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