[net.politics.theory] Problems with libertaria: imagination, RE to nrh

orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/05/85)

> >/**** inmet:net.politics.t / mmintl!robg / 10:24 am  May 23, 1985 ****/
> 
> In a libertarian Germany, it would not be hard to imagine that the
> Black Forest was owned by a bunch of nature lovers who sued the 
> CLASS of automobile owners (and polluters in general) through
> a court system that permitted this.  There are also non-anarchic
> solutions (minimal government might concern itself 
> exclusively with preventing its own growth and with economic
> externalities).  
> 
 
Ah, the imagination of Libertarians can truly be said to solve all problems
can't it?  Certainly it is easy to *imagine* a capitalist economy in
which all sorts of wonderful things happen: companies voluntarily decide
to install pollution equipment at great cost and even though such costs
make them less competitive in the market.(assuming such market is "free"
to begin with), companies compete to help and educate the poor at their
own cost,............ad imaginitum.......
One can *imagine* anything you wish.
I could *imagine* a truly communist society in which all are equal.
But reality is another thing.
In reality if it weren't for the Federal Government in Germany there probably
wouldn't *be* any Black Forest left because it would be developed by 
companies out to make a buck, and nature be damned.  We saw this sort of
thing happening under the esteemed Mr. Watt in our own country when he
started an enormous "fire sale" on mining and timber rights in our
National Forests.
The oil companies haven't seemed too concerned that Watt's oil leases might
lead to more oil spills like the one at Santa Barbara which killed
scads of wildlife.
And where is the capitalistic concern for the acid rain in our own country
which is occurring right now?  Reagan has announced another "study" of
the problem - maybe if Reagan studies it hard enough it will disappear.
Maybe if I think hard enough I can pull a rabbit out of my terminal......

Let's talk about reality for a moment: what are Libertarians doing at
this very moment to stop acid rain?  Are you filing class action suits
against polluters?  Or what?
 
                  tim sevener   whuxl!orb

cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/12/85)

> > >/**** inmet:net.politics.t / mmintl!robg / 10:24 am  May 23, 1985 ****/
> > 
> > In a libertarian Germany, it would not be hard to imagine that the
> > Black Forest was owned by a bunch of nature lovers who sued the 
> > CLASS of automobile owners (and polluters in general) through
> > a court system that permitted this.  There are also non-anarchic
> > solutions (minimal government might concern itself 
> > exclusively with preventing its own growth and with economic
> > externalities).  
> > 
>  
> Ah, the imagination of Libertarians can truly be said to solve all problems
> can't it?  Certainly it is easy to *imagine* a capitalist economy in
> which all sorts of wonderful things happen: companies voluntarily decide
> to install pollution equipment at great cost and even though such costs
> make them less competitive in the market.(assuming such market is "free"
> to begin with), companies compete to help and educate the poor at their
> own cost,............ad imaginitum.......
> One can *imagine* anything you wish.
> I could *imagine* a truly communist society in which all are equal.
> But reality is another thing.
> In reality if it weren't for the Federal Government in Germany there probably
> wouldn't *be* any Black Forest left because it would be developed by 
> companies out to make a buck, and nature be damned.  We saw this sort of
> thing happening under the esteemed Mr. Watt in our own country when he
> started an enormous "fire sale" on mining and timber rights in our
> National Forests.

"Fire sale" describes it exactly.  Mr. Watt sold properties far below
their market value, much as the national forests were leased at below
market prices in the 1930s by the federal government, which was attempting
to artificially stimulate the economy.  Mr. Watt is an example of the
dangers of letting the government have so much land under its control.

If the government leases its lands at artificially low prices without
taking adequate safeguards to protect its property, you can be sure that
the company leasing the land will take no precautions of its own --- not
being the owner, the company has no financial interest in it future value.

> The oil companies haven't seemed too concerned that Watt's oil leases might
> lead to more oil spills like the one at Santa Barbara which killed
> scads of wildlife.

The problem with oil leases is that may *only* be leased for purposes of
oil drilling.  If the property were for sale or for general lease, 
those organizations that are concerned with preserving the Santa Barbara
Channel could buy or lease those properties.  Alternatively, these
organizations could do what the Audubon Society does: it leases drilling
rights to oil companies in some of its bird sanctuaries.  Because it
owns the land, it can be tremendously more demanding of the conditions
of drilling than the government will *ever* be.

> And where is the capitalistic concern for the acid rain in our own country
> which is occurring right now?  Reagan has announced another "study" of
> the problem - maybe if Reagan studies it hard enough it will disappear.
> Maybe if I think hard enough I can pull a rabbit out of my terminal......
> 
> Let's talk about reality for a moment: what are Libertarians doing at
> this very moment to stop acid rain?  Are you filing class action suits
> against polluters?  Or what?
>  
>                   tim sevener   whuxl!orb

Many states have prohibited class action lawsuits in air and water
pollution cases "to keep from clogging up the courts".  The only case
I can find of someone trying to file a class action lawsuit against an
air polluter is Diamond vs. General Motors, et. al. (1971), where the
judge refused to hear the case because it was too "complicated".  A
judiciary that has the time and energy to hear the AT&T and IBM anti-trust
suits, certainly has the time and energy to hear class action lawsuits.
What's lacking is a clear-cut legal right to file class action lawsuits.

Let me point out some advantages of class action lawsuits over the
currently regulatory system:

1. The current system assesses ridiculously small fines (on the order
of $15,000 per day) against air polluters, at least in Los Angeles.
Actual damages to property values, lungs, and agriculture are probably
in the billions of dollars a year.  A few class action lawsuits a year
could probably bankrupt a company like Southern California Edison ---
this would a powerful incentive for the company to reduce pollution to
some level that optimizes the number of lawsuits vs. the costs of 
equipment.  (This level, incidentally, is probably much lower than
current levels, but not at a level where the last 5% of the pollution
ends up costing %95 of the abatement costs.)  By comparision, $15,000
per day fines are trivial.  In a sense, the current regulatory system
benefits air polluters by reducing their costs, protecting them from
class action lawsuits, and giving people the illusion that the government
is "doing something".

2. Those fines end up going to the government, not the people who are
directly injured.  The government, by redistributing the money as
services, benefits the guy in lives in wilderness five hundred miles
from the nearest Southern California Edison smog plant.  Settling
class action lawsuits would put the money for damages (after the lawyers
suck up their 1/3) into the pockets of the actual injured parties.