What is the Libertarian view on...

[Nyarlathotep]

Using the same logic as with the watere rights, going back to the example of the oil well on two different properties with just the tip on one person's property, would the person who has the bulk of the oil on his property be forbidden from pumping so much oil that it kept the oil from ever reaching the other guys property. In either case, why?

 

[shanek]

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.

Right, because they do have certain responsibilities. They can do certain things for themselves, and they can express themselves. And we always assume that humans have the right to life because no matter what state they're in, we know that humans are capable of responsibility and that at some point in the future they might grow up, or be cured of their insanity, etc. and become responsible people.

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.

Except that animals are not communicative; they cannot let us know that they are exercising a certain right and we cannot let them know what responsibility is expected from them in return.

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

One is an intelligent passing of information from one mind to the other and another is behavioral conditioning, usually based on some kind of reinforcement. There's all the difference in the world!

I don't know the exact legislation in China, so I don't know whether people are required to report their finds.

I do know that they sell them at a market. That market may be run by the Chinese government, but I don't think there's any such requirement. I think they pay them to encourage them to come forward with their findings. At least, that's what an episode of Horizon said.

So I ask again: is it acceptable to Libertarians that fossil trade is limited to them?

I don't know what you mean by "limited." I can certainly see the free market incentive in doing it right if the information you get yields a higher price, which is how it should be.

That's just libertarian rhetoric.

No, it's not. I've provided you with real-world examples of it working, such as the Nature Conservancy and the ACA.

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.

But the people around them don't make that choice.

It would simply be a market.

Except that it's essentially a market for permission, not a market for goods and services, which is a whole other ball of wax. The liability issues alone are staggering. You would have to decrease or eliminate pollution liability for people who had the credits, and have full liability for those who exceeded their credits.

Nobody is worried that someone is going to buy all widgets and leave others with nothing but money.

But the possibility for imbalance if put on a large scale is staggering.

Let's hear 'em.

Okay: 1) cut the government down to size so that they won't be doing as much to pollute anyway, 2) have as little land in government's hands as possible to prevent them from allowing politically-connected companies to pollute all they want to on them, and 3) hold them responsible for the pollution they create. What happens if the government exceeds their "pollution credit"? Who watches the watchmen?

 

[shanek]

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.

The USA system of laws is too screwed up right now to allow much of that. But in Britain, where they still at least somewhat recognize the common law ownership of waterways, it works.

 

[CFLarsen]

I do know that they sell them at a market. That market may be run by the Chinese government, but I don't think there's any such requirement. I think they pay them to encourage them to come forward with their findings. At least, that's what an episode of Horizon said.

Whoa, just a second. You don't know if the Chinese government allows this? Is it possible that this a case of the Chinese government closing its eyes?

 

[shanek]

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

No, but according to the Horizon episode fossils are sold at local markets to be sold on the international market, so in that sense, in that limited fashion, it is.

But people are polluting, not the government.

Government pollutes far, far more than the people do.

Are people free from responsibility, just because they work for the government? Does that apply to people working for a company, too?

It's called "limited liability." Just as you can't hold a little old lady responsible for a corporation's wrongs and take her stocks which affect her retirement money, you can't hold the people in government responsible for going along with a system they are powerless to change. If you get a specific individual in government letting a company pollute on government land, punish him. But don't punish innocent people because the system's broken.

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

That doesn't mean you get to put words in my mouth.

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

People can use the water that "drains" into their part of the stream, yes.

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.

Which in turn was someone else's example about an oil well crossing property boundaries. Do try and keep up.

 

[shanek]

Using the same logic as with the watere rights, going back to the example of the oil well on two different properties with just the tip on one person's property, would the person who has the bulk of the oil on his property be forbidden from pumping so much oil that it kept the oil from ever reaching the other guys property. In either case, why?

Let's think of it in terms of giving and taking:

If I have a stream on my property, I am taking water from upstream and giving it downstream. Like anyone else, I can use a reasonable amount of water to irrigate, drink, make a fish pond, make a swimming pool, whatever. Maybe I'll even bottle it and sell it. But when I stop water going to someone else downstream, I'm still taking in water from others upstream.

Now, with the oil, I'm neither stopping the oil from getting in from my neighbor's property nor preventing it from draining back into his. I'm just using what's there. So it's a different thing. I'm guessing you're not saying I don't get to use the water on my land for drinking or any of those other functions. So why should the oil be any different?

 

[shanek]

Whoa, just a second. You don't know if the Chinese government allows this? Is it possible that this a case of the Chinese government closing its eyes?

It could be, or they may be running the market. I think it may be the latter. But even so, they're running it according to the free market: they're paying a price people are willing to take for their fossils, and selling it to the world for what they can get for it.

 

[CFLarsen]

It could be, or they may be running the market. I think it may be the latter. But even so, they're running it according to the free market: they're paying a price people are willing to take for their fossils, and selling it to the world for what they can get for it.

If you don't know if the government controls this, then you cannot point to China as an example. Please.

Government pollutes far, far more than the people do.

That's not my point: Somebody is doing the actual pollution. Is it the government, or the people working for the government?

It's called "limited liability." Just as you can't hold a little old lady responsible for a corporation's wrongs and take her stocks which affect her retirement money, you can't hold the people in government responsible for going along with a system they are powerless to change. If you get a specific individual in government letting a company pollute on government land, punish him. But don't punish innocent people because the system's broken.

But where is the border between a single guy polluting and a larger group of people polluting? How many people are we talking about?

That doesn't mean you get to put words in my mouth.

I don't pretend to do that.

Which in turn was someone else's example about an oil well crossing property boundaries. Do try and keep up.

I do keep up. So, why is it OK to "drain" oil that seeps in from your neighbor's property, but not water?

Added:

Let's think of it in terms of giving and taking:

If I have a stream on my property, I am taking water from upstream and giving it downstream. Like anyone else, I can use a reasonable amount of water to irrigate, drink, make a fish pond, make a swimming pool, whatever. Maybe I'll even bottle it and sell it. But when I stop water going to someone else downstream, I'm still taking in water from others upstream.

Now, with the oil, I'm neither stopping the oil from getting in from my neighbor's property nor preventing it from draining back into his. I'm just using what's there. So it's a different thing. I'm guessing you're not saying I don't get to use the water on my land for drinking or any of those other functions. So why should the oil be any different?

No, no, no: It is not different at all. If something is on your property, you can use it. That was your initial stance. Now, when it is obvious that this doesn't hold - dare I say it? - water, then you are amending your previous stance.

How much water are you allowed to take from those downstream? What if the source of the water was on your property? The river sprang from your land? Then, according to your argument, you could screw those downstream, because you wouldn't "owe" anybody anything.

Or are we going to see yet another amendment?

 

[Earthborn]

They can do certain things for themselves, and they can express themselves.

This is not necessarily true.

we know that humans are capable of responsibility and that at some point in the future they might grow up, or be cured of their insanity, etc. and become responsible people.

This too is not necessarily true. For some people it is not reasonable to expect them to ever become a responsible person because their mental disability is too severe. Most people do think that such people still be treated humanely, as if they have rights.

Except that animals are not communicative; they cannot let us know that they are exercising a certain right and we cannot let them know what responsibility is expected from them in return.

This is also true of some human beings. Should a person only have rights if they can communicate? How does that follow from the assumption of 'natural rights' ?

I do know that they sell them at a market. That market may be run by the Chinese government, but I don't think there's any such requirement. I think they pay them to encourage them to come forward with their findings. At least, that's what an episode of Horizon said.

I don't know what Horizon said. All I can find about the Chinese fossil trade is it very heavily regulated and very few fossils are allowed to be sold out of the country. Fossils that can be bought on commercial markets are almost certainly smuggled out of China illegally.

Chiese fossil trade kills.
A Chinese perspective (no doubt in line with the Chinese government).

Not only that... Many fossils are likely forgeries.

So I don't think the Chinese fossil trade is a very good example of Libertarian policy.

I can certainly see the free market incentive in doing it right if the information you get yields a higher price, which is how it should be.

The problem is, doing it right does not yield higher prices. Quickly getting the biggest dinosaurs out of the ground and making a spectacular piece of it, if necessary forging most of it, does get the highest price.

So wouldn't it be better to only allow fossil traders who take the science behind it seriously to trade fossils?

But the people around them don't make that choice.

Obviously if people feel a company is polluting their area, they can sue it to force it to reduce their emission. But most likely it wouldn't get that far because the company can't possibly own more emission rights than the environment allows, and it has a financial incentive to reduce emission.

But the possibility for imbalance if put on a large scale is staggering.

Are you saying that markets can lead to imbalances.

Okay: 1) cut the government down to size so that they won't be doing as much to pollute anyway

Which is an interesting idea, especially since you believe the military is a legimate government function, and I'm pretty sure it is the military that causes quite a lot of pollution. With all those diesel and airplane fuel powered craft they have...

2) have as little land in government's hands as possible to prevent them from allowing politically-connected companies to pollute all they want to on them

Interesting idea! Just let the politically connected companies buy the vast pieces of wilderness to pollute all they want.

What happens if the government exceeds their "pollution credit"? Who watches the watchmen?

Obviously the semi-government organization watching over the emission rights system and that is designed to be not direct under political control. A sort of Environmental (European) Central Bank. Or something.

 

[Gem]

I have this other question about liberterian and the environment:

If all the land, water and air is privatized into pro-environment groups and individuals, then how will factories function? Especially on a global system, where can you pollute?

Let's give an example: Company ABC has a shoe making factory next to a river. The company HAS to pollute it's surroundings to produce shoes. It can: A) dump its waste in the river and get sued by the people downstream who drink that water. B) burn the waste and get sued by the people who own the air above their homes, or more likely: sued by a non-for-profit private agency who owns the air that is polluted. Or C) Dump the waste on its own land.

What I also fear is that pollution that must exist would become concentrated in "pollute for a fee" areas. Let's say I own a river. Having an eye for profit, I tell my factory owning buddies: come set up your factory near my river, you can pollute all you want, I won't sue you. We'll sign a contract: so much pollution for so much money. Again, all this is free market, free will, no government interference.

Or if companies chose Option C from above, we'd now then have concentration of factories in "pollution allowed" zones.

Maybe I have a flaw in my logic somewhere.

Gem

 

[Art Vandelay]

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.

Surely "artifact" is not the right word. Surely not everything made by humans is considered by the Danish government to be public property. So what exactly are the criteria under which something "belongs to all of us"? How does something being part of history make it belong to everyone? Seems like a non sequitor to me.

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

So archeologists are a priviliged class that can go around taking anything they want? Gold is a very important element for physics experiments. Are Danish physicists allowed to appropriate any gold that they need?

Earthborn

That's just libertarian rhetoric.

What'd you expect, Communist rhetoric? Sheesh. Is his opinion worth less just because he's a libertarian?

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 you think that it's purely voluntary, then you haven't thought it through completely. Suppose I and the Toxic Widget Company are the only inhabitants of LA. And suppose Tree Huggers Incorporated is the only inhabitant of Chicago. THI values clean air at $1000. LA clean air is also worth $1000, but the benefit is split between TWC me, so we each value it at $500. So TWC is probably going to buy up THI's pollution credits (since it values clean air at $500 less than THI). But THI doesn't have to deal with TWC's pollution; I do. So why does the money go to THI? How does this make any sense?

(But don't say somthing like 'The Free Market Will Solve It As If By Magic')

You clearly don't understand libertarianism. It's not that the free market will solve everything, but that the fact that there are problems that can't be solved by the free market does not justify the abrogation of rights.

 

[Cain]

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

I'm not so sure about the "vast" majority, but you're right, the government is the biggest polluter. Do you know what part of the government, exactly? Try the U.S. military.

I know several Libertarians who support animal rights. Most don't, but then most leftists -- socialists, anarchists, or communists -- don't support it either.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

W/r/t fossils, what would your lunar Libertarian say about grinding up fossils and selling them as alternative remedies? Australian customs have recently intercepted quite a few batches of fossils which were for these purposes. Surely this is wrong? I mean, the fossils are the property of the seller, right?

 

[Earthborn]

So why does the money go to THI? How does this make any sense?

It doesn't. Your example I mean. Your basically saying that a greengrocer who demands $1 for an orange is going to sell his oranges to someone who only offers to pay 50 cents. In your example, THI is not going to sell.

It is also not clear what exactly you mean. Does THI have 1000 credits for $1 and both you and TWC have 500 credits for $1, or does TWC have 1000 credits for $0.50 each?

 

[Art Vandelay]

No, I am not. If THI sells its credits to TWC, then THI gets to enjoy clean air. THI values clean air more than TWC, so THI values its credits less than does TWC, becuase using them would decrease the amount of clean air. The exact price and number that TWC and THI negotiate is irrelvant; the net result is that TWC is selling my clean air to THI.

 

[CFLarsen]

Surely "artifact" is not the right word. Surely not everything made by humans is considered by the Danish government to be public property. So what exactly are the criteria under which something "belongs to all of us"? How does something being part of history make it belong to everyone? Seems like a non sequitor to me.

No, artifact is the right word. If something is found, e.g. during an entrepreneural dig, they have to stop and await evaluation from archeologists. Not all artifacts are saved, but if something of historical value is found, it is excavated and saved.

So archeologists are a priviliged class that can go around taking anything they want? Gold is a very important element for physics experiments. Are Danish physicists allowed to appropriate any gold that they need?

No, they can evaluate an archeological find and get it for studying or exhibiting in a museum.

 

[Kodiak]

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.

Tell that to Siegfried and Roy...

 

[Kodiak]

In Denmark, people are required by law to hand over any artifact found, no matter if it is found on their property or not.

Have I ever mentioned before how fortunate I consider myself for not being a Danish citizen?

 

[Kodiak]

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?

Why Animals Have No Rights

 

[shanek]

If you don't know if the government controls this, then you cannot point to China as an example. Please.

If they ARE running it, then they are running it as a market. Get over yourself and quit obfuscating.

That's not my point: Somebody is doing the actual pollution. Is it the government, or the people working for the government?

It's the government. The people in the government are just doing their jobs.

But where is the border between a single guy polluting and a larger group of people polluting? How many people are we talking about?

Oh, come on! If they're part of a limited liability corporation, it's a group of people! If he's on his own, it's an individual! Are you even THINKING???

I don't pretend to do that.

No, you don't pretend to do it...you actually do it, with annoying regularity!

I do keep up. So, why is it OK to "drain" oil that seeps in from your neighbor's property, but not water?

You're just lying now. I specifically said it was OK to take water coming onto your property to use, sell, whatever.

[more pathetic obfuscation deleted—I've already explained my point more than sufficiently for any reasonable individual, and I'm sick of playing Claus's little games...]