Quote from: Razick on March 01, 2014, 03:25:27 PM

Quote from: BlueNote on March 01, 2014, 04:54:54 AM

Quote from: Razick on March 01, 2014, 03:22:18 AM

Some regulations are absolutely necessary, such as the ones that tell air traffic how it must behave in crowded airspace, and industry how much it can pollute, but in most cases, common law handles what you are talking about.

How can state regulation ever be considered necessary? A state regulation is nothing but an edict issued by men with guns who threaten to initiate violence against provably innocent people for provably innocent acts. Think about that for a minute. Try to cite an example of state regulation being enforced which is not an initiation of violence against an otherwise innocent person. Regulation is not like a law against murder or a law against theft where the violation of person or property is addressed. It is an attempt to criminalize various aspects of otherwise peaceful, voluntary, non-aggressive human intercourse (i.e., freedom). It is done in the name "preventing crime," and that is why the concept is so Orwellian. It totally perverts the concept of law. It actually manages to criminalize freedom while simultaneously legitimizing organized crime (the armies of state thugs who punish innocent people for various non-crimes).

Air pollution is a simple matter of enforcing property rights. Read Rothbard on the subject. And I'm pretty sure that if you investigate the matter, you'll find that the rules for air traffic were developed by the pioneers of the industry long before government got involved. The state is always a latecomer to these things, and usually steps in so that politicians can grandstand and gain more power for themselves and their cronies. There is plenty that has been written about market solutions to perceived public goods problems like air quality, air traffic control, the radio spectrum, etc. If you apply the homesteading principle properly, then it's fairly easy to work out the property rights of those involved in a dispute.

You are right that air traffic rules, for example, don't have to be created by government, but let's say that they are merely an industry consensus instead of regulations having the force of law: As a pilot, I would be terrified of the fool who decides to put everyone else in danger by violating that consensus on correct behaviour! Yet in many cases, the person could violate that law without directly encroaching on another person.

As for air pollution, your idea can be dangerous. Sure, dumping chemicals into a river might be a clear example of tort, but what about someone who simply decides to run a factory? At what level is the person exercising their own property rights and at what level are they violating other's rights? Environmentalists and manufacturers are likely going to disagree about that line, and because it's not black and white, I find it hard to believe that courts could agree on a consistent, fair to all, common law standard.

Regulations are not perfect in this case by any means, but they seem to me to be a simpler answer. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would be very difficult, and very dangerous. At least regulations can be changed by democratic influences, but in a common law judicial system, precedents, even bad ones, are difficult to over turn.

Oh, come on. You think that approaching air pollution cases from the standpoint of property rights is "dangerous"? How so? What other basis would there be to sue? You can't rightfully sue anyone because you don't like them or don't like what they do. You have to show cause. You have to show that they are somehow impinging on your rights. Those rights all pretty much reduce (in the legal sense at least) to property rights. That's why libertarianism is so simple to understand. You "own" yourself and your justly acquired property, and no one therefore has the right to initiate force against you to deprive you of your property or harm your person. Everyone has the same rights, and there are no favored elite persons or classes who have "more" rights than others, and no underclasses that have fewer rights.

Of course people won't all agree over disputes. That's why we need systems to resolve disputes in the first place.

I'm not talking about common law. Libertarianism is based on self-ownership, property rights, and the non-aggression principle. The values that have given rise to common law may or may not intersect with these values.

What do you mean by "because it's not black and white" that courts could not reach consistent fair decisions for all? Is anything ever "black and white" as long as two parties are disputing something? The whole reason they are in a dispute is because it's not black and white to both of them. And every case has multiple elements, and therefore may not be black and white to observers or the lawyers or the judges or the juries either. That's why we try each case on the merits of that particular case. Principles may seem to be solidly black and white, but how they get applied to a particular case can differ, and people can easily have different opinions or biases on the matter. But does the state ever reach consistent fair decisions for all simply by issuing edicts? You seem to be saying that state edicts are more fair to people than a court process where two parties make a case before a neutral third party. That would seem rather easy to prove false, don't you think? I mean, state regulation is more likely to be based on power, money, and influence than it is on property rights and a fair hearing, right?

You say that state regulation is "simpler." What does that mean exactly? Does that statement have any ethical context? It seems to dispense with ethics altogether - and that seems a whole lot more "dangerous" than having parties able to bring their disputes before trusted neutral third parties. State regulation is simply an edict by people claiming to have a monopoly rule over a territory. Why does that outrageous and insupportable claim just get swept under the rug whenever conversations like this spring up? What standing does the state have when two parties are disputing over how their actions affect one another?

If you and I are merely subjects of the state and must accept whatever "solution" they have set for us ahead of time, then that seems to be a much bigger problem than air pollution, don't you think? And btw, air pollution has continued to be an issue even though the world is filled with massive modern states that have gigantic budgets and produce volumes of laws and edicts continually. The idea that people have of the state and how it works or is supposed to work doesn't ever seem to match the reality. We don't ever see the state making things "simpler" or solving problems. They seem to make things much more complicated than they need to be while they exacerbate problems and create new ones.

IIRC, Rothbard simply applied the homesteading principle (an easy to understand aspect of property rights) in air pollution cases, and it seems quite logical. I don't see any huge difficulty in trying such cases at all. In fact, I don't know how you would dispute the principles involved. Look into it if you're interested.

BlueNote

Posts

Merits