chemicals produced by individual producers.

It's a slippery slope back away from property-as-god libertarianism...

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

rights is inimical to the concept of a commons.

-

[Guest guest]

-----Original Message-----

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

> Chris-

> >Pollution, it seems to me at this point NEEDS to be treated as a

> >COLLECTIVE phenomenon, not an individual one, because its effects by

> >their very *nature* are *collective.*

>

> Why, that's positively communist of you! <g>

Not at all. It's a simple recognition of the fact that it's not feasible to

partition the atmosphere in a way that confines air pollution to the

property of the polluter. Personally, I think that the world would be a much

better place if it were possible.

> >The only way I see to treat the issue collectively, as it

> needs to be,

> >so far as I can see, is for some kind of legislative body to develop

> >standards that take into account the big picture. The

> situation must

> >take into account the collective action of all chemicals produced by

> >all producers, rather than individual chemicals produced by

> individual producers.

>

> It's a slippery slope back away from property-as-god libertarianism...

Not at all. The entire point of this exercise is to protect property rights

as well as possible within current technological limits.

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

> apotheosis of property rights is inimical to the concept of a commons.

I've heard it suggested that libertarianism should be called

" propertarianism, " and I think it's a very accurate term. One of the central

tenets of libertarianism is that, in a world of scarcity, property rights

are both necessary and sufficient for the free exercise of all other rights.

Take freedom of speech. If you can buy tools of publication and use them as

you see fit, then you have free speech. If the state controls the media,

then you speak at its pleasure. And you can't shout " FIRE! " in a crowded

theater, not because free speech has limits, but because it would violate

the property rights of the owner (or the patrons, if you are owner).

Show me a right not protected by property rights, and I'll show you a false

right.

And yes, the apotheosis of property rights does provide a safeguard against

the tragedy of the commons.

[Guest guest]

-

>And yes, the apotheosis of property rights does provide a safeguard against

>the tragedy of the commons.

The tragedy of the commons? What would that be, that they exist?

-

[Guest guest]

Quoting Idol <Idol@...>:

> -

> >And yes, the apotheosis of property rights does provide a safeguard

> against

> >the tragedy of the commons.

>

> The tragedy of the commons? What would that be, that they exist?

It's an economic phenomenon in which common ownership of a scarce resource

leads to overuse. The canonical example is a common grazing area. Suppose

that the optimal number of cattle to have grazing on it is ten. If there

are fewer, grass goes to waste. If there are more, they'll eat it faster

than it can be replaced.

If the land is owned privately, the most rational thing for the owner to do

is graze exactly ten cattle on it. But if it's shared publicly, then

incentives are distorted. If each of ten people has a head of cattle

grazing on the commons, then it's still rational for an eleventh to add one

more. His choice is not between grazing ten cattle indefinitely or eleven

until the grass runs out, but between grazing one head until the commons is

stripped clean, or grazing none at all.

The important thing to keep in mind is that this isn't a case of bad

judgment. The eleventh farmer is behaving in a perfectly rational manner

given the incentives he faces.

Another common example is pooling of utility bills in apartment complexes.

If the heating bill is split evenly among all tenants, then the cost to a

tenant of turning up his heater is a tiny fraction of what it would be if

it were metered individually. Cost is no longer a significant factor in

deciding where to set the thermostat, and ultimately everyone ends up using

(and paying for) more heat than he would with individual metering.

You get this effect in just about any situation in which benefits are

enjoyed individually and costs are shared in common. It can be mitigated by

rationing access, but that opens the door to a number of other problems.

Rationing works fairly well for grazing (since it would essentially be the

same as dividing the commons into ten pieces and

selling/renting/lending/giving them to owners of cattle), but when

consumers are more diverse in their needs and desires, it becomes virtually

impossible to ration with anything approaching the efficiency of the market

system.

--

Berg

bberg@...