What is the Libertarian view on...

[Earthborn]

Animal Rights: apperently many Libertarians believe in Natural Rights, that people have rights because they are a part of nature and because only with the use of force can you do something that abridges these rights. The same is true of animals. The only way to kill and eat an animal is by the use of force to slaughter it, abridging its right to life.
Is it fair to say that because of this concept of 'natural rights' Libertarians should believe that all animals (or even plants) should have the same rights as humans, as long as they don't use force against humans and other animals? Why or why not?

Fossil Trade: should people be allowed to dig up fossils on their own property or in areas that belong to no one and sell those fossils without being limited by the government? Even if it means potentially destroying a find that may be important to science? Is it reasonable to Libertarians that a government would limit such digging rights to people who have at least some knowledge of how to document such a dig and is it reasonable that important fossils (if they are allowed to be traded) are registered so they can be traced by scientists when the need arises to research them?

Archaeology: is a person allowed to do whatever they please with their own land, even if it means destroying any historical evidence that may lie beneath its surface?

Islandification: The solution to many environmental problems is, if I understand Libertarians correctly, to divide nature into pieces of property and allow people to profit from these pieces. This means they will care for it in order not to lose profit. How do libertarians plan to combat the environmental problem of Islandification, the effect of people making use of the environment in different ways, changing the natural world into a patchwork of different habitats and which means many species will be in isolated areas, likely fenced off, when they are evolved to roam free. These 'islands' are sometimes described as the most serious impact people have on the environment, so surely Libertarians must have an answer for it.

Tradeable Emission Rights: this is a system that uses free market principles to limit emissions, especially into the atmosphere, a 'common' if there ever was one. The principle is this: the government decides (based on environmental science) how much of an emission of a substance nature can take. It then divides this among the companies limiting the amount they can legally produce. They are allowed to produce that much, but if they manage to pollute less they are allowed to sell some of their share to another company. If they can't keep their pollution down at that level, they are allowed to buy emission rights from other companies. All companies will have a financial incentive to pollute less because that can make them money, but they can also choose to simply buy emission rights from other companies. If too many try that however, the price of the emission rights increases so it becomes interesting to try to cut emissions and sell their rights at a higher share. With such a system, some companies will pollute a lot, while others will pollute little but overall pollution is kept down.
According to Libertarians, is this a good free market solution to pollution, or is it government interference because it does involve a government limiting pollution?

 

[shanek]

Animal Rights:

Well, let me give you Tim Slagle's version of animal rights: "You have the right to be dinner. Any part of your body can and will be used for said meal. If you do not have a side dish, one will gladly be provided for you."

They're called human rights for a reason. Animals cannot have rights because animals cannot behave with responsibility. Remember that rights and responsibility go hand in hand. We don't let the bull into the china shop because we know he won't be responsible for everything he smashes.

Fossil Trade: should people be allowed to dig up fossils on their own property or in areas that belong to no one and sell those fossils without being limited by the government?

Well, we believe in the concept of "allodial title," which essentially means you own not only your land but what's under it. So just as you should be able to dig a well or drill for oil, you should be able to dig for fossils and then give them away, sell them, or whatever. It's YOUR property.

I don't know what you mean by "areas that belong to no one." In the US at least, EVERYWHERE is owned by someone. If it's not owned by an individual or corporation, it's owned by the government.

Islandification: The solution to many environmental problems is, if I understand Libertarians correctly, to divide nature into pieces of property and allow people to profit from these pieces. This means they will care for it in order not to lose profit. How do libertarians plan to combat the environmental problem of Islandification, the effect of people making use of the environment in different ways, changing the natural world into a patchwork of different habitats and which means many species will be in isolated areas, likely fenced off, when they are evolved to roam free. These 'islands' are sometimes described as the most serious impact people have on the environment, so surely Libertarians must have an answer for it.

Sure: independent, cooperative organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, which not only purchases huge areas of land to preserve them but also works volutnarily with land owners to help them develop their land the way they want and still not adversely effect the larger habitat.

Tradeable Emission Rights: this is a system that uses free market principles to limit emissions, especially into the atmosphere, a 'common' if there ever was one.

Libertarians aren't opposed to voluntary commons. We don't believe they work, but we wouldn't dream of stopping people from trying.

The principle is this: the government decides (based on environmental science) how much of an emission of a substance nature can take. It then divides this among the companies limiting the amount they can legally produce. They are allowed to produce that much, but if they manage to pollute less they are allowed to sell some of their share to another company. If they can't keep their pollution down at that level, they are allowed to buy emission rights from other companies. All companies will have a financial incentive to pollute less because that can make them money, but they can also choose to simply buy emission rights from other companies. If too many try that however, the price of the emission rights increases so it becomes interesting to try to cut emissions and sell their rights at a higher share. With such a system, some companies will pollute a lot, while others will pollute little but overall pollution is kept down.

According to Libertarians, is this a good free market solution to pollution, or is it government interference because it does involve a government limiting pollution?

Well, we get back to that sticky subject: who owns the property? If the pollution in this case goes into a river, then private ownership of the river can take care of this without the need for any common. If it's air pollution, obviously it's a bit more complicated. The air belongs to the people who own the property, but the air moves around. So, for example, if you're changing the oil in your car in your driveway and you spill the oil and it goes into your neighbor's yard, you're responsible and you have to compensate your neighbor. So, by the same token, if you pollute the air, and the wind pushes your pollution onto your neighbor's property, you likewise are responsible.

So this might make sense in a city, county, or municipality where the air is shared to such a degree that one polluter can affect everyone in the area. It could easily work a lot better than the system we have now.

However, on a state or especially a Federal level, this would be outrageous. You don't want polluters in, say, Chicago buying up all the pollution credits from companies in, say, LA, freeing LA from some smog but choking Chicago.

 

[Earthborn]

Animals cannot have rights because animals cannot behave with responsibility. Remember that rights and responsibility go hand in hand.

Wouldn't this mean that people who cannot be held responsible, have as little rights as animals?

We don't let the bull into the china shop because we know he won't be responsible for everything he smashes.

Through reward and punishment you can teach it to not smash anything. The same thing applies to humans. I don't see what the fundamental difference is.

Well, we believe in the concept of "allodial title," which essentially means you own not only your land but what's under it. So just as you should be able to dig a well or drill for oil, you should be able to dig for fossils and then give them away, sell them, or whatever. It's YOUR property.

I think you won't make many friends among paleantologists or archaeologists since this would make much of their work impossible. You don't think that it is in the interest of all of us if history is preserved and investigated, instead of being sold to the highest bidder?

I don't know what you mean by "areas that belong to no one." In the US at least, EVERYWHERE is owned by someone. If it's not owned by an individual or corporation, it's owned by the government.

Owned by no one, owned by no one in particular, communally owned or owned by the government... Whatever you want to call it. Should people be allowed to dig for whatever they want on ground owned by the government, without any regard to scientific considerations?

Sure: independent, cooperative organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, which not only purchases huge areas of land to preserve them but also works volutnarily with land owners to help them develop their land the way they want and still not adversely effect the larger habitat.

So the solution is basically to make bigger islands?

The air belongs to the people who own the property, but the air moves around.

The water in the river also moves around. In fact even the ground can move around! Is someone responsible for polluting someone else's property if his own polluted soil ends up on someone else's because of a landslide? What if heavy rain flushes some of it on someone else's property?

So this might make sense in a city, county, or municipality where the air is shared to such a degree that one polluter can affect everyone in the area.

I find it strange that in a 3 dimensional world property of land should be purely 2 dimensional with everything under it and above it automatically belonging to the person who bought the land.

The problem of course is that the pollution doesn't stop at the boundaries of whatever territory there is. What if an air polluter lives at the edge of it and emission credits are only traded within it, will his export of pollution to other territories have to be counted? I think the only way this would work if other territories have similar systems and emission credits can be traded between them. But that would effectively create a federal, or even global system.

However, on a state or especially a Federal level, this would be outrageous.

For some stuff, the emission can have an impact on a global scale. For example green house gases or the effect of CFCs on the Ozone layer. I might certainly agree that the effects are probably not as bad as they are often made out to be, but they are there nonetheless. Wouldn't it make sense if for such substances there is a global system of emission rights? For example a system where local credits can be traded with eachother, like currency can be traded from one country to the next?

 

[shanek]

Wouldn't this mean that people who cannot be held responsible, have as little rights as animals?

Example? The only one I can think of is the insane, and yes, we do deprive them of rights to keep them from being a danger to themselves and others.

EDITED TO ADD: I just thought of another example. We don't let 5-year-olds have the right to keep and bear arms because we know they cannot be responsible with a firearm yet.

Through reward and punishment you can teach it to not smash anything.

But the responsible behavior there is on the part of the trainer or the owner, not the animal.

The same thing applies to humans.

No, it doesn't. A human learning something is vastly different than a human being trained for something.

I don't see what the fundamental difference is.

If you don't see a difference between an intelligent person learning something and an animal being trained then I really have to wonder about you.

I think you won't make many friends among paleantologists or archaeologists since this would make much of their work impossible.

No it wouldn't; far from it. Most fossils are found just that way, in fact: people finding a fossil on their own land and then reporting it, with no requirement that they turn it over. Look at all of those dinosaur fossils from China, for example.

Should people be allowed to dig for whatever they want on ground owned by the government, without any regard to scientific considerations?[/quote

No; if the government owns the land, the government can make the rules about it. Of course, we can debate whether or not the government should own the land in the first place, but that's a different debate.

So the solution is basically to make bigger islands?

The solution is environmental organizations who use free market incentives to protect the environment.

The water in the river also moves around. In fact even the ground can move around! Is someone responsible for polluting someone else's property if his own polluted soil ends up on someone else's because of a landslide? What if heavy rain flushes some of it on someone else's property?

Yep, and yep. Again, I refer you to the Anglers Conservation Association.

Now, if it were a case where someone took every reasonable precaution to prevent it from happening, and then something freaky happened that made it happen anyway, then I could see an argument for reduced or limited liability. But that's kind of a different thing.

What if an air polluter lives at the edge of it and emission credits are only traded within it, will his export of pollution to other territories have to be counted?

Look, there are two possibilities: either you can demonstrate that someone is affecting someone else, or you can't. If you can, they're a part of it; if you can't, they're not. Why are you making this so difficult?

Besides, do you really think there'd be enough people in such a situation to cause a problem?

I think the only way this would work if other territories have similar systems and emission credits can be traded between them. But that would effectively create a federal, or even global system.

Right, and you'd end up with the problem like I said: one place selling out at the expense of another.

For some stuff, the emission can have an impact on a global scale. For example green house gases or the effect of CFCs on the Ozone layer.

The science will have to get a LOT better before I go agreeing with that.

Wouldn't it make sense if for such substances there is a global system of emission rights? For example a system where local credits can be traded with eachother, like currency can be traded from one country to the next?

If so, I would say ONLY in cases where such emissions demonstrably affect the global climate.

And need I remind you again that the US government is one of the biggest polluters on the planet? Have any ideas for how to take care of them? Libertarians do...

 

[roger]

Re: Re: What is the Libertarian view on...

Well, we believe in the concept of "allodial title," which essentially means you own not only your land but what's under it. So just as you should be able to dig a well or drill for oil, you should be able to dig for fossils and then give them away, sell them, or whatever. It's YOUR property.

Makes sense, but I have a quibble. Suppose there is a vast oilfield in my neighbor's property, and a tiny tip of it extends into my property. Do I have the right to drill and exhaust the entire oilfield? How do we take into account that our knowledge of the size and extent of the oilfield may be imperfectly known.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: What is the Libertarian view on...

Makes sense, but I have a quibble. Suppose there is a vast oilfield in my neighbor's property, and a tiny tip of it extends into my property. Do I have the right to drill and exhaust the entire oilfield? How do we take into account that our knowledge of the size and extent of the oilfield may be imperfectly known.

As long as you are only drilling the oil that seeps into your property, I don't see the problem. Just don't slant-drill under the property line. If the oil in your neighbor's property runs into yours, eh, that's life.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

While we're at it, I am curious as to the Libertarian position on water rights. For example, under the libertarian system, if I buy a piece of property with a stream running through it, could I dam it up (provided, of course, that the dam is entirely on my own property) and screw the downstream users out of the water?

Because water is so scarce in my neck of the woods, we have really complicated water rights laws to prevent me from doing that. but it seems that it would be against Libertarian principles to say "No, you can't build a dam on your own property". On the other hand, it seems unfair to be able to screw downstream users out of water simply because I bought a piece of property upstream from them. How would Libertarians solve tht little dilemma?

 

[CFLarsen]

No it wouldn't; far from it. Most fossils are found just that way, in fact: people finding a fossil on their own land and then reporting it, with no requirement that they turn it over. Look at all of those dinosaur fossils from China, for example.

Wrong. In Denmark, people are required by law to hand over any artifact found, no matter if it is found on their property or not. It is our history, and it belongs to all of us.

Finding something can even stall major construction sites from continuing working, until it has been decided - by archeologists - if the find is worth preserving.

If you find artifacts made of gold, you are paid the gold value. Otherwise, you have to hand it over.

And need I remind you again that the US government is one of the biggest polluters on the planet? Have any ideas for how to take care of them? Libertarians do...

No, the US population is one of the biggest polluters on the planet. Have any ideas for how to take care of them?

As long as you are only drilling the oil that seeps into your property, I don't see the problem. Just don't slant-drill under the property line. If the oil in your neighbor's property runs into yours, eh, that's life.

This should answer Nyarlathotep's question about the water too? Tough for downstream users? They can bloody well die of thirst?

 

[Bluegill]

This should answer Nyarlathotep's question about the water too? Tough for downstream users? They can bloody well die of thirst? [/B]

I'd think that, in such a system, damming or depleting the river would be treated in much the same manner as polluting it. If you render it unusable by others who share it, you must compensate them.

 

[shanek]

While we're at it, I am curious as to the Libertarian position on water rights. For example, under the libertarian system, if I buy a piece of property with a stream running through it, could I dam it up (provided, of course, that the dam is entirely on my own property) and screw the downstream users out of the water?

Because water is so scarce in my neck of the woods, we have really complicated water rights laws to prevent me from doing that. but it seems that it would be against Libertarian principles to say "No, you can't build a dam on your own property". On the other hand, it seems unfair to be able to screw downstream users out of water simply because I bought a piece of property upstream from them. How would Libertarians solve tht little dilemma?

You can do whatever you want on your land up to, BUT NOT INCLUDING, things that cause damage to other people's property or its value. Affecting the waterways would certainly do that. You would also be responsible for rising water levels upstream.

 

[Grammatron]

You can do whatever you want on your land up to, BUT NOT INCLUDING, things that cause damage to other people's property or its value. Affecting the waterways would certainly do that. You would also be responsible for rising water levels upstream.

And how exactly will you stop that from happening?

 

[CFLarsen]

You can do whatever you want on your land up to, BUT NOT INCLUDING, things that cause damage to other people's property or its value. Affecting the waterways would certainly do that. You would also be responsible for rising water levels upstream.

But oil on your land increases the value. When the oil seeps through, and gets pumped up by the neighbor, that disappears too, damaging the value of the land.

Same thing. You got some 'splainin' to do....

 

[shanek]

Wrong. In Denmark, people are required by law to hand over any artifact found, no matter if it is found on their property or not. It is our history, and it belongs to all of us.

I didn't say it was like that everywhere. I used China as an example, and that IS how it works. And it works because the free market is willing to pay for genuine fossils.

No, the US population is one of the biggest polluters on the planet.

The vast majority of the pollution produced by the US is produced directly by the government. Even the environmentalists say that.

And I'll thank you not to answer my questions for me, especially since you ALWAYS get them wrong. You just refuse to understand Libertarianism.

 

[shanek]

And how exactly will you stop that from happening?

[sigh] Yet again, check out the ACA...Why do you people keep ignoring that example? Does it work too well???

 

[Nyarlathotep]

You can do whatever you want on your land up to, BUT NOT INCLUDING, things that cause damage to other people's property or its value. Affecting the waterways would certainly do that. You would also be responsible for rising water levels upstream.

fair enough

 

[shanek]

But oil on your land increases the value. When the oil seeps through, and gets pumped up by the neighbor, that disappears too, damaging the value of the land.

Same thing. You got some 'splainin' to do....

No, it isn't, and anyone can see why. There is a difference between taking oil that is on your property and taking it from your neighbor's property. You aren't taking the oil; it's just draining into your property. Your neighbor has the same opportunity to get the oil as you do. That isn't the same with the water.

 

[Earthborn]

Example? The only one I can think of is the insane, and yes, we do deprive them of rights to keep them from being a danger to themselves and others.

EDITED TO ADD: I just thought of another example. We don't let 5-year-olds have the right to keep and bear arms because we know they cannot be responsible with a firearm yet.

That wasn't so hard was it? Apperently society does not consider all people responsible. But they do have rights: we don't eat 5 year olds or retarded people. They have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just like everybody else.

Apperently those rights don't depend on whether a person can be held responsible. They depend only on the fact that they belong to the human species.

If you believe in natural rights, that is a problem. Humans are not that different from other animals that 'nature' or 'their Creator' should endow them a set of rights that do not exist for other species.

If you believe however that rights are socially defined agreements between people, no such problem arises. We simply never gave these rights to animals.

If you don't see a difference between an intelligent person learning something and an animal being trained then I really have to wonder about you.

Wonder if you like. Or explain to me what you think the difference is.

No it wouldn't; far from it. Most fossils are found just that way, in fact: people finding a fossil on their own land and then reporting it, with no requirement that they turn it over. Look at all of those dinosaur fossils from China, for example.

I don't know the exact legislation in China, so I don't know whether people are required to report their finds. But I can imagine that in this still officially communist country, people are. They are certainly seriously pissed off if someone dares to sell such a find to a different country.

Most serious paleantologists are very angry at fossil traders. Many fossil traders dig the fossils out without properly documenting the site and without regard for smaller details that would provide a lot of scientific data. They simply dig the most beautiful specimen out and sell it for enormous amounts of money. The fossil then ends up in someone's private collection never to be researched by scientists. Lots of valuable scientific information is lost this way. Is that okay with you?

There are however also good fossil traders who manage to get an increasing respect from scientists. They document the sites as well as paleantologists or work together with them. So I ask again: is it acceptable to Libertarians that fossil trade is limited to them? Is it acceptable that fossils are registered so that researchers at least know where they are and can ask the owner if they can investigate it? Just to make sure no scientific data is lost because of trade.

Basically the same things apply to archaeological finds.

The solution is environmental organizations who use free market incentives to protect the environment.

That's just libertarian rhetoric.

Right, and you'd end up with the problem like I said: one place selling out at the expense of another.

Yes, but purely voluntarily. If people from one place decide they want to buy emission rights from the other instead of reducing their emission, they chose to be in the smog themselves. If the other doesn't want to give up their rights so easily, they can demand a higher price. And with that higher price, maybe place number 1 starts to realize that it is cheaper for them to reduce emissions themselves.

It would simply be a market. Nobody is worried that someone is going to buy all widgets and leave others with nothing but money.

And need I remind you again that the US government is one of the biggest polluters on the planet? Have any ideas for how to take care of them?

Demand that all people who want to drive an SUV buy emission rights enough for a small factory?

Libertarians do...

Let's hear 'em. (But don't say somthing like 'The Free Market Will Solve It As If By Magic')

 

[Grammatron]

[sigh] Yet again, check out the ACA...Why do you people keep ignoring that example? Does it work too well???

My point is not to annoy you, it's just I'm trying to see if you will inevitably end up back at the current USA system of laws.

 

[CFLarsen]

I didn't say it was like that everywhere. I used China as an example, and that IS how it works. And it works because the free market is willing to pay for genuine fossils.

Feel free to correct me, but I was under the impression that China is not a free market society...

The vast majority of the pollution produced by the US is produced directly by the government. Even the environmentalists say that.

But people are polluting, not the government. Are people free from responsibility, just because they work for the government? Does that apply to people working for a company, too?

And I'll thank you not to answer my questions for me, especially since you ALWAYS get them wrong. You just refuse to understand Libertarianism.

It is an open forum, where anyone can chip in. If you want a private conversation, take it private.

No, it isn't, and anyone can see why. There is a difference between taking oil that is on your property and taking it from your neighbor's property. You aren't taking the oil; it's just draining into your property. Your neighbor has the same opportunity to get the oil as you do. That isn't the same with the water.

Water isn't draining into the property of the people downstream?? Are you serious??

I was not talking about taking oil from the neighbor's property. I was using your example of oil "runs" into my property. Your word.

 

[Tmy]

That wasn't so hard was it? Apperently society does not consider all people responsible. But they do have rights: we don't eat 5 year olds or retarded people. They have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just like everybody else.

Apperently those rights don't depend on whether a person can be held responsible. They depend only on the fact that they belong to the human species.

If you believe in natural rights, that is a problem. Humans are not that different from other animals that 'nature' or 'their Creator' should endow them a set of rights that do not exist for other species.

We are difft than other animals, we're the TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN!!!!!

Under the laws of nature, we rock! We can do whatever we want to the other animals.