Recently had a discussion with someone who advocates the EPA. He said that since corporations, especially the local power plant, had been known to dump chemicals in the nearby river before environmentalism took effect, it got me thinking: if there were no EPA, what would stop the power plant from dumping chemicals in the river, thereby ruining the river? I suppose people could segment portions of the river to purchase, but wouldn't dumping chemicals into their portion permeate throughout the entire river? Just curious to see the free market approach to this. BTW, this river is a huge food source for many people around the area, businesses and people alike. However, it is true that in the past, this did not stop the power plant from dumping the harmful chemicals in the water.
http://mises.org/daily/2539
Basically:
If resource X is privately owned, don't you think the owner of the resource would want to take care of it or else property X will lose its value?
A huge ass corporation cannot simply dump its chemicals upon a river, because in an anarcho capitalist society:
1. The river is privately owned by a person, and the corporation can only dump if it gets permission to do so.
OR
2. Sections of the river are owned by different people, so if corporation dumps on person Y section of the river and it affects person Z section of the river, then person Y and corporation, damaged property of person Z, and person Z may file lawsuit/hire protection agency to protect land.
3. If corporation owns the river, and decides to dump lots of chemicals, but it harms nearby children/families/inhabitants, those harmed may be able to sue the corporation for damage to property.
Its the equivalent of me as your neighbor being the "corporation" and dumping all my trash on your front lawn. You will file a lawsuit against me for damage of property and i can be fined or be forced to pay restitution.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Kelvin Silva: http://mises.org/daily/2539 Basically: If resource X is privately owned, don't you think the owner of the resource would want to take care of it or else property X will lose its value? A huge ass corporation cannot simply dump its chemicals upon a river, because in an anarcho capitalist society: 1. The river is privately owned by a person, and the corporation can only dump if it gets permission to do so. OR 2. Sections of the river are owned by different people, so if corporation dumps on person Y section of the river and it affects person Z section of the river, then person Y and corporation, damaged property of person Z, and person Z may file lawsuit/hire protection agency to protect land. OR 3. If corporation owns the river, and decides to dump lots of chemicals, but it harms nearby children/families/inhabitants, those harmed may be able to sue the corporation for damage to property. Its the equivalent of me as your neighbor being the "corporation" and dumping all my trash on your front lawn. You will file a lawsuit against me for damage of property and i can be fined or be forced to pay restitution.
I suppose my next question is this: regarding lawsuits...in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no jurisdictions, right? Who creates these laws to uphold? What if I disagree with the laws, and how do I know where exactly the laws apply?
How would you homestead water?
Lets say you are fishing and get a fish who is different from a "standard fish", you haven't got damaged by anyone. How can you demand retribution?
With land/objects we have clearly defined borders of where it starts and ends. With rivers, not so much.
Want to know more if you have as water rights always seems foggy and hogwash?...
How will the Sun go on without the state? Who will change its lightbul every few years?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I would recommend this video by Walter Block. It is an interview with him in the mid-80s on his book, "Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation":
https://mises.org/media/1891/Free-Market-Environmentalism-1980s
I would also recommend looking up many of Walter Block's writings on the topic. He has written something on everything, and would always be a great spot to start.
thetabularasa:I suppose my next question is this: regarding lawsuits...in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no jurisdictions, right? Who creates these laws to uphold? What if I disagree with the laws, and how do I know where exactly the laws apply?
Well how much have you read on the topic of Polycentric/Libertarian Law? I would recommend reading For A New Liberty to get some of the basics of how law would be better handled by the market, and I would also recommend the course taught by Kinsella at Mises Academy called "Libertarian Legal Theory" (he released it for free here):
http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/01/01/kinsellas-libertarian-legal-theory-course-audio-and-slides/
Sebastian:With land/objects we have clearly defined borders of where it starts and ends. With rivers, not so much.
This reminds me of one of my favorite Walter Block sayings: "Land is just slow moving water, and water is just fast moving land".
Sebastian: How would you homestead water? Lets say you are fishing and get a fish who is different from a "standard fish", you haven't got damaged by anyone. How can you demand retribution? With land/objects we have clearly defined borders of where it starts and ends. With rivers, not so much. Want to know more if you have as water rights always seems foggy and hogwash?...
So you believe that rivers cannot be owned, correct? If that's the case, do you believe the EPA is necessary to prevent river pollution, or ought the corporations be allowed to effectively ruin the food supply with harnassed chemical runoff?
Jon Irenicus: How will the Sun go on without the state? Who will change its lightbul every few years?
I understand your stance regarding the state, but your response is irrelevant. I'm asking for an answer to my questions as follows: regarding lawsuits...in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no jurisdictions, right? Who creates these laws to uphold? What if I disagree with the laws, and how do I know where exactly the laws apply?
Ok thanks. So as for the river, let's say the AnCap society starts tomorrow. Who takes a claim on what portion of the river and how does it officially become his property? If it is currently public property, thus not privately owned, do people just stake a claim and say, "I want this portion." Can someone claim the entire river without even paying a dime?
Tex2002ans: I would recommend this video by Walter Block. It is an interview with him in the mid-80s on his book, "Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation": https://mises.org/media/1891/Free-Market-Environmentalism-1980s I would also recommend looking up many of Walter Block's writings on the topic. He has written something on everything, and would always be a great spot to start. thetabularasa:I suppose my next question is this: regarding lawsuits...in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no jurisdictions, right? Who creates these laws to uphold? What if I disagree with the laws, and how do I know where exactly the laws apply? Well how much have you read on the topic of Polycentric/Libertarian Law? I would recommend reading For A New Liberty to get some of the basics of how law would be better handled by the market, and I would also recommend the course taught by Kinsella at Mises Academy called "Libertarian Legal Theory" (he released it for free here): http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/01/01/kinsellas-libertarian-legal-theory-course-audio-and-slides/ Sebastian:With land/objects we have clearly defined borders of where it starts and ends. With rivers, not so much. This reminds me of one of my favorite Walter Block sayings: "Land is just slow moving water, and water is just fast moving land".
but your response is irrelevant. I'm asking for an answer to my questions as follows: regarding lawsuits...in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no jurisdictions, right? Who creates these laws to uphold? What if I disagree with the laws, and how do I know where exactly the laws apply?
Is it book recommendations you're after?
thetabularasa:Ok thanks. So as for the river, let's say the AnCap society starts tomorrow. Who takes a claim on what portion of the river and how does it officially become his property?
This is a problem with how any unowned/public/"government owned" land comes into the hands of private individuals. No transition system would be perfect (since it already has become tainted by the government's refusal to grant property rights in water/oceans since time immemorial). I would recommend looking at Walter Block's arguments for the transition to private roads and highways:
https://www.mises.org/document/4084/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways
I remember him specifically covering the example of a well travelled path, which everyone in the village uses.
In the book, he also covers many different "homesteading problems". Perhaps reading the ideas on similar questions, might put you on the right track for the river question.
Here is a TED talk covering some ways the government is currently allocating "water rights" in some states:
http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_harmon_how_the_market_can_keep_streams_flowing.html
thetabularasa:If it is currently public property, thus not privately owned, do people just stake a claim and say, "I want this portion." Can someone claim the entire river without even paying a dime?
No. This reminds me of the example of putting a flag on the Moon, thus being able to claim the entire Moon as your property. This is not a simple question that can be determined from the armchair, but would be highly dependant on cultural and legal norms. I recommend listening/reading to the Kinsella and Block things I linked to.
Jon Irenicus: but your response is irrelevant. I'm asking for an answer to my questions as follows: regarding lawsuits...in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no jurisdictions, right? Who creates these laws to uphold? What if I disagree with the laws, and how do I know where exactly the laws apply? Is it book recommendations you're after?
Just an answer. If you don't have a valid answer, feel free to recommend a book or two, sure.
Tex2002ans: thetabularasa:Ok thanks. So as for the river, let's say the AnCap society starts tomorrow. Who takes a claim on what portion of the river and how does it officially become his property? This is a problem with how any unowned/public/"government owned" land comes into the hands of private individuals. No transition system would be perfect (since it already has become tainted by the government's refusal to grant property rights in water/oceans since time immemorial). I would recommend looking at Walter Block's arguments for the transition to private roads and highways: https://www.mises.org/document/4084/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways I remember him specifically covering the example of a well travelled path, which everyone in the village uses. In the book, he also covers many different "homesteading problems". Perhaps reading the ideas on similar questions, might put you on the right track for the river question. Here is a TED talk covering some ways the government is currently allocating "water rights" in some states: http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_harmon_how_the_market_can_keep_streams_flowing.html thetabularasa:If it is currently public property, thus not privately owned, do people just stake a claim and say, "I want this portion." Can someone claim the entire river without even paying a dime? No. This reminds me of the example of putting a flag on the Moon, thus being able to claim the entire Moon as your property. This is not a simple question that can be determined from the armchair, but would be highly dependant on cultural and legal norms. I recommend listening/reading to the Kinsella and Block things I linked to.
This seems to be more complicated than I anticipated. I will look at the links, but probably won't have time until tomorrow. Anyhow, thank you for your responses.
thetabularasa:This seems to be more complicated than I anticipated. I will look at the links, but probably won't have time until tomorrow. Anyhow, thank you for your responses.
When discussing the privatization of things that have been controlled by the government since time immemorial... it is quite hard to wrap your head around it, because:
#1. It has been perverted by the government for so long, that now there are many many people with conflicting rights involved.
While speaking about roads, Walter Block mentions a "stock" idea. Everyone in the area who drives on Road A gets one stock in the new "Road A Corporation", and from there let the market decide. People can be free to buy/sell the stock, and become road entrepeneurs. Who knows, maybe everyone in the area should get a stock in River A. (Listen to that TED talk, it also throws around interesting ideas which are currently being used).
When more and more people become entangled in the Tragedy of the Commons, it becomes impossible to untangle what the government has done without making some people will get worse off, while others will gain (the companies which pollute would LOVE to continue to pollute for free). But in the long run, everyone will be much better off with implementing Property Rights NOW, than many more centuries of the Tragedy of the Commons.
It is much easier to figure out these concepts on examples such as space/the Moon/Mars, where the dirty hand of government has yet to taint. :)
#2. There is currently no market, and it is not possible to predict what the market outcome would be. You can only give make educated guesses and give broad generalities. In For A New Liberty, Rothbard covers the famous shoe example, or one of Kinsella's favorite examples is going to North Korea and privatizing the grocery stores.
The pro-government person will demand answers from you, which you can easily see are preposterous (because we currently have a market in grocery stores):
"Where will the grocery stores be located?!": Wherever entrepeneurs decide they are needed.
"AHA! The government forces ONE grocery store to be in every town, and they stick it on the Eastern side of town right on Main Street. If I go into any town I can know exactly where the store will be!"
"Which farmers will the grocery stores get their food from?": Whichever farmers the entrepeneurs decide to purchase from, while most likely there will be lots of imports.
"Without the government in control of the food, won't the farmers just poison food?": The grocery store will make sure they do not get rotten/poisonous food... they do not want to lose money or poison customers.
"How much will farmers get paid?": Whatever their crops are worth.
"AHA... currently the government pays every farmer $10 per ton of crop they sell!"
"How many brands of cereal will they sell?": Whatever each entrepeneur decides is best.
"How many flavors of ice cream cake would they sell?": I don't know... maybe they won't sell any at all.
"AHA... The government of North Korea currently forces every store to sell three flavors of ice cream cake!": Ok.
"How will poor people get food?": They will purchase it just like everyone else.
"IT WILL BE TOO EXPENSIVE": No, the food will be higher quality, and much cheaper than it is now.
"EVERYONE WILL STARVE": No, but I do know that there will be a lot more food of much higher quality will be available for cheaper than if the government was running it.