Source
r/Libertarian•
Amicus22

Honest question from the uninitiated: Why don't Libertarians support environmental regulation?

I generally think of the Libertarians as the most financially sophisticated of all the political parties. I get confused, however, when I frequently see opposition to environmental regulation.

I understand the viewpoint that government should be kept as small as possible, but environmental regulation seems like an ideal role for the government from a fiscally responsible standpoint (i.e. environmental regulation saves the US money).

A simple example: a factory has no environmental regulations, adds $100k in value to the economy. As part of it's business practice it dumps waste into the bay, killing off the fish and ruining a fishing industry that adds $300k to the economy. As long as enforcement of the regulation is less than the value added of having the regulation then this seems the smartest way to go.

But there's also the ethical perspective: does the government have the right to tell a factory how to run its business? I would say no, so long as the factory was not harming anyone else by its actions. But pollution is harming other people, lots of them. The factory makes a profit off of the harming of other people through pollution, and so that cost should be shifted back to factory in the interest of fairness. Usually we would tell people to sue, but this is often not a practical solution due to difficulties in proving causation, the awareness of the victims that they've been harmed, and the wide dispersion of the victims.

It seems to me the government is acting responsibly in protecting its citizens from harm, I'm not sure why the polluters deserve any sympathy or special privileges.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

Posted May 27, 2011, 6:05 PM UTC

1468
strapt313Authority is a myth•

Since the US government is one of the biggest polluters in the world, I tend to not take them seriously when they want to "protect" the environment.

11
Manhattan0532•

Yes in theory environmental protection is a desirable function of government, however we libertarians are hipsters and thus have to nitpick about everything. While we don't object to the moral justification for environmental protection we often disagree with the specifics. Politicians often don't end at: "Thou shalt not pollute." but rather they continue right onto and past "Thou shalt not do this to minimize energy consumption: 'insert 10 000 pages of rules'".

In many cases libertarians will doubt the basic necessity of any law to regulate a problem, but in this case libertarians acknowledge the necessity of a law only to then demand there be as few as possible, setting of a kind of subdebate.

8
hopefullydepressed•

In short, private property rights. You can't pollute my water, land or air of my property. The problem with this is one person could stop an entire railroad by saying no and it was getting in the way of progress so they limited private property rights. When environmental hell broke out they didn't give the power back to PP, they gave it to government that became like the mafia deciding who got to violate PP, and who didn't even get to enjoy it. The decisions are made by money. So basically it favors the rich and connected.

5
[deleted]•

As a non-anarchist libertarian I believe these are desirable roles of the government.

5
[deleted]•

Problem is, it will be abused just like 'interstate commerce'. They'll find some rationale for why something has some relation to the environment, and end up controlling everything with the environment clause, similar to the commerce clause now.

Basically, vague powers cannot be granted.

5
reapfreak•

Libertarians are very much in support of private property protection. Government routinely grants businesses the legal right to pollute, the government has clearly presented itself as an oppoent to pollution control. One of the many reasons I'm an austro-libertarian anarcho-capitalist, private legal agencies have every incentive to protect private property.

Pollution is only a private property issue. It is up to the property owner (or owners) to sue the factory owner for compensation. Pollution could be a positive externality, the factory owner may be compensating the owner, the polluter may have homesteaded the pollution rights, etc., so a flat government regulation is bad.

Something like global warming, where the plaintiff and victims are unknown and the degree of harm per individual is unknown, cannot be handled. It's best handled by technological innovation.

3
Terr_•

Pollution is only a private property issue.

No, it's a wider issue. If I'm walking along a third-party road, and someone attacks and breaks my arm, it is not "harm to property", but assault.

Ditto if that person walked by every few minutes spraying poison as I inhaled.

1
reapfreak•

Your body is your property. It's still a property issue.

3
Amicus22OP•

What about a tort based on intentional infliction of emotional distress: is your peaceful state of mind a property right?

1
Amicus22OP•

cannot be handled

I agree with you that tech innovation is probably going to save our asses from global warming a lot better than any politician, but the idea that we can't solve what ultimately comes down to as a political problem seems ridiculous (though practically speaking, it doesn't mean you're wrong, it's just upsetting to admit).

What if it was determined with 100% certainty that it would make the earth uninhabitable in 250 years? Would we just say: 'That's too bad, I wish there was something we could do about it, but the problem is simply too hard for us to figure out'?

1
reapfreak•

If there were an assured worldwide disaster on the horizon, the last thing I would do is let the government handle anything.

I remember in my high school poli sci class years ago, the teacher asked how far I would take my libertarianism (i was the token libertarian at my school). He asked about the scenario of a comet about to strike and kill everyone on the Earth, surely then I'd concede to the government. My reply is the same as todays, the very last people I would ever trust with such an important mission is the government.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

3
Amicus22OP•

But what about the classic 'tragedy of the commons', problem?

1
[deleted]•

The tragedy of the commons says that the two potential solutions are a regulator, or private property.

Private property is probably more efficient because people look out for their own property at their own expense, whereas if you have hundreds of thousands of acres of "managed land", the government would have to pay a considerable amount to get the same kind of management that they'd otherwise get for free.

The end result is government doesn't spend the amount of money required and then poaching, logging, human trafficking, murder, kidnapping, dumping corpses, disposal of toxic waste and other illegal activity goes on mostly on public land - on top of that prices go up due to artificial restrictions on ownership and the poor are priced out of ownership because the aristocracy owns the king's woods.

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Amicus22OP•

But what about those that cannot afford the dues that would be charged for access to the private park? Public parks, playgrounds, etc., at least in cities, often give a space for the poor to enjoy nature, basketball, swings, etc.

It's commonly put forward that welfare for the poor will be supplied gratuitously in a libertarian regime. And while I find the arguments for people's self interest to govern their actions, arguments that rely on someone's altruism to govern their actions seem less reliable.

1
Xdes•

Green Libertarian.

3
Amicus22OP•

Thank you, I had not heard of the term before.

1
FourIVancap•

Any amount of regulation is an attack on liberty. Just having a government exist is anti-libertarian

2
RufusROFLpunchvoluntaryist•

Not really sure why you're being downvoted here of all places.

2
LibertyShoe•

Its them damn commies! Quick, bring in McCarthy!

1
Choppa790•

That's actually not true. The government would exist but it would be limited to the guidelines and amendments added to the constitution.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
argoffAnCap•

a factory has no environmental regulations, adds $100k in value to the economy. As part of it's business practice it dumps waste into the bay, killing off the fish and ruining a fishing industry that adds $300k to the economy. As long as enforcement of the regulation is less than the value added of having the regulation then this seems the smartest way to go.

That example is a great argument for why the bay, the fishing rights, and the water rights should be private property, but not a good one for regulation.

2
FisherOfMen•

And since it's not said anywhere on this thread, this is how it works right now:

  1. A CEO hires a lobbyist.
  2. The lobbyist calls up a congressman and explains that his industry is absolutely critical to the functions of something or other, and especially critical to the congressman's financial situation.
  3. The congressman explains to the nation that famine, racism, sexism, war, and sugared soda will erupt if this company does not produce its critical goods. Laws are made, speeches are given, loopholes are loosed.
  4. All property owners downstream or downwind from the critical industry are told to suck it up, as gas and toxins are legally smeared all over their homes and farmland. It's good to be a critical industry in worker's paradise, not so good to be a land owner.

So, when we talk about improving, or whether the libertarian system is 100% just, we must remember that this is the alternative.

2
rossryan•

It's very hard to explain, on the basis that you are looking for a desired effect from one system in another. It's like trying to understand Japanese politics when you've only been following American politics.

The desired effect in Green: "Government, businesses, and individuals may not run roughshod over the common earth resources (water, air, land, etc.) that we as the human species share by polluting any of the above, nor may they destroy various non-human species and their habitats; instead, they should strive to minimize their impact on the environment in many ways, including but not limited to using only the necessary resources and energy to perform their activities, seeding various plants to offset carbon usage and promote a greener earth, avoiding potentially troublesome chemicals or elements that if mishandled may induce pollution, and only having a few children to replace yourself and your spouse."

Loosely translated into libertarian (which isn't pretty, but would cause the same effect): "Individuals may not harm their fellow man. Harm defined here is in reference to an individual's action, not his inaction. If a man pollutes his own water, air, or land, so be it; but if an ounce of this man's poison should find its way onto his neighbor's land, he is required to make reparations to his neighbor's satisfaction. Secondly, the wise use of one's capital allows for personal wealth to grow, so when one mixes his labor with that of nature's, he should provide some focus to the efficiency of the resources used in its design, and not use 2 gallons of paint where 1 might do. Additionally, a man is not responsible for another man's children; therefore, if a man wishes to have many children, he should procure the resources necessary to adequately raise them and care for their general well-being before engaging in what is otherwise a foolhardy endeavor. Lastly, property values in the desert tend to be somewhat less than that of a fully-wooded area, so engaging in some careful planting may yield dividends."

That is a very loose translation from one system to the other, and should provide the same, or a very similar effect (if used properly). There's more to both in a better translation, but you should be able to get the gist of it here. I only worry that since it's been a while since I last spoke Green, I may be resorting more to the common caricature of Green values than what the Green ideology promotes.

2
LibertyShoe•

Not to mention the huge amount of services that nature does for us. Something as simple as bees pollinating adds massive amount of value to the economy, if this is threatened, say bees become extinct in a region, then the people who rely on them to pollinate will contract a firm to bring up the bee population.

1
rossryan•

Indeed. But were I profiting from a bee's work, I'd probably spend my time trying to find out why they are are going extinct in that region. If they are providing for my livelihood, I have a vested interest in keeping them safe and well.

We've heard a lot of different hypotheses, from electromagnetic radiation coming off of power lines and wireless networks, to pesticides, to fungal infections, to global warming, to parasites, to habitat destruction, to african honeybee queens assassinating european honeybee queens, etc.

Lots of glad-handling, yelling, and screaming; but it has all amounted to nothing. We still do not know what exactly is causing the hive collapses.

Perhaps the simplest method for finding out what is causing the collapses is to gather up the dead bees, look at them under the microscope, gene sequence them to make sure it's not some evil chromosomal defect, and then compare the chemicals in their bodies and their quantities against the known good values. If anything is amiss, we have a candidate. If it keeps appearing in a plethora of the dead hives, we may have a winner.

1
howardRoark36•

vid on regulation

1
FloorPlanvoluntaryist•

The government can make the case for regulating pollution domestically when they stop demolishing the environments of brown people half a world away.

1
[deleted]•

If pollution imposes a cost on property owners, it should be handled as a tort.

If pollution imposes a cost on "society", then polluters should be taxed at a flat rate exactly in proportion to the cost they impose.

Notice how in neither case is a regulation appropriate?

1
Terr_•

taxed at a flat rate exactly in proportion to the cost they impose [...] Notice how in neither case is a regulation appropriate?

Uhm... I'm pretty sure when most people hear "tax based on pollution emitted" they would have no problem terming that a form of regulation against polluters.

I think your definition of "regulation" might be far narrower/more-technical than the colloquial use.

3
LibertyShoe•

If pollution imposes a cost on society it is just imposing a cost on a huge amount of individuals, suing them is even more effective in this case.

2
Terr_•

I think it depends on the details of how the pollution can be measured, tracked, blame assigned, etc.

I mean, solid nuclear waste is a really good example for direct lawsuits, because its source and movement is relatively easy to determine and it doesn't come up very often.

By comparison, low-level or widespread airborne stuff would be on the harder end.

1
[deleted]•

You second statement calls for government science spending which goes against the r/Libertarian science is bad mantra.

-7
Vitruvian•

Because the state has no authority.

1
Strangering•

Regulation is produced by property owners by excluding specific actions. For example, I don't allow smoking in my home because it leaves pollution that I and my guest have to live with over the long term.

Government regulation is an invasion of property. Either it forces us to exclude actions that we desire on our property, or it protects undesirable actions by forcing public property on us that cannot produce proper regulation.

1
SonOfDadOfSam•

Usually we would tell people to sue, but this is often not a practical solution due to difficulties in proving causation, the awareness of the victims that they've been harmed, and the wide dispersion of the victims.

If you can't prove causation or harm, how do you determine what and how to regulate?

1
Amicus22OP•

So you have 8 factories pumping arsenic into the drinking water. Plaintiff gets arsenic person. Plaintiff's case is thrown out of court because he can't prove which company should compensate him for his harm. It doesn't work like that today because of tort regulation, but that's how it would work under a strict tort theory.

And it's not that a victim can't prove harm, it's that the victim might not know there is arsenic in the drinking supply. They get cancer and they think it's bad luck.

Admittedly, environmental regulation is difficult to impliment.

1
SonOfDadOfSam•

That doesn't make any sense. If he can prove that any or all of the factories are poisoning the water supply, he has sufficient proof to get compensation from any and all of them.

And, by the way, if the water that the factories are dumping arsenic into was privately owned, then the factory owners would have to get permission before dumping anything into it, and the water owner would have a direct financial interest in ensuring that they are only dumping harmless chemicals into his water.

1
Amicus22OP•

That doesn't make any sense.

I agree that it's stupid, but causation works that way under tort law. You would need to prove that a factory polluted the water and that particular factory's pollution caused you to be ill.

I agree, if there were no community property this would not be a problem. Of course, if a person has a monopoly on the only water in an area then privatization doesn't work so well.

1
Choppa790•

Here is the problem with environmental regulation. The people advocating for regulation are normally from the left, and the main advocates are a "all or nothing" type of crowd. If there was a bill with stringent regulations the administration would be seen as strangling businesses and killing jobs. If the administration becomes more lenient then the advocates get mad and call them sell-outs. What happens if that they end up passing a bill that doesn't protect the environment or the businesses. Businesses will have to buy licenses to pollute, and the government will TOLERATE such pollution, making the whole point of the bill worthless.

What should really happen is have private citizens, advocates, and lawyers claim that company so and so is violating my property rights by polluting the area around my neighborhood. That their waste disposal facility is actually hampering the potable water, etc. IF there were no regulations, then the cases would win on their own merits. If there is regulation that says "companies may expel gases at .5 PPM (randomly making up numbers) but it turns out anything higher than .2ppm is harmful to someone's health, they can actually claim in court that they are obeying the law and nothing else.

1
[deleted]•

Perhaps it is easy to see the local power station polluting the air, but thats on a micro level. What about macro environmental issues like climate change?

1
Choppa790•

Macro climate change is when you put all of the air pollution together. If you had 3-4 lawsuits that stated precedent that companies are liable for air pollution, then you'd see companies cutting down on pollution, and as all companies (in america at least) cut down on pollution, you'd then see a slight drop off on pollution. A lot of the pollution nowadays is from developing nations.

1
[deleted]•

But many factors contributing to climate change are not necessarily visible, or do not have an immediate/direct effect on the local area.

1
Choppa790•

What factors would those be? I don't want to base my response in bad assumptions.

1
LibertyShoe•

In a libertarian society the factories owners will not be protected from lawsuit by the government and those in the fishing industry will sue his ass. Not only that but legal firms will actively look for this kind of behavior (dumping externalities on others) so if they see firm X poisoning a river that effect farmer bob and co. they will try and organize class action lawsuits because if they succeed, they will be in a position to make a lot of money.

1
JimMarch•

We know full well that corporations are capable of massive evil, and the pattern now is, the bigger the company the worse they are. Environmental problems are just one aspect of the evil they can do.

That evil needs to be brought under strict controls. We know that.

The question is "how?"

Regulations are a poor answer because inevitably, the regulatory process gets subverted by the cash the companies dish out. They buy the lobbyists, the congressmen and the bureacrats alike. We're now at a point where the companies WANT "regulations" (that they themselves control).

Why would they want regulations, piss-poor or not?

As a barrier to the limitations that they REALLY fear: local courts, local juries.

See, the megacorps have always had various dodges to stay out of court, or keep their assets from being accessible as judgements.

  1. In the 19th century the railroads got a series of laws passed that blocked them from being sued - at all. These laws were defended before the Civil War by the best attorney the railroads had: a tall skinny gent by the name of Abe Lincoln. (I'm not kidding, look it up.)

  2. Going even further back, they came up with the idea of the "Limited Liability Corporation", which meant that investors risked their capitol in a business in terms of what they paid in, but no more. Example: you own 10% of a business worth a billion dollars. It does $2bil in damages. The company gets liquidated and pays half. You as an investor are out the 10% of a billion you had in, but you are NOT at risk for 10% of the unpaid damages. Well that limits your risk as an investor. So you have less reason to care about the ethics of the managers you as an investor hire with your voting share. In fact, you tend to gain by hiring raging psychopaths who "maximize stockholder value" at the expense of all kinds of things, environmental issues among them. If the "limited liability" concept didn't exist, you as a voting shareholder would need to track the ethics of your management and tools/reports/etc. to do that would exist...the same companies that track investment opportunities now would get into the ethics tracking business - bigtime. As is, they don't. Why is that? "Limited liability". Well fuck that noise.

  3. The most modern method of dodging courthouse liability is "we followed all applicable regulations, so we can't be sued". Fuckers. You fucking wrote the regulations.

The megacorps fear courts, not "regulations". Control them with what they fear most! Sure we need to get these bastards under control. The court system is better than any regulatory system, and leads to stronger local controls as opposed to big "centralized planning" systems that would make Stalin proud.

1