Libertarianism and the Environment

Started by The Skeletal Atheist, June 20, 2014, 07:43:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SGOS

Quote from: Bibliofagus on July 16, 2014, 03:58:40 AM
The Atol of Kiribati has got 103.000 people. Their islands are disappearing because of global warming.

Do I understand correctly that under this system at least 103.000 x 6 billion (global population, corporate and other legal entities not counted) lawsuits would have to be filed?

Fines are the way laws are currently enforced.  Under libertarianism, there would be no laws (regulations), hence no fines.  Instead, on a case by case basis, the courts would decide if personal harm had been caused.  Yes, that's a lot of court cases, but they will only be filed by those who have the means to seek civil compensation.  Those without the means don't get to participate, because lawyers and judges will not be expected to work for free.  It's a bit unfair to the accused to hold him responsible if he has broken no laws.  He may have caused personal harm, but his defense will always be that it was not his intention to cause harm.  It lacks the clarity provided by laws.

I don't know.  Maybe in an intuitive thought experiment it might seem like an improvement, but my guess is that in the end, it would be replacing one fucked up system with another fucked up system.  Those with means win.  Citizens of Kiribati get fucked, because they are an insignificant minority facing a world of "I've got mine, and I don't care about yours."

Bibliofagus

Quote from: SGOS on July 16, 2014, 05:56:54 AM
Fines are the way laws are currently enforced.  Under libertarianism, there would be no laws (regulations), hence no fines.  Instead, on a case by case basis, the courts would decide if personal harm had been caused.  Yes, that's a lot of court cases, but they will only be filed by those who have the means to seek civil compensation.  Those without the means don't get to participate, because lawyers and judges will not be expected to work for free.

I hear ya. What I'm getting at is that there would not be any lawsuits at all.

1. Proving and quantifying stuff like this is highly complicated in civil lawsuits.  I live near several industrial areas, chemical stuff and oil, as well as manufacturing etc. Let's say we abandon law and they all start emitting more unhealthy stuff. The result for me would be a statistical higher chance of dying early. And until the day I die I can't prove I'm actually one of the people dying early. Furthermore: What's a reasonable compensation for 10 years of life?

For the sake of point 2: Let's say 10 million dollars is suitable.

2. There's 10.000 companies emitting harmfull stuff at me from their private properties. And that's just within a 20 mile radius. To get my 10 million I'd have to sue each and every one of them for their respective portion of said 10 million dollars. That's 1000 dollars a piece, and that's less than it would actually cost to get a lawyer for anything as complicated as this. Not to mention every one of them would oppose at least their share in my damages.

Also: I don't know where Libertarianism proposes to get independent judges to preside over all these lawsuits, or if it is even deemed necessary to have them. But if they are deemed necessary I'm curious about who pays for them.
Quote from: \"the_antithesis\"Faith says, "I believe this and I don\'t care what you say, I cannot possibly be wrong." Faith is an act of pride.

Quote from: \"AllPurposeAtheist\"The moral high ground was dug up and made into a walmart apparently today.

Tornadoes caused: 2, maybe 3.

SGOS

Quote from: Bibliofagus on July 16, 2014, 06:45:29 AM
I hear ya. What I'm getting at is that there would not be any lawsuits at all.
I get it.  I'm not disagreeing.  I was just trying to follow the ideology to one possible outcome.

Bibliofagus

Quote from: SGOS on July 16, 2014, 06:52:51 AM
I get it.  I'm not disagreeing.  I was just trying to follow the ideology to one possible outcome.

I know and me too :) Your response inspired me to go into it in a little more detail.
Quote from: \"the_antithesis\"Faith says, "I believe this and I don\'t care what you say, I cannot possibly be wrong." Faith is an act of pride.

Quote from: \"AllPurposeAtheist\"The moral high ground was dug up and made into a walmart apparently today.

Tornadoes caused: 2, maybe 3.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 16, 2014, 01:37:59 AM
And when a business goes ahead and does something that is prohibited then a fine is levied against the business.  Yes, prohibited is a really nice and scary word, and it really is something that will make people sit up and take notice.
Did you ignore the part that individual plants and companies can be forcibly shut down if they fail to comply? Yes. Yes, you did. Monopoly on the use of force, Jason. The government can roll in and destroy factories outright, arrest offenders, and disincorporate an offending corporation, destroying the legal protections for the individuals making them up. That's the iron fist inside the velvet glove that gives government regulation its punch.

You don't hear about it, because everyone knows that the government can do this given enough provocation, so people back down long before it comes to this, but that's the background threat.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 16, 2014, 01:37:59 AM
So far all I've done is establish equality between the two systems.  On the one hand, if pollution occurs a fine is paid.  On the other hand, if pollution occurs restitution is paid.  On the one hand the threat of paying a fine is enough to change behavior.  On the other hand the threat of paying restitution is enough to change behavior.  Unless you're Berati and think that businesses will shrink in horror from fines and not care about court settlements at all, which makes no sense, I've pretty much laid out an equivalency.

Now here's where restitution works better.  Fines are paid to the government, which may or may not clean up the mess.  Restitution is paid to the people whose property is damaged.
And health. Which is much more difficult to asses, and harder to repair with money.

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 16, 2014, 01:37:59 AM
So now it comes down to a very simple choice - which is more important, the people or the government?  Who deserves the money more, the people or the government?  Who was actually hurt, the people or the government?  Berati would have us remember to tithe to the holy government, but I believe in the people.
And paying resitution suddenly makes everything hunky dory, does it? Oh, wait, no it doesn't. The pollution is still there. The damage to the people is still done. Also, it's not just one polluter â€" for any given pollutant, there are dozens, hundreds, and even tens of thousands of individual polluters. The individual liability for each polluter is limited, and hard to prove that they are liable for your particular damage, but the culmative effect is very real.

Also, here's why I don't believe that restitution can ever solve this issue: it has not in the past. You are able to sue companies now for any putative reason, including pollution of your own property and damage to your own health because of said pollution. So, Jason, if suing for damages is so superior to traditional regulation, why hasn't this occured yet to put a stop to the problem of pollution? Which pollutant has been stopped in this manner?

Asking 'who deserves it better' and saying 'I believe in the people' is worthless if the approach doesn't work. It's just talk.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Hijiri Byakuren

Sounds like someone went full libertarian. Never go full libertarian. That's like going full liberal or full conservative or full any-other-political-ideology. All that lies down that route is sadness and stupidity.

Everything in moderation, yo.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

The Skeletal Atheist

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 16, 2014, 12:51:04 AM
Some would argue that the TNG Federation is communist, not socialist.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html
I would argue that because Star Trek happens in a post scarcity society it doesn't really matter what economy they have. When you can poof food into existence, the price of everything is low.

Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on July 16, 2014, 12:07:12 PM
I would argue that because Star Trek happens in a post scarcity society it doesn't really matter what economy they have. When you can poof food into existence, the price of everything is low.
Most of that essay has to do with transportation and communication.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Berati

Quote from: aitm on July 15, 2014, 08:15:06 PM
*Mod* My apologies, I don't often follow these and i stupidly responded to a post a page back, so I will do so now. Berati, if you can't discuss this civilly then go to the fucking outhouse and shit there- aitm

You better explain yourself.
I behave with more civility than I'm shown, and your post here is totally lacking in civility.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Berati

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 15, 2014, 12:10:25 PM
A few questions about your "example":
Who owns the roads that this individual is driving on?
Does the owner get to set the rules for the usage of said roads?
Since it's my example, the roads are owned by me and as a good libertarian I have no rules. I will let the enforcement of property rights be my only guide.
Oh... except for gays. I don't want any gays driving on my roads. Or swimming in my lakes. (Since it's still my example, I own the lakes as well)

Quote
One might guess that you actually don't know anything about the subject you are criticizing.

Really? The best you can come up with is the tried a true theist argument that "You just don't understand my catechism?"

There is no doubt that libertarianism works perfectly fine in your imagination. It's the real world we are trying to look at and since libertarianism does not actually exist anywhere in the real world, these examples will have to suffice.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."