flink@mimsy.UUCP.UUCP (01/28/87)
fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU writes: > [...] In any case, the >problem of air pollution arises because property rights >aren't protected *enough*, not because they're overenforced. >The only right way to regulate pollution is to hold individuals >(and, yes, institutions) responsible for the damages they cause >other persons. What do you mean here? Is it OK for me to go ahead and pollute, as long as I am held responsible for damages I cause? There may be problems with this approach, at least they seem to be problems if you take a libertarian view: what if the damaged persons aren't satisfied with being imposed upon and then "compensated"? Who gets to decide how much compensation is enough: the person whose well-being is at stake, or the courts? It seems that a consistent libertarian must say: the person whose well-being is at stake. But if so, the following *reductio ad absurdum* of libertarian views threatens. I intend to piss in the nearest men's room toilet within the next few hours. When I flush, my wastes will be sent toward a waste water treatment facility, where they will be treated *but not rendered completely harmless* (no pollution control method is 100.0% effective). They will then be dumped into a river, which people downstream of me use. These people will be subjected to some small (but non-zero) risk of harm or death by the presence of the remnants of my piss in their water. Now, the amount of compensation that some of those people would demand is very small, and I could afford it. But at least a few of them will want a great deal of compensation, and when we add their demands up (especially if I live near the source of a long river like the Mississippi) it will be a ridiculously high number. Since I would not want to pay that much every time I piss, we seem to be led to the conclusion that it is not morally OK for me to piss. In case you think that there would be some way to negotiate a contract among people who live along the river which would allow you to piss for a low price, consider air pollution. Again, no pollution control method is 100% effective; and industrial society depends on allowing at least a little air pollution. But air pollution typically affects a nation-sized area (world-sized in the case of CO2); negotiations among those millions of inhabitants would be completely out of the question. In case you're thinking, "Well, I'll just break the rules and take the consequences," I must ask how seriously you take the ethical view which underlies your political philosophy. If property rights should be protected in the ways you advocate, is that not because those property rights exist (as ethical rights)? So may I piss, or not? Answer quickly--I can't hold it in much longer! P.S. I have directed followups to talk.politics.theory, which I regularly read (unlike this newsgroup). Also, please use my last name somewhere in your article (e.g., put "Attn Paul Torek" in the Keywords). Otherwise I might not see your reply (it's a long story why not, but it has to do with newsfeed problems at my future site). Paul Torek flink@mimsy (soon to be torek@umich)