NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.shtml

The LP claims the government is the biggest polluter. Are there any sites out there that would actually provide evidence of this? Is it true that the government is the biggest source of pollution?

Would private companies do a better job?

Explain yourselves Libertarians/libertarians!

End Capitalist exploitation of the common worker, you socialist/communist/anarchist folk and explain your positions!

Yep, I'm convinced you're somone's puppet. Probably Serapindal's.

The traditional argument is that

- Governments have no one to control them, thus they are more likely to behave in reckless ways. This is clearly the underlying assumption of Libertarian thinking, namely that the Government does not represent the people, but is some sort of independent organism that is out to get us.

- Private Business will get punished on the stock market if it pollutes (a ridiculous idea if you ask me), and that it will behave in a socially responsible manner, either through self-motivation or through market forces.

So if there still are externalities caused by private enterprise, that is merely because the law isn't framed in the economically efficient way suggested by the Coase Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem), and because regulations prevent businesses from using new methods that would be better.

The thrust of the libertarian party's claim here is that the government (which includes all levels of goverance, not just the feds) is easily the largest single polluter simply by virtue of mass. If you consider the number of vehicles used by police, military, emergency, and government interests, you have quite a few gallons being burned per day. Then theres the massive amount of paper waste being produced by something as large as the government.

On ballance, though, if you want to learn about libertarian thought process, LP isn't the place. It is, after all, a political party, and a third party at that. LP tends to take the furthest extremes as basic platform issues because all they can do is inject their opinion into the discussion, not actually win a major race. For better formulated opinions, you can always go to the Cato Institute (www.Cato.org). For political commentary and general opinion pieces theres Reason Magazine, particularily their running blog: Hit & Run (www.Reason.com www.reason.com/hitandrun/). There are also literally dozens of good libertarian leaning blogs going from the erudite Volokh Conspiracy (www.volokh.com) to the combative (www.theagitator.com) to the suprisingly moderate (www.andrewsullivan.com).

93
93/93

While I agree the goverment is very bad to the environment and is hypocritical in enforcing environmental standards I don't take anything in that article seriously. Where are the numbers? Did they actually do research to determin the goverment is the biggest polluter or do they just claim that. Not that it would suprise me since the government is so big, I just don't see the story as credible. Not to mention the website in which it is posted would clearly have an anti-govermnent bias. Imagine that anarchists... excuse me, libertarians find problems with government.

Notice that they used building on a toxic waste dump as an example. Well the government was stupid in that case, but it wasn't the governments toxic waste. So it doesn't really show the goverment is a polluter. It only shows the government is stupid.

While I agree the goverment is very bad to the environment and is hypocritical in enforcing environmental standards I don't take anything in that article seriously. Where are the numbers? Did they actually do research to determin the goverment is the biggest polluter or do they just claim that. Not that it would suprise me since the government is so big, I just don't see the story as credible. Not to mention the website in which it is posted would clearly have an anti-govermnent bias. Imagine that anarchists... excuse me, libertarians find problems with government.

Notice that they used building on a toxic waste dump as an example. Well the government was stupid in that case, but it wasn't the governments toxic waste. So it doesn't really show the government is a polluter. It only shows the government is stupid.
Or the numerous times the government's had to cover for polluting industrialists who destroyed the environment and ran.

Yep, I'm convinced you're somone's puppet. Probably Serapindal's.
I think I'm with you on this. Perhaps not Serapindal, but a puppet nonetheless.

Puppetmaster, redeem thyself.

The LP claims the government is the biggest polluter. Are there any sites out there that would actually provide evidence of this? Is it true that the government is the biggest source of pollution?

well, considering the sheer size of the u.s. government it stands to reason that it is engaged in more polluting activites than any other single entity (though, of course, the lp treats the u.s. government - federal, state, and local - as a unified whole in that article, which probably isn't exactly accurate). it'd be interesting to see some real data on it the subject, especially so we could look at the proportional rates of pollution by entity size.

Or the numerous times the government's had to cover for polluting industrialists who destroyed the environment and ran.

"hey, we didn't run. we merely extracted all the profit we could out of the environment in as reckless a manner as we thought we could get away with, and then promptly declared bankruptcy only to form a new company that does the same old thing under a new name. it's totally different."

Perhaps a direct quote from the LP Platform will help to clarify their position:

"The Issue: Toxic waste disposal problems have been created by government policies that separate liability from property. Present legal principles, particularly the unjust and false concept of 'public property,' block privatization of the use of the environment and hence block resolution of controversies over resource use. We condemn the EPA's Superfund whose taxing powers are used to penalize all chemical firms, regardless of their conduct. Such clean-ups are a subsidy of irresponsible companies at the expense of responsible ones.

"The Principle: Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

"Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.

"Transitional Action: We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses."
-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#pollutio )

Clearly the claim that "government is the biggest polluter" doesn't necessarily mean that government does most of the actual polluting all by itself. What they mean to say is that government allows most pollution to occur. Indeed, if one reads the entire quote above, focusing especially on the parts I have bolded, one will find that Libertarians believe that government does not hold people responsible when they pollute the environment. Their motovation is not to allow "Big Business" to do whatever it wants; empowered by government, "Big Business" already does what it wants, causing environmental damage which the Libertarian Party condemns. The Libertarian Party simply proposes the expansion of private property rights and the associated tort law as a means to create true environmental regulation.

"hey, we didn't run. we merely extracted all the profit we could out of the environment in as reckless a manner as we thought we could get away with, and then promptly declared bankruptcy only to form a new company that does the same old thing under a new name. it's totally different."

"The Principle: Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion."
-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#pollutio )

The Libertarian Party agrees that that "justification" for environmentally destructive behavior is completely bogus.

You'll quickly find that when it comes to environmental issues, people assume they know far more about the LP's position on the subject than they even come close to approaching. Of course, when it comes to the LP, most non-members here assume much about the platform when they haven't a fucking clue.

Get used to it, and have fun pointing your finger at them and having a hearty laugh at their ignorance. Works for me.

The Libertarian Party agrees that that "justification" for environmentally destructive behavior is completely bogus.

i think the libies are at least on the right track on this sort of thing. even if you could in principle use the state to handle environmental problems, in reality the state isn't interested in changing things to hold polluters responsible and would rather help them undermine the remaining ways for individuals to try to do so.

You'll quickly find that when it comes to environmental issues, people assume they know far more about the LP's position on the subject than they even come close to approaching. Of course, when it comes to the LP, most non-members here assume much about the platform when they haven't a fucking clue.


I think a bigger problem is Libertarian's ignorance about such issues as the environment, and where their own party stands regarding such an issue. There seems to be a common notion that any regulation of business to any degree is evil <insert whatever less than optimal political philosophy that comes to mind>; for instance, I don't think property rights can be applied to the atmosphere, as a whole, in any really meaningful way, so some "public good" oriented regulation is going to be required there. Yes, people often severely mischaracterize the LP's position on environmental issues. However, I haven't noticed that Libertarians are of any help in resolving this problem.

(The first step is kill the false assumption that because a particular group of political environmentalists are crazy, environmentalism in general must be crazy. In my opinion, this is one of the most common strawman fallicies perpetuated by the Libertarian crowd.)


Get used to it, and have fun pointing your finger at them and having a hearty laugh at their ignorance. Works for me.

Allowing the perpetuation of ignorance will not solve any problems.

I think a bigger problem is Libertarian's ignorance about such issues as the environment, and where their own party stands regarding such an issue.

part of the problem really falls out of where libertarians draw support from. for example, a good chunk of them are definitely connected to standard rightwing groups and whatnot, which reflexively view anything involving the environment as a bunch of hippie bullshit rather than actually examining the issue. and then you've got what kevin carson calls 'vulgar libertarians' (http://www.mutualist.org/id71.html) for who the rich and powerful are always the good guys, no matter what.

"Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term 'free market' in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article in The Freeman arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because 'that’s not how the free market works'--implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of 'free market principles.'"

neither group particularly cares about the environment. certainly not enough to make it form a central part of their libertarian writings. which leads to the ignorance being preserved and spread.

and then you've got what kevin carson calls 'vulgar libertarians' (http://www.mutualist.org/id71.html) for who the rich and powerful are always the good guys, no matter what.


This is one of the many reasons that I refer to myself as a libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29) and not a Libertarian. Luckily, a certain 18th century Scottish philosopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith) convinced me that the single greatest threat to competitive capitalist free-enterprise is not the wage earner...

One of the many reasons that I refer to myself as a libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29) and not a Libertarian. Luckily, a certain 18th century Scottish philosopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith) convinced me that the single greatest opponent of competitive capitalist free-enterprise is not the wage earner...
I agree with you in that I'm a small l libertarian. I know that there are limits. I'm also Burkean in the sense that I realize there are limits to how drastically you can change a society at any given time.

Perhaps a direct quote from the LP Platform will help to clarify their position:

"The Issue: Toxic waste disposal problems have been created by government policies that separate liability from property. Present legal principles, particularly the unjust and false concept of 'public property,' block privatization of the use of the environment and hence block resolution of controversies over resource use. We condemn the EPA's Superfund whose taxing powers are used to penalize all chemical firms, regardless of their conduct. Such clean-ups are a subsidy of irresponsible companies at the expense of responsible ones.

"The Principle: Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion.

"Solutions: We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.

"Transitional Action: We call for a modification of the laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact caused by radiation. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses."
-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#pollutio )

Clearly the claim that "government is the biggest polluter" doesn't necessarily mean that government does most of the actual polluting all by itself. What they mean to say is that government allows most pollution to occur. Indeed, if one reads the entire quote above, focusing especially on the parts I have bolded, one will find that Libertarians believe that government does not hold people responsible when they pollute the environment. Their motovation is not to allow "Big Business" to do whatever it wants; empowered by government, "Big Business" already does what it wants, causing environmental damage which the Libertarian Party condemns. The Libertarian Party simply proposes the expansion of private property rights and the associated tort law as a means to create true environmental regulation.



Yeah, after reading the explanation of the libertarians stance on environment I realize that they are even more illogical then I orignially thought. Yes the government allows most polution. That's obvious since the goverment allows anything that it hasn't made illegal.

Following that same line of reasoning I feel I can safely safe the government is the biggest cause of divorce since it allows divorce.

Also I don't quite understand the libertarian position. So government is the problem since it allows it? What's the solution? Get rid of goverment? They are saying not to allow property to be owned by the government (be public) because this encourages people to pollute it. Ah, what great logic. We don't have to worry about our public spaces being polluted if they don't exist. And companies are free to polute their own property. That's within their rights. Basically the libertarian party does nothing to address polution just suggests that their be no public land to pollute.

Oh and property rights of air and water, how are you going to acomplish that. How do you prevent your air (which you are free to pollute) from drifting into my air? Wiithout the EPA do I, as an individual, have to bring lawsuits against all the businesses who did not properly contain the pollution to their own air? Oh and of course I would have to prove that it was company A's air, not company B's air that left their property and polluted my air. Without such proff it would be unfair to sue polluter A when it might actually be polluter B's fault.

If you go through all that all they are suggesting is deregulation. How can deregulation reduce pollution?

Every party (Repbulican, Democrate, etc) claims to have pro-environmental policy. Just about no one who is being serious claims to be anti-environment. But I think its safe to say that the libertarian policy if implemented would lead to much worse pollution then we have now.

Explain this "public good" regulation. What does this mean?

Der Drache, you bring up an interesting point. However, wouldn't private investigators still be able to determine which company caused you harm?

Yeah, after reading the explanation of the libertarians stance on environment I realize that they are even more illogical then I orignially thought. Yes the government allows most polution. That's obvious since the goverment allows anything that it hasn't made illegal. Following that same line of reasoning I feel I can safely safe the government is the biggest cause of divorce since it allows divorce.


I apologize for the poor choice of wording in my post. Where I said that the government "allows" polution to occur, I should have said that the government "encourages" pollution to occur. If government "encourages" divorce to occur, then government would in fact be a major cause of divorce. How, then, does the government "encourage" pollution to occur....


They are saying not to allow property to be owned by the government (be public) because this encourages people to pollute it. Ah, what great logic. We don't have to worry about our public spaces being polluted if they don't exist.


The problem with "public" property is that it is susceptible to the tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) as well as to the free rider problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem). Essentially, because the government owns the "public" property, individual users will see no reason to care for or maintain it. Individual users do not have an immediate stake in preserving and maintaing the quality of the land. Also, even if some individuals do care, most are likely to reduce their own personal cost by waiting for someone else to handle it.

By turning the "public" property over to private owners, however, both of these problems are eliminated. The owner of the private property has a direct interest in maintaining the quality of his land, in order to prevent the market price from decreasing. Additionally, the inherent decentralization brings the owner closer to the land, greatly increasing the owner's emotional and economic stake in caring for the land. Decentralization also reduces costs as it eliminates unnecessary bureaucratic overhead.


And companies are free to polute their own property. That's within their rights.


Of course it is their right. But, it would be a very poor economic choice, as the market value of the polluted property would be reduced; being greedy capitalist pigs, these companies wish to avoid such a situation. Also, as soon as that pollution crosses into someone else's property, the owner of the violated property has a legitimate trespass claim which he can bring against the violator.

It is far more likely that companies will go out of their way to pollute only "public" property, in order to avoid destroying their own economic value, as well as to avoid litigation brought by other private parties. Again, the tragedy of the commons.

pollution will kill us if nothing else does lobal warming or not

Explain this "public good" regulation. What does this mean?

Der Drache, you bring up an interesting point. However, wouldn't private investigators still be able to determine which company caused you harm?

Actually that could be quite difficult. Lung cancer is almost always the result of polution (though often self inflicted). If I am exposed to a lot of bad air and come down with lung cancer its hard to determine who caused it. It takes years to develope cancer. In the meantime I was probably exposed to numerous polutants and may have moved around. Which polutants caused it? Maybe they all contributed. How do I prove I wasn't just unlucky and the cancer just happened. I would probably have to sue all the companies and ask them to pay their portion of the damages. Not to mention that because their were no environmental regulations I have to wait until something bad happens to me so I can sue. Wouldn't it be much better if the polutants weren't their to cause the lung cancer in the first place?

Since it would be difficult to stick the blaim on a particular company then companies would rarely have to pay out damages, thus giving them no insentive to not pollute.

This is the problem. We know that pollution overall makes the general populace sicker. So as a whole you can often get some idea of how much damage a certain poluter is causing. This is based on animal studies where we certain exposures cause damage and based on statistics were we see a relationship between illness and levels of polution. But on the invididual level its difficult to determine what made that person sick. Statistics don't work on individuals.

Since we already have a good idea of how harmful certian pollutants are, why don't we regulate how many of those pollutants are released at the start? We know they are going to cause harm, why wait until people start getting ill and making them individually sue the company? Why not... I don't know... create a government agency that sets standards?

I apologize for the poor choice of wording in my post. Where I said that the government "allows" polution to occur, I should have said that the government "encourages" pollution to occur. If government "encourages" divorce to occur, then government would in fact be a major cause of divorce. How, then, does the government "encourage" pollution to occur....



The problem with "public" property is that it is susceptible to the tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) as well as to the free rider problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem). Essentially, because the government owns the "public" property, individual users will see no reason to care for or maintain it. Individual users do not have an immediate stake in preserving and maintaing the quality of the land. Also, even if some individuals do care, most are likely to reduce their own personal cost by waiting for someone else to handle it.

By turning the "public" property over to private owners, however, both of these problems are eliminated. The owner of the private property has a direct interest in maintaining the quality of his land, in order to prevent the market price from decreasing. Additionally, the inherent decentralization brings the owner closer to the land, greatly increasing the owner's emotional and economic stake in caring for the land. Decentralization also reduces costs as it eliminates unnecessary bureaucratic overhead.



Of course it is their right. But, it would be a very poor economic choice, as the market value of the polluted property would be reduced; being greedy capitalist pigs, these companies wish to avoid such a situation. Also, as soon as that pollution crosses into someone else's property, the owner of the violated property has a legitimate trespass claim which he can bring against the violator.

It is far more likely that companies will go out of their way to pollute only "public" property, in order to avoid destroying their own economic value, as well as to avoid litigation brought by other private parties. Again, the tragedy of the commons.

No, allow is a better word then encourage. The government isn't going around trying to find ways to make it easier to pollute. It just doesn't do much to stop it. So it lets pollution happen. Encouragement implies an active role by the goverment to support it.

en·cour·age
1. To inspire with hope, courage, or confidence; hearten.
2. To give support to; foster: policies designed to encourage private investment.
3. To stimulate; spur: burning the field to encourage new plant growth.

al·low
1. To let do or happen; permit: We allow smoking only in restricted areas.
2. To permit the presence of: No pets are allowed inside.
3. To permit to have: allow oneself a little treat.
4. To make provision for; assign: The schedule allows time for a coffee break.
5. To plan for in case of need: allow two inches in the fabric for shrinkage.
6. To grant as a discount or in exchange: allowed me 20 dollars on my old typewriter.

http://dictionary.reference.com

So if I understand you. A mining company is interested in the resale value of its mine? I doubt it. It's much more economical to get everything they need and then just leave it a polluted wasteland. This goes for other things as well. In fact I can't think of many cases where that isn't so. I suppose a company in an urban area may be interested in resale since the land is so valuable. But I can't think of other examples. Look at how things are now. Companies pollute their own land and leave it that way. It's not just public property that they pollute.

Besides most of what you have said only makes sense in respect to land pollution. No one can own air or water. I would like to see what system the libertarians plan on setting up for the ownership of air and water.

The government isn't going around trying to find ways to make it easier to pollute. It just doesn't do much to stop it. So it lets pollution happen. Encouragement implies an active role by the goverment to support it.


It may not have an express intent to encourage pollution, but, as I have already described, the practical effect of government "regulation" and "public" property is to encourage such behavior.


Besides most of what you have said only makes sense in respect to land pollution. No one can own air or water.


On the contrary, I can indeed own air and water. At this very moment a .5L bottle of water sits on my desk. I own that bottle and the water contained within. Likewise, I own my house and thus the air contained within.

Now, the atmosphere and oceans present a much more difficult problem. And, as I've said in another post, the quality and safety of the atmosphere represents a public good, and thus at least some degree of government regulation is required (at least, this is so here on Earth...). Even so, I'm sure ways can be found to involve the private sector in such regulation, in order to keep bureaucracy and cost down and effectiveness up.

It's much more economical to get everything they need and then just leave it a polluted wasteland. This goes for other things as well. In fact I can't think of many cases where that isn't so.


As I've already shown ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9921773&postcount=11 ), the Libertarian Party holds that the responsibility for the "polluted wasteland" belongs to those who created it. The Libertarian Party would not allow a company to create an environmental disaster and then simply walk away. The potential threat to surrounding property and people prohibits such irresponsible governance.