trc@houti.UUCP (06/14/83)
In response to Jon White's note on the free market and pollution: The railroads, monopolies, and so forth have already been extensively discussed, so I wont go into that here. I will address the question of pollution and the free market. A free market does not imply that "anything goes". Under capitalism, all individuals have certain rights, and by definition of "rights", all individuals must respect the rights of others. Any damage done to another, or another's property, violates that other's rights. If done intentionally (IE with knowledge of the damaging consequences), or irresponsibly (IE without seeking knowledge of potential harm), such an act is criminal. A victim of a crime is entitled to full restitution. On the principle that no criminal should benefit from his crime, any remaining profits from the crime should be taken away and held to be claimed by any other victims. In addition, the legal system has costs that must be covered, which the criminal should be responsible for. In the case of pollution, the victims would only need to show that they have been harmed, or are being exposed to slow harm. In the case of Love Canal, the crime, if any, was probably fraud - not revealing the existence or meaning of the materials to buyers. I do not know whether Hooker Chemical was guilty of this. If Hooker were fully to blame, they would bear the $70 million cost, plus a fine. Any capitalist would not risk an almost certain loss of $70 million just to save a quick $5 million. If he knew that proper laws to protect individual rights were in effect, and that an action would harm those rights, he would not do it. That is how the free market works. It is free people making rational choices in an environment that demands only that they accept the consequences of their actions. The free market would allow protection of human rights. Some might protest that it does not protect "rights" of animals. In a strict sense, human rights must always take precedence over animal rights. Since torture is not a human right, an animal should have a right not be be tortured needlessly. However, these limitations do not prevent individuals from valuing the lives of such creatures, and seeking to protect them. The right way to do that would be for nature lovers to purchase some land, and set it up as a private preserve, for their private enjoyment of the natural wildness. Since much of the land that is still wild is land that has low value for other purposes, they should be able to pick up some bargains. Tom Craver houti!trc