Libertarianism and the Environment

[The Skeletal Atheist]

It's a question I've pondered several times, but haven't felt like asking until now: How does libertarianism reconcile with enviromentalism? Some self proclaimed libertarians, notably those in the tea party, deny the scientific consensus on man made climate change, and to me that seems like a grave error if we want our species to continue. Of course I realize that not all libertarians are like that, and that others do acknowledge climate change, but it is still a worrying trend.

In a libertarian society with little to no regulations what's to stop me from taking a barrel of gasoline and burning it on my property, provided that I paid for the gasoline? I know no one would actually do that (I hope), but how about this: What's to stop me from burying toxic waste from my factory on my own property? What's to stop me from selling that property to another person/company and washing my hands of the responsibility? What's to stop me, or anyone else for that matter, from absolutely decimating the enviroment on their own property as long as it turns a profit (or it it's just their whim)?   

[SGOS]

I asked this very question in a Libertarian forum I visited.  The answer I got was that in the event that something you do on your own property might adversely affect your neighbor, it would be better handled in a civil court after the fact than through governmental regulations imposed before the fact.  Of course, there are problems with that, and the person who explained it recognized there were problems with it, although she did not identify specific problems or offer solutions.  But she did recognize the weakness.

However, such an approach apparently fits the ideology in its pure form.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

I asked this very question in a Libertarian forum I visited.  The answer I got was that in the event that something you do on your own property might adversely affect your neighbor, it would be better handled in a civil court after the fact than through governmental regulations imposed before the fact.  Of course, there are problems with that, and the person who explained it recognized there were problems with it, although she did not identify specific problems or offer solutions.  But she did recognize the weakness.

However, such an approach apparently fits the ideology in its pure form.

Yeah, but what if it's never found out due to no one checking on the property, due to no regulations? In the example of buried toxic waste, no one could investigate because that would be trespassing, and no regulations would mean that whoever the property owner wanted out (like enviromental health agencies) would have to stay out and not be able to inspect the property. Then suppose that long after the property owner is dead the problem is found out, and it is found out that the burial of toxic waste did indeed affect the neighboring properties. Who's at fault? The original property owner, against whom no recourse can be taken because he/she is dead? Or is it the fault of the person who inherited/bought the property, even though they had no part in burial of toxic waste? To me it seems like it makes it too easy to fuck something up, hide it, and then wash your hands of the issue.

Also suppose there are no tangible, immediate effects on the enviroment. How could a case be brought against someone if the damage to property won't occur until 100 years later? Can it be argued that the current owner will suffer loss if s/he would be dead by the time his/her property is affected by the enviromental damage?

[SGOS]

To me it seems like it makes it too easy to fuck something up, hide it, and then wash your hands of the issue.

It seems like that to me too.  Your neighbor puts a septic system on the edge of his property 20 feet from your well and you get hepatitis or some other life long disease.  Yeah, you can go to court, but it does little to prevent the problem.  You can sue for money, and maybe you win, but you're still sick or dead.

Obviously, the ideology would have to be tweaked here and there from its pure form or there would be a lot of chaos.  But then you're heading back into what Libertarianism attempts to avoid.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

A much better argument to reject the libertarian drivel...
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/why_i_left_libertarianism_an_ethical_critique_of_a_limited_ideology/

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'll assume that aside from AllPurposeAtheist, this thread exists because people are genuinely curious and actually want to know the answer to the question.  The one who isn't included in that group can take a vacation because I'm going to treat this thread as if it is serious.

The key to libertarian environmentalism or free market environmentalism (it goes by both names) is that you won't allow someone else to pollute your property.  People can pollute their own property, but should ensure that none of the pollution spreads onto your property.  At this point everyone says "but the second law of thermodynamics" as if that is a flaw in the proposal instead of being the key to the proposal.

It is the key because they can't stop it from spreading, so therefore can't pollute their own property either.  If their pollution spreads to your property that is an infringement on you and is actionable.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

People can pollute their own property, but should ensure that none of the pollution spreads onto your property.

Yeah, that's no line of bullshit is it Jason?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yeah, that's no line of bullshit is it Jason?

It makes sense for everyone interested in an actual discussion, especially since I added lots of context around that quote.  Like I said, you can go on vacation, I want to treat this as a serious thread with actual content.

Come back if you want to act like a grown up.

[_Xenu_]

I have to admit I've always seen environmental issues as being tough for libertarians, so I have a bit to add. First, wouldn't simply making a law forbidding the dumping of toxic waste be more economical than forcing people to bring about individual lawsuits? What if the entity doing the dumping was a wealthy business that could financially ram their neighbors into the ground? When you take into account the difficulty of putting a precise price tag on such things, as ecology isn't really an exact science, doesn't that sound like it could put regular people at an enormous disadvantage against a wealthy corporation? I think TSA also makes a valid point about long term consequences and dead owners, if you're willing to argue the that people who would inspect for these kinds of things can just be thrown off the property, though I'm not sure you would argue that point.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

I'll assume that aside from AllPurposeAtheist, this thread exists because people are genuinely curious and actually want to know the answer to the question.  The one who isn't included in that group can take a vacation because I'm going to treat this thread as if it is serious.

The key to libertarian environmentalism or free market environmentalism (it goes by both names) is that you won't allow someone else to pollute your property.  People can pollute their own property, but should ensure that none of the pollution spreads onto your property.  At this point everyone says "but the second law of thermodynamics" as if that is a flaw in the proposal instead of being the key to the proposal.

It is the key because they can't stop it from spreading, so therefore can't pollute their own property either.  If their pollution spreads to your property that is an infringement on you and is actionable.

Noted, and I appreciate your input, but what of my buried toxic waste example? Once again, such a thing would be hard to find out without either whistleblowers or inspections. Assuming there are no whistleblowers, and no inspections due to lax regulations, how is that suppose to be addressed when it only becomes apparent long after the original owner has left/died? Does the one who inherits the property have to deal with the civil fallout, even though he/she had no knowledge of the burial? Toxic waste burial can cause extreme problems over a long period of time, if you need an example just look up Love Canal. At the end, someone has to assume responsiblilty, but I would think that inspections would do better on cutting down on such a thing than civil suits after the fact.

[SGOS]

A much better argument to reject the libertarian drivel...
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/why_i_left_libertarianism_an_ethical_critique_of_a_limited_ideology/

This guy said he drifted away from libertarianism and became an anarchist because libertarianism wasn't pure enough (maybe).  I did not following his logic or his meaning very well, however. 

Myself, I like rules.  I like it when you have to get a permit to put in a septic system, and a county official comes out to inspect the project before completion to make sure it's safe.  I also like electrical inspectors that will reject a wiring job that is substandard.  I like the idea of covenants on housing developments that allow home owners to enforce the standards set forth for that development.  I like it when government officials inspect the meat I buy at the store.

Unfortunately, corruption and ideological thinking circumvent our rules, or new rules are created that provide for favoritism in our current system because men are greedy and self serving, but to create such a system intentionally doesn't appeal to me.  I don't trust my fellow man to act in society's best interests.  In fact, that mistrust is somewhat universal, which is why societies have invented government in the first place.

[PopeyesPappy]

I have to admit I've always seen environmental issues as being tough for libertarians, so I have a bit to add. First, wouldn't simply making a law forbidding the dumping of toxic waste be more economical than forcing people to bring about individual lawsuits? What if the entity doing the dumping was a wealthy business that could financially ram their neighbors into the ground? When you take into account the difficulty of putting a precise price tag on such things, as ecology isn't really an exact science, doesn't that sound like it could put regular people at an enormous disadvantage against a wealthy corporation? I think TSA also makes a valid point about long term consequences and dead owners, if you're willing to argue the that people who would inspect for these kinds of things can just be thrown off the property, though I'm not sure you would argue that point.

One of my big problems with the libertarian view on property rights is property owners can do so much more damage to the environment than they could ever possibly compensate others for. In such a case what good does it do to bring a civil suit if the damages are a hundred or a million times the total worth of the offender?

[Brian37]

I am not curious at all. "Libertarianism" is a wolf in sheeps clothing. "Hey guys, fuck you you want, marry whom you want, smoke pot and make it legal, just ignore that we have the same "fuck you I got mine" "all taxes are robbry" policy the right wing supports.

Libertarians are simply gas on the fire. We tried "trickle down" for 30 years and we've lost jobs and wages have not kept up with the cost of living.

The myth is that business owners are the "job creators". The reality is and even BILLIONAIRE NICK HANOUR knows this, that the working class are the job creators. He has said that no business owner, and I agree, is going to hire one more person than they have to hire, only demand forces them to do that. The more people that come through the door and buy stuff is the only thing that creates that demand. The bulk of the buying public is not the business owner or the 1%. The bulk of the buying public is the working class and working poor. Nick has said "MORE MONEY IN WORKERS POCKETS IS A WIN WIN, FOR BOTH THE WORKER AND THE BUSINESS OWNER".

SO FUCK LIBERTARIANS, I am not distracted by social issues.

[Berati]

In economics, pollution is an externality whose cost affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost. This cost therefore has to be accounted for outside of the normal market forces (hence the term externality).

In this case, regulations are not an interruption of the free market process. They attempt to address a market failure.

This topic has already come up so I just quoted myself.
Libertarianism is childishly naive and the market fundamentalist concept of spontaneous order is a proven failure. However, libertarians don't let empirical evidence get in the way of such a perfect ideology. Check out reason four in the video below and ask yourself if you've come across any libertarians like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJwN-EwBOgM

[the_antithesis]

I'll assume that aside from AllPurposeAtheist, this thread exists because people are genuinely curious and actually want to know the answer to the question.  The one who isn't included in that group can take a vacation because I'm going to treat this thread as if it is serious.

The key to libertarian environmentalism or free market environmentalism (it goes by both names) is that you won't allow someone else to pollute your property.  People can pollute their own property, but should ensure that none of the pollution spreads onto your property.  At this point everyone says "but the second law of thermodynamics" as if that is a flaw in the proposal instead of being the key to the proposal.

It is the key because they can't stop it from spreading, so therefore can't pollute their own property either.  If their pollution spreads to your property that is an infringement on you and is actionable.

So there is nothing different about free market environmentalism. It's just a halfway-around-your-asshole-to-wind-your-watch way of justifying the regulations that are already in place or proposed by non-libertarians.