Hello folks, I'm new to the forum and have a question that I hope you all can answer. Libertarians advocate privatization of the environment as the best of protecting it, believing that a land owner would have more interest in keeping it clean and pollution free than the government. It sounds good on paper and I am inclined to believe it, but I can't help wondering if this idea is a bit too utopian. We assume that the land owner - while he may be the best man to take care of the property - CARES whether or not the land is polluted.
What would happen if a corporation were to buy a large peice of land and just turn it into a landfill? Or buy a river only to dump it's waste into it?
thanks, i will definately check those out. the thing is, if it's in a remote area and no one is effected then perhaps they can dump their waste - but can they dump any kind of waste? Nuclear waste? Also, what I really want to know is, what is to stop corporations from buying all the land in the country? And though unlikely, whats to stop them from then turning the whole country into a giant dump site?
davidcory:Libertarians advocate privatization of the environment as the best of protecting it, believing that a land owner would have more interest in keeping it clean and pollution free than the government.
I don't think you can say that about libertarians in general. You are assuming that "keeping it clean and pollution free" is a priority per se. Libertarians believe it is best to let individual owners act according to their own priorities.
davidcory:What would happen if a corporation were to buy a large peice of land and just turn it into a landfill? Or buy a river only to dump it's waste into it?
If it's their land then nothing would be wrong with it. We have landfills now. We need landfills.
It doesn't seem likely that anyone would buy a river just to pollute it. And if they did there would be the property rights of those who own land around the mouth of the river to consider. A better line of inquiry might be to wonder why it is that so many government owned rivers are polluted. I would argue that it is because governments can escape the consequences of permitting pollution - something private owners would not be able to do.
Nuclear waste is an exaggerated problem. And yes, so long as 1) they own full use of the land and 2) no third party is harmed, they may do as they please. What is to stop them from buying all the land in a region? Nothing but their financial ability to do so and the willingness of others to sell to them, as well as the profitability of actually doing so (destroying the land will diminish any current and future streams of income to be derived from it.)
Large, massive corporations are largely a creature of the State. This is not wholly relevant, but it is worth considering.
Inquisitor:thanks, i will definately check those out. the thing is, if it's in a remote area and no one is effected then perhaps they can dump their waste - but can they dump any kind of waste? Nuclear waste? Also, what I really want to know is, what is to stop corporations from buying all the land in the country? And though unlikely, whats to stop them from then turning the whole country into a giant dump site?Nuclear waste is an exaggerated problem. And yes, so long as 1) they own full use of the land and 2) no third party is harmed, they may do as they please. What is to stop them from buying all the land in a region? Nothing but their financial ability to do so and the willingness of others to sell to them, as well as the profitability of actually doing so (destroying the land will diminish any current and future streams of income to be derived from it.)Large, massive corporations are largely a creature of the State. This is not wholly relevant, but it is worth considering.
thanks for the response. there are many aspects of libertarianism and free markets that i feel comfortable defending, but some issues like the environment i am still trying to wrap my mind around and figure out. people will often hit me with hypotheticals that i hadn't thought of and throw me for a loop..
davidcory: thanks, i will definately check those out. the thing is, if it's in a remote area and no one is effected then perhaps they can dump their waste - but can they dump any kind of waste? Nuclear waste? Also, what I really want to know is, what is to stop corporations from buying all the land in the country? And though unlikely, whats to stop them from then turning the whole country into a giant dump site?
Concerning nuclear waste, I thought you would be interested to know just how governments get rid of their own nuclear waste, and others' for money. Putin has decided to make the beautiful forests of Siberia into a radioactive nightmare by dumping not just his own, but other countries' nuclear waste, for money.
So if the alternative is government, then well it seems they don't care any more than a private business does. In fact they often care less.
See the article here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/siberia-could-become-the-worlds-atomic-waste-dump-warn-greens-491488.html