What is the Libertarian Solution to Pollution?

Libertarians and conservatives alike often get slammed for a supposed harsh view toward the environment. This mostly comes from the progressives and the environmentalists, but is their claim completely without merit? In the modern cultural millieu, it certainly has a sound basis. After all, who are the people who are always defending the environment at every turn? Without hesitation, most people would say that it is progressives. However, this argument is much more complex than it is usually portrayed, especially when it comes to the issue of environmentalism in libertarianism.

Conservatives are usually portrayed as haters of the environment by the progressive-minded. Although environmentalists are obviously the more staunch defenders of the environment, by the very nature of their name, this does not mean that the portrayal is correct. Conservatives typically look at the issue from the point of view of trying to maximize efficiency. Of course, there are some that think that environmental rules have gone too far, and they probably are not in the minority. However, the biggest qualm that conservatives typically have with regard to environmental laws is their very bloated nature. They claim that it is very difficult for businesses to stay in line with these regulations because of all the bureaucratic red tape involved. They have a case, but this does not mean that they hate the environment. All of the big conservative political pundits say that we need some kind of environmental rules; their problem is with the bureaucracy and that in some cases it goes too far.

However, as compared to libertarians, both progressives and conservatives get it wrong. The real problem that these two sides have with regards to this issue is that they believe that a certain amount of pollution is morally acceptable as long as the benefits outweigh the costs. To a libertarian, this is a repugnant view. What this does, in essence, is ignores the property rights of the individual in order to defend the presumed rights of the collective. I could write a book about why the collective does not exist outside the mind of individuals, but this is not necessary here. The fact is that because pollution is deemed acceptable despite the harm it causes to individuals, there is no way to put a price on pollution.

So what would libertarians do instead? I will defer to Murray Rothbard here and describe his views on the situation. In For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard described how the rights of the individuals are severely restricted when it comes to pollution. Factories and other businesses are allowed to do as they will despite the harm the cause to neighbors. For instance, if I live in a neighborhood right next door to a factory and the pollution from that factory gives the town lung problems, the neighborhood is basically powerless to do anything. As long as the factory is within its bounds of acceptable pollution (arbitrarily decided by the government bureaucracy), then they are free and clear in the eyes of the law. This was not a system that grew organically through time like much of our common law; this was an invention of European governments (mostly British) during the Industrial Revolution. The neighborhood has no way to file a class action lawsuit; the business is basically free and clear. Of course, some would say that the people could simply leave and move somewhere else, but this ignores basic property rights. If I, as an individual, was to go to a house and spray paint graffitti all over it, I would have to pay dearly for it. Clearly, the current situation is detestable to libertarians.

Then what is the right solution? For the libertarian, the best situation is the one that does not involve any government. People living on their property would decide what a company would have to pay for the pollution that is going to be produced beforehand. If a company went beyond this, then they would be taken to court by nearby property owners. So imagine a neighborhood and a business that wants to build a factory right next to it. The business would have to contract with the neighbors in order to set a rate of compensation for the pollution that is caused. The benefits of this would be two-fold. First, property owners would finally get compensated for the real physical harm that is caused by pollution. Second, businesses would have more of an incentive to take the pollution where it would do the least harm. This is because businesses would want to minimize the cost of doing business and so paying the lowest rate possible for pollution is in their best interest. As a result, people would be fairly compensated and we would end up with cleaner cities.

But alas, this seems to be nothing more than a pipedream. Businesses would not want to trade the current situation for the one detailed because they would have to pay more to produce. Because of this, they would lobby hard to keep things the way they are. It is clear that the situation I describe would be much more equitable, but the powers that be have it in their best interest to avoid it. After all, whoever gets to decide how much pollution a company can emit has all the power in the world. Much like the baby who cries when his rattle is taken away, our government is dead set against giving up any of the power that it has gained, legally or illegally.

U.S. urges U.N. to take military action against Libya

In the Los Angeles Times today, a story was printed about the United States urging the United Nations to get involved in the Libyan Civil War.

Full Story Here by Paul Richter

Proposals for a no-fly zone or other military action have faced strong resistance in recent weeks from traditional U.S. allies, such as Germany, as well as Russia and China. But council members have grown increasingly worried about a humanitarian disaster in Benghazi, and now some U.S. officials are privately expressing confidence that they could win the resolution.

I worry about this. Now, I have no qualms about a country delivering humanitarian aid to a war-stricken nation. I also see no problem with a country aiding one side in a war if that war was just (for instance, defending against genocide). However, I worry about the morality of nation-building. How involved will the effort be? Will these international forces simply aid the rebels in defeating this menace, or will they stick around and force democracy on the people who may not want it?

The easiest response would be that we should at least provide a no-fly zone. But even that is not so easy. Enforcing a no-fly zone requires the use of force. What happens if a US plane gets shot down, or we have to shoot down a Libyan aircraft? At that point, then, it is essentially no different than a full-scale war. Creating a no-fly zone is a roll of the dice, but should we take that chance?

Some have argued that we have nothing to gain by invading Libya. I agree that is true, and I am fine with people having reservations about going to war with the country. However, in this case, I also see attacking the country as justified. We would not be doing this in order to personally gain, we would be doing it to help the people who are being slaughtered. It would be a police action. A perfect corollary would be a mugging. If someone witnessed a mugging, would we blame that person for stepping in and stopping the mugger? And would we blame that person for not doing anything about the situation? Besides telling the authorities, what responsibility should that person have? He would risk his life to help the person being mugged. There is no moral necessity to risk our life to save the person. It would be better to help the person, but it is not wrong to get away from the dangerous situation either.

In the end, I just do not trust these police-actions. We lost many soldiers in Korea and Vietnam, and look at what happened anyway. And in the cases where we have gone all the way and tried to nation-build, the process has been wrought with issues. I just do not see a good end to the situation. Invading would be morally justified, but we are not morally impelled to do so.

Toppling a dictator is the easy part, what to do after is where the real problems begin.

Why is the US not Growing as Fast as it has?

A sense of complacency has fallen upon most Americans. The drive to be the best and advance has been replaced with a selfish attitude. People no longer ask what we can do to benefit this world. Rather, many Americans ask why other people have so much and decry it as unfair. Has this thought hurt us? What has this paradigm shift resulted in?

Welfare and social safety nets gained prevalence around the turn of the 20th century. Before that, those social issues were handled voluntarily. Not only that, but the federal government tended to do very little when it came to recessions. The typical response was to decrease the burden of government by decreasing spending and decreasing taxation. In comes Herbert Hoover and that all changes (though much can be said for the influence of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson). He increases government spending to respond to the recession. Eventually, he even institutes public work programs to help the unemployed. Franklin Roosevelt continued the tradition and it ultimately resulted in years of Depression.

Some say that our economy has become more stable because of this control. They even say that spending money on the poor helps our economy. They will point to GDP, but this is a flawed measure because it says that government spending is as efficient as private spending, when obviously it is not. How much did the pyramids cost and how much benefit did it bring to the typical Egyptian? The United States became the leading economic power of the world during the Gilded Age; that is, the late 1800s. This country went from being a third world country to the leader of the free world in an age without government interventions and federal monetary policy. Yet supposedly it is necessary? Where is the evidence?

It was capitalism that brought us the prosperity that we know today. And this was even with relatively open boarders. Coordinated monetary policy apparently was not necessary. Immigration quotas apparently were not necessary. High taxation was not necessary. The FDA and SEC were not necessary. There are many programs and institutions that were not around when the US outgrew the rest of the world; these things are all inventions of the post-prosperity milieu. In a more brutally honest description, these are the demands of the spoiled children who do not realize that it was freedom, not mommy and daddy, who lead this country to be the preeminent superpower that it is.