Daily Anarchist Forum

Questions And Challenges => Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism => Topic started by: bsg1206 on December 08, 2012, 12:28:20 PM



Title: Air pollution
Post by: bsg1206 on December 08, 2012, 12:28:20 PM
How do we handle major air pollution like LA's air before environmental restrictions were put in place? You can't pin all the pollution on one person, so it would be impossible to settle this in a court.


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: Seth King on December 08, 2012, 03:22:24 PM
I think ultimately you would go after each individual who pollutes. So, let's say you're driving a polluting car on a private road, and that private road has thousands of polluting cars. There would be action taken against the road owner for engaging in industry which pollutes others. This would likely incentivize the owner of the road to only allow cars that don't pollute to drive on his roads(electric?). Then the plants that produce the power for electric cars would be the polluters. Then you go after them for polluting, so they have an incentive not to pollute(scrubbers?) Basically, smoke stacks that emit pollutants are really just taking their solid waste pollutants and putting them into the air, which is highly unlibertarian. They would be forced to keep the solid waste themselves, or sell it to another landowner who would take care of it for them.

But ultimately, the way I see it, nobody has a right to pollute because that's a violation of property rights of others. So, when we like to get judgmental of others who violate the rights of others, the fact remains, if we drive cars, we're violating the NAP.


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on December 08, 2012, 03:45:57 PM
 Rothbard made an interesting assessment about air pollution in FNL. He outlined the fact that it was the government that implemented restrictions on how many times an individual (or group of individuals) can sue a company over pollution that violates their property. Prior to those restrictions, a company was constantly at risk for lawsuits if they continued to contaminate the property of the individuals around them. They had to move their factory to an area that would keep them safe from lawsuits over the violations of private property rights.


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: bsg1206 on December 08, 2012, 05:23:14 PM
I think ultimately you would go after each individual who pollutes. So, let's say you're driving a polluting car on a private road, and that private road has thousands of polluting cars. There would be action taken against the road owner for engaging in industry which pollutes others. This would likely incentivize the owner of the road to only allow cars that don't pollute to drive on his roads(electric?). Then the plants that produce the power for electric cars would be the polluters. Then you go after them for polluting, so they have an incentive not to pollute(scrubbers?) Basically, smoke stacks that emit pollutants are really just taking their solid waste pollutants and putting them into the air, which is highly unlibertarian. They would be forced to keep the solid waste themselves, or sell it to another landowner who would take care of it for them.

But ultimately, the way I see it, nobody has a right to pollute because that's a violation of property rights of others. So, when we like to get judgmental of others who violate the rights of others, the fact remains, if we drive cars, we're violating the NAP.

That's a really good assessment. I never considered going after the road owners.


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: oooorgle on December 09, 2012, 01:16:05 PM
Regulation makes LA air clean? lol! Regulation has replaced disdain and ostracization for most people. So when you say "How do we handle" are you really saying "There ought to be a law"?


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: BobRobertson on December 10, 2012, 10:08:19 AM
Pollution is trespassing. Prove my wastes penetrated your space, and receive restitution.

As technology changes, so will the methods and ways in which such things are discovered and dealt with.

Next question?


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: MAM on December 10, 2012, 10:12:01 AM
Not even sure I care...


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: bsg1206 on December 10, 2012, 02:00:22 PM
Regulation makes LA air clean? lol! Regulation has replaced disdain and ostracization for most people. So when you say "How do we handle" are you really saying "There ought to be a law"?

Mandatory catalytic converters have made the air cleaner. It's not good, that's for sure, but measurably better than it was. I just used LA as an example, but there have been a lot of other instances of environmental/air pollution that have been at least improved by regulations. When I say "how can we handle..." I mean "how can we handle..." It's a question because I'd like to hear suggestions for how free people can solve problems, undoubtedly more completely and at less cost and burden to those involved. Don't jump to attacking people.

Pollution is trespassing. Prove my wastes penetrated your space, and receive restitution.

As technology changes, so will the methods and ways in which such things are discovered and dealt with.

Next question?

I don't think it's that simple. If pollution in the air is making you sick, it probably comes from the millions of cars on the road. It would be impossible to single out any one vehicle as the origin of the molecules of exhaust that you breathed in, so you couldn't just seek restitution. A polluting factory is easy, I'll give you that.


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: State-God on December 10, 2012, 02:53:14 PM
You don't necessarily have to chase down all those car owners...you could just sue the guy who let them drive on his road. Or the car manufacturer for producing a car that emits toxic chemicals. Or etc etc. There's ways it can be accomplished.


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: BobRobertson on December 11, 2012, 09:57:55 AM
You don't necessarily have to chase down all those car owners...you could just sue the guy who let them drive on his road. Or the car manufacturer for producing a car that emits toxic chemicals. Or etc etc. There's ways it can be accomplished.

Or the social standard of the day will tolerate a low-level of pollution because everyone is doing it.

As technology changes, as for instance catalytic converters became available and affordable, someone who chooses not to use one may expose people to a risk, and face prosecution for that.

None of this happens in a vacuum, we live in a society with standards of conduct.


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: Seth King on December 11, 2012, 12:52:16 PM
No, There's no reason why they can't build cars that emit zero pollutants. It's just that the car companies have no incentive to build a car that requires owners to dispose of the waste themselves when they have license to pollute.


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: BobRobertson on December 11, 2012, 02:16:58 PM
No, There's no reason why they can't build cars that emit zero pollutants.

Well, the technology must exist in order to do it.

Electric cars now use toxic batteries. Even perfect hydrocarbon combustion will produce CO2, which some believe to be a pollutant. The least polluting power source of all, nuclear, is twisted by government to create huge waste problems where it need not exist, but people are afraid of nuclear to the point of cutting their own proverbial throats.

For example, the world's largest container ship. Why isn't it using a small (submarine sized) reactor? Why burn petroleum at all?


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: MAM on December 11, 2012, 03:02:11 PM
No, There's no reason why they can't build cars that emit zero pollutants.

Well, the technology must exist in order to do it.

Electric cars now use toxic batteries. Even perfect hydrocarbon combustion will produce CO2, which some believe to be a pollutant. The least polluting power source of all, nuclear, is twisted by government to create huge waste problems where it need not exist, but people are afraid of nuclear to the point of cutting their own proverbial throats.

For example, the world's largest container ship. Why isn't it using a small (submarine sized) reactor? Why burn petroleum at all?

Because not enough people have the balls to defy the gubberment.


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: Seth King on December 11, 2012, 03:12:58 PM
No, There's no reason why they can't build cars that emit zero pollutants.

Well, the technology must exist in order to do it.

Electric cars now use toxic batteries. Even perfect hydrocarbon combustion will produce CO2, which some believe to be a pollutant. The least polluting power source of all, nuclear, is twisted by government to create huge waste problems where it need not exist, but people are afraid of nuclear to the point of cutting their own proverbial throats.

For example, the world's largest container ship. Why isn't it using a small (submarine sized) reactor? Why burn petroleum at all?

The technology does exist, just don't release air pollutants, but instead carry the solid waste around in your car and dispose of it properly. Toxic batteries, for example, don't pollute the air. You have to dispose of them properly, i.e. pay somebody to take your toxic battery and dispose of it properly.


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: Syock on December 14, 2012, 10:32:15 AM
Mandatory catalytic converters have made the air cleaner.

They are not mandatory anywhere else, and the air is cleaner everywhere.  Other places did it through other advances in engine technology, which had the side effect of better fuel efficiency and horse power.  


The technology does exist, just don't release air pollutants, but instead carry the solid waste around in your car and dispose of it properly. Toxic batteries, for example, don't pollute the air. You have to dispose of them properly, i.e. pay somebody to take your toxic battery and dispose of it properly.

That is essentially what power plants do.  Before coal power plants started to clean their exhaust, they would cover cities in soot and release a large variety of pollutants.  As Seth says, the tech does exist, and it is not new tech.  


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: Agrarian_Agorist on December 23, 2012, 05:34:38 PM
Mandatory catalytic converters have made the air cleaner.

This is a false statement.

Catalytic converters cut gas mileage in half: meaning that the same car from the late 1960's now had to use twice as much gas to go the same distance.  While it is true that the catalytic converter does trap some pollutants, the total amount of pollution made by any single vehicle doubled with the implementation of the catalytic converter; this was nothing but a subsidy for the gas and oil companies of the time.  If the government really was interested in lowering overall pollution then it would have mandated either mechanical or electronic fuel injection systems in all cars; this would have doubled gas mileage, at least, as was the case when Chevrolet did this in the 1950's as an option for the Cadillac.

Carburated engines pour gas into both the cylinder which is firing and also the cylinder which isn't firing; by using a mechanical fuel injection system it eliminates that gas from going into the cylinder which isn't firing, thereby doubling the gas mileage of the car.  Electronic fuel injection goes one step further, by limiting the amount of gas which goes into the cylinder which is firing on condition of the pressing of the throttle; therefore increasing gas efficiency even greater than the mechanical fuel injection system.  Either option however, would have increased fuel efficiency and therefore decreased pollution by a minimum of half; this would have been a far greater achievement than the use of a catalytic converter, which decreased fuel efficiency by half.

Today there are some cars which have four or more catalytic converters on them; they each decrease the fuel efficiency of the vehicle and therefore increase the amount of gas consumed to travel the same distance.  Since the catalytic converters don't eliminate all pollutants, this method increases the pollutant output of the vehicle multiple times greater then the vehicle would emit without all of those catalytic converters connected to it travelling the same distance.


Title: Re: Air pollution
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on December 27, 2012, 02:00:15 AM
If people didn't have godzilla sized leeches hanging off them, their standards of living would improve to the point that it would be worth expending the effort to figure out how to solve the environmental issues.