Setting Environmental Standards in Libertaria

Great Debates
1

Both within and immediately following the Giant Squid thread, Libertarian had expressed an interest in the question of environmental standards; specifically, he’s asserted–here, for instance–that a single law prohibiting coercion (and implicitly defining pollution as coercion) would be enough to take care of pollution in a libertarian context.

Lib agrees that demanding zero pollution in order to be coercion-free is silly, but hasn’t yet answered my next question. And that’s what this thread is for.

Which question is, of course: How do you set pollution standards in Libertaria? Who decides what an acceptable (read as: non-coercive) level of pollution is, and on what basis? In today’s society, these aren’t easy questions. Show me how Libertaria makes them easier.

To take but two of many examples: What standard governs how many parts per million of benzene may a source emit before being coercive? (Different standards are considered in Industrial Union Dep’t v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 667 (1980).) What standard governs how many parts per billion of arsenic may be in our drinking water before it becomes coercion? (The Bush Administration’s initial decision to rescind the Clinton Administration’s standard here is debated in Cass Sunstein, The Arithmetic of Arsenic, 90 Geo. L. J. 2255 (2002) and Lisa Heinzerling, Markets for Arsenic, 90 Geo. L. J. 2311 (2002).)

It’s not a black and white issue. This isn’t Goldilocks–the choices aren’t simply “too little pollution,” “too much pollution,” and “just the right amount of pollution.” It’s a sliding scale–some level of pollution will have bad effects now, some level will have bad effects later, and some level will probably have bad effects later, but we can’t say for sure. And the potential effects of each level range wildly from serious to trivial, health-based to economic. Which level do you choose? How do you choose?

These kinds of questions are tackled by the EPA and OSHA nowadays. How would Libertaria replace them?

(Everyone–Libertarian, libertarian, or non-libertarian–is welcome to join in to figure out a good answer.)

2

I think Lib will say that there can’t be a prior standard. IOW, in a libertarian context, establishing a citizenry-wide set of pollution standards would be initiatial force by the government, which is antithetical to the philosophy. Government action against polluters could only be taken after arbitration has established that their activities —or, presumably (and I think this is critical to your question), their planned future activities— are coercive.

So, while there would be no set standards in Libertaria, there would be nothing preventing affected parties (neighboring or downstream/downwind property owners) from pursuing arbitration with the owner(s) as soon as a factory site is established, with the explicit goal of contractually agreeing upon specific limits based on known short-term and long term effects of the planned effluent. Arbitration could also be pursued against current or potential individual polluters of any volume, as long as their practices and plans can be factually established.

The flip side of this, ISTM, is that Libertaria contains no mechanism by which macroecological concerns can be translated into broad restriction of specific types of pollution (greenhouse gasses, etc.). I think it highly unlikely that any arbiter’s decision in a strict libertarian context could reasonably take into consideration even a generality such as “ecosystem jeopardy”, much less a more amorphous concern such as “future global harm”. (I would love to be corrected on this assumption, if Lib or anyone else can demonstrate how such broad social considerations fit into the libertarian legal structure.)

3

SInce I am not Lib I cannot actually respond to it, but on this matter I quoted…

I don’t believe Bush ever actually rescinded the standard (which was never scientifically proven or indicated to be needed). He did delay it. There was certainly a lot of public word accusing him of trying to poison people. In any event, he decided to let the new standard take effect.

4

(which was never scientifically proven or indicated to be needed)

Right. Perhaps you would be so kind as to indicate what standard of scientific evaluation you think is necessary to make a judgment on safety levels for arsenic in water and contrast that to the methods actually used to establish the new standard. That would be so much more a compelling argument than simply inserting a snide paranthetical phrase.

5

Xeno has it essentially right. One reason I always respect his views on libertarianism, even those that are critical, is that he has bothered to learn the philosophy, to understand it, to apply it with intellectual honesty in answering his own questions, and to respect those of us who hold to it.

Always in consideration of a question about libertarianism, the essential place to start is with the individual and his God (or nature) given property (rights). These are his life, his body, and his mind. Property (rights) that he acquires with these peacefully and honestly are accrued to him as owner. With his life, he should be free to pursue his own happiness in his own way; with his body, he should be free from the coercion of others; with his mind, he should be free to give and withhold his consent as he sees fit.

From these principles, you can answer any question by formulating a response that does not violate them. It is using the means to justify an end, rather than the other way around.

6

Okay, Lib and xeno. Fair enough. And it’s the answer that was essentially given on the other thread. But it begs the question, as it did then. To wit, how does any individual person bringing arbitration establish for themselves that a level of pollution is coercive? And, once the action is brought, how does the arbiter decide? From the other thread:

So it brings us back full circle, like so:

xeno says:

But what standards are to be used in determining that the activities are coercive? Who decides what level of pollution consitutes coercion? Each individual arbiter, in each individual case? On what bases?

7

It doesn’t beg the question, Gad; it raises the question. :wink:

And let’s start with this one: “To wit, how does any individual person bringing arbitration establish for themselves that a level of pollution is coercive?”

Consider yourself as the individual in your question, and consider that you, as a Libertarian, are as bound by the Noncoercion Principle as anyone else. You know what your standards are better than anyone, right? Now answer it. Go ahead. Honestly try.

8

No, it begs the question. It assumes that a standard will be cognizable for the arbitrees and the arbiter. I know the difference between begging and raising, thanks.

Do I know how many parts per billion of arsenic should be in my drinking water? I’ve got no fucking clue. Do I know how I’d go about finding out how many parts per billion of arsenic should be in my drinking water? I’ve got very little fucking clue. Do I know how many parts per billion of arsenic are in my drinking water? I’ve got no fucking clue.

Do you?

9

It assumes nothing of the sort.

And if you don’t know how many parts per billion, how is it that you know you can trust someone else to make the decision for you on your behalf?

10

I’m not Gad, but I can try. When I see evidence the polution is hurting me or a member of my family? If I drink tainted water and get sick, for example.

11

Very good, Captain Amazing. Or even before that if you hire a firm that specializes in such matters to examine your property.

12

I can answer that one too. I know because there are people with special training and degrees in Chemistry and Medicine who study the effects of arsenic on people for a living, and so I defer to their superior knowledge.

13

Then those are the people you hire to examine your property for you. When you need them.

14

I can’t see any reason why arbiters could not cite previous cases for precedent, assuming of course that arbitrations are matters of public record in Libertaria (the records being property of not only the parties but also the gov’t). Lib, excluding special considerations such as trade secrets, can you see any compelling reason why such records should be automatically sealed? While release of contractual information could be considered private, I would think the absence of any sort of “public policy” would compel a fairly strict adherence to “case law”, if only to prevent chronic guesswork from a business planning standpoint.

15

So lets say that we know for a fact that 5 ppm of arsenic in the water is bad for people…it’ll make them sick, or kill them (I’m making up the 5ppm figure. I don’t know what level of arsenic is really dangerous) Since, as I understand it, it is a violation of the non-coersion principle to harm another person (without their consent), wouldn’t it be ok for Libertaria to pass a standard saying, “No one will put 5 ppm of arsenic in drinking water, unless he gets the prior approval of the person or group of people who will end up drinking the water.” So, setting standards wouldn’t neccesarily be an initiation of force by the government, any more than the principle of non-coercion is initiation of force, because all it does is apply that principle to the specific case of arsenic in water.

16

I’m coming in a bit late to this discussion, please forgive me if this has already been addressed.

I’m assuming that there are some parts of the globe that are outside Libertaria (ie it doesn’t include everyone/everywhere on the planet). There are many ways that actions in Libertaria can affect the environment of non-Libertarians. For instance, Product X is manufactured in FormerColonia, a nation where many people don’t have land or get enough to eat. The manufacturing process is environmentally destructive: it releases toxic waste into the river and uses up water and energy that the FormerColonians lack.

The people who ought to have a say in how much pollution is produced in FormerColonia:

  • the consumers of the product (ie Libertarians) who want something at a low cost
  • the government of FormerColonia, which wants industry in their nation and thus is reluctant to impose environmental standards
  • the employees of the industry, who want jobs
  • those who live with the environmental pollution produced by the industry

If one of these groups decides how much pollution is acceptable, will they have to ‘coerce’ the others into complying?

17

Xeno

Libertarian governments, of course, have no rights (own no property), but they do safeguard the rights and property of the citizenry. Records of government dealings belong communally to the citizens who have paid their fee to be governed. And an arbiter, as a citizen of Libertaria, has access to them just like anyone else.

Captain Amazing wrote:

No, it wouldn’t. (There is no legislature.) And it isn’t necessary. As you’ve already shown, the law as is (the Noncoercion Principle) leads directly to the conclusion.

18

Cowgril

Are you asking whether Libertaria has jurisdiction over FormerColonia?

Note:

I’m afraid I will not be able to endure too much multiplicity of questions or opposition. I apologize for this, but it is the nature of my humanity. :slight_smile:

19

Yes. It does. My question was, how do you know when pollution becomes coercive? What standard is there? Your answer was, there’s no standard. People arbitrate when they think the pollution level is coercive, and the arbiters find for them if they think the pollution level is coercive. My response was, fine. How do you, as arbitree or arbiter, know when pollution becomes coercive? You’re assuming that laypersons can tell. You’re assuming that arbiters will have some sense of it.

What in the world…? What an inapposite question. If I don’t know how to fix my car, does that mean I can’t trust someone else to do it for me? Other people have capacity for knowledge in technical areas that I do not; training, resources, time.

Wonderful. I inhale airborne asbestos fibers because there’s not yet a proscription against them. Thirty years later, I contract mesothelioma. Now I can get them to lower their level of asbestos (assuming I can prove causation after thirty years, of course). Whoops…too late for me and everyone who’s been inhaling it for the past thirty years, though. And since this arbitration only applies as against the asbestos producer next door, everyone else inhaling asbestos in other parts of the country has to wait until they get mesothelioma… Gosh, who wouldn’t want this sort of system?

And if the arsenic level increases after I buy the property? Or, in the case of airborne pollutants, the ambient level increases from a smokestack twenty miles away?

Great. I’m sure that’s a comfort to the indigent neighborhoods. If you can’t afford an expert, you don’t get an expert. And again: what standards are these experts using? Nowadays we have statutes with specific language in them–a pollution level is illegal if it presents a “significant health risk,” for example, or if “the economic effects of the standard bear a reasonable relationship to the expected benefits.” Some standards are more restrictive than others. Is the standard used by the expert the same one used by the arbiter? What if two experts disagree because they’re using different standards? It happens all the time right now; it’s reined in by the fact that there’s law to apply.

20

Good Lord. What the heck do you think arbitration means?

Yeah, yeah, I know. I didn’t answer your question(s). And frankly, my dear…