h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think we're beginning to talk past each other, so I'll keep this short.
You are absolutely correct, the system is now corrupt at the core and I believe it should be fundamentally changed - but this does not change the fact that I think strong environmental oversight by a national agency is essential. I believe this is where we differ.

Land use-policies are primarily kept in place due to payoffs (or lobbying if you prefer) by corporations - look at the cash flow into the Western US congressmens' coffers.

One more time environental reform in the industries i mentioned has been implemented unwillingly. I feel comfortable in making that statement.

The theory behind governement funded research or private/ public "partnerships" is to provide the basic science that industry is usually not willing to fund. Once this work has been started it is easier for industry to perform the higher-level engineering to put the theories into use. Currently research is going in Hybrid electric-internal combustion engines, alternative fuels, etc... This is how many high tech industry advances get their start,

And you are right, I may have views that coincide with libertarians' -that was why I was curious what someone who espouses the philosophy would say about these issues.

Can anyone hear what I'm saying? My messages don't seem to be coming up.

I see your message, Evil One.

Where have I heard *that* before...

Libertarians tend to believe that even though EPA regulations do reduce the negative impact business has on the environment, an enquiry into the issue of property rights would reduce this impact even more.
Private ownership of property is an effective method of protecting the environment. Most private owners are certainly better stewards of their property than the U.S. government, which by 1985 had built 350,000 miles of logging roads funded by US tax dollars on forest service land. Their logging roads stretch eight times as long as the U.S. Interstate highway system. The US government has a long history of turning the forests (which should belong to the nation as a whole)over to corporate interests.

In addition, when one individual or group devalues another individual or group's property, the person responsible must make reparations. Therefore, if an industry pollutes the air, which affects not only the industry's immediate property but the property of others, it must pay for the damages it causes (ecosystems it disturbs, etc...)or cease and desist this trampling on the property rights of others. Although I admit I haven't truly fleshed out my own ideas about this, I think the libertarian concept of property can encompass lots of things like soil quality, air quality, and any number of the multitudinous factors which can affect an ecosystem. Of course, if a corporation decides to annihilate an entire ecosystem without having any effect on the adjoining systems, I guess it could, if that was possible. Well, I'm not even sure if what I'm talking about reflects the views of the libertarian party at all. If there's anyone who knows more on libertarian environmental views/solutions, maybe you can help me out.

That's it exactly. You've covered both points:

Stewardship: When people invest in a piece of property, they don't try to immediately devalue it. So if someone owns a forest, they log it through sustainable practices. But if the government owns the forest, they let it out to some corporation, who doesn't give a fig about the future value. They've got an x-year contract, and after that contract expires, they have no interest in that land. Deforestation and soil erosion are the result.

Infringement: You simply cannot pollute one tract of land without affecting the surrounding property values. Put things in the water... you'll be sued. Poison the air... you'll be sued. Deforest your land, causing critters to overrun your neighbors, soil erosion, silt buildup in the river, and you know what'll happen? You'll be sued.

I can agree with the former concept, but not necessarily the latter. (I agree that both are part of a traditional libertarian stance, though.) I'll explain what I think is the flaw in this 'infringement' idea.

When a rubber manufacturing plant locates in a small rural area, it might be that nobody will complain about the pollution regardless of its level. Some might think the stench is a fair trade-off for the employment of themselves or their relatives. Others might appreciate the town's growth, leading to better sales for local stores and services. And even local officials might be persuaded to overlook the pollution, considering the hefty taxes paid by the factory which can be used to improve schools and so forth.

But while the pollution may be worst for the local citizens, wind disperses it into other areas. A few towns away, the locals may not be able to smell the pollution much. But it might still be a health threat, and furthermore it could be one like cancer that takes years to fully develop itself as a health crisis. If you believe in the theory of global warming, it's quite possible that people in distant countries will suffer ill effects from the pollution. How much damage is done before the 'infringement' theory kicks in? And how exactly does suing work for individuals facing country barriers?

Without government caps limiting pollution levels, each corporation is forced to decide how much pollution is too much. Some will quite possibly guess wrong. But could they then win a law suit, on the basis that no intentional harm occurred?

Government limits that extend nationwide protect local citizens from dismissing their own longterm health through ignorance, and help stop international squabbles about ecological damange. Furthermore, government standards require a minimum level of scientific research that benefits everyone, but might not be undertaken by the corporations.

Taxing corporations or individuals?

I think the justification for taxing corporations is that when one forms a corporation, one is seeking a tangible benefit from the government: namely, limited liability. If the government confers this benefit, it is argued, it has the right to impose an offsetting cost.

The end result might be that corporations pass those costs on to their customers. But it might, just might, be that businesses choose not to form corporations to begin with, to avoid taxes. If this is the case, businesses might behave more responsibly, because their owners can be bankrupted personally by poor decisionmaking.

Anything's possible.

DM

Taxing corporations or individuals?

I think the justification for taxing corporations is that when one forms a corporation, one is seeking a tangible benefit from the government: namely, limited liability. If the government confers this benefit, it is argued, it has the right to impose an offsetting cost.

The end result might be that corporations pass those costs on to their customers. But it might, just might, be that businesses choose not to form corporations to begin with, to avoid taxes. If this is the case, businesses might behave more responsibly, because their owners can be bankrupted personally by poor decisionmaking.

Anything's possible.

DM