What is the Objectivist's view

[Derek McGowan]

Hello all,

I'm quite certain you guys have discussed zoning rights so you may have already discussed this but I skimmed the topics on the first three pages of this politics forum and I didn't see zoning in any of the subject lines.

Anyway how should this situation be handled

http://baltimorestory.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/proposed-harbor-point-tower-on-chromium-site-could-make-baltimore-an-environmental-crash-test-dummy-with-real-lives-at-stake/

Basically currently where I live in Baltimore there is a site that is planned for redevelopment. It is on the site of a Chromium factory that existed for 150 years. The contamination runs deep into the ground and it was sealed off with a cap years ago. The new development may cause a release of chemicals into the air and into the harbor.

In a limited governmental structure, would discussions on safety even need to be broached? Does the developer have any obligation to concern themselves with the possibilities of contamination or with the concern of neighbors?

I'm sure there is a way this would be handled, I'd just like some enlightenment on the method. Thanks

[jts]

Yaron Brook on zoning laws.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Derek,

I'm no expert on this and I think the problems often get oversimplified.

But I do know that even if zoning laws are not present in laissez-faire capitalism, de facto zoning still exists according to how a neighborhood is set up by a real estate developer (including, maybe, an agreement signed by purchasers to adhere to certain standards), and civil and criminal liability still exists for people who damage other people and their property.

Of course, this liability is after the fact. What about preventing a disaster? There's an easy answer. If plausible future damage to the neighborhood from the installation of a factory or some other construction can be shown by concerned individuals, a court injunction and other legal measures that protect individual rights are still available.

I agree with Yaron that there are many options other than free-for-all irresponsibility.

The question to me is what on earth has granted government employees (especially regulators) such extraordinary wisdom to make good decisions about other people's property--wisdom that the owners apparently do not have?

Michael

[Selene]

The question to me is what on earth has granted government employees (especially regulators) such extraordinary wisdom to make good decisions about other people's property--wisdom that the owners apparently do not have?

Yep..that is the issue, excellent question Michael...waiting for our resident intellectuals to discuss the question you raised...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

I said, "I agree with Yaron..."

I don't believe I said that.

Michael

[Derek McGowan]

Thanks JTS, I watched the video. My only issue with the video is when the speaker said that there is no incentive for someone to build a refinery near housing, and by him using the phrase "No incentive" he is able to simply throw out the idea that people do attempt to do things on their property all the time that doesn't fit with the surrounding area. In fact we have a very common phrase- "not in my backyard" which can attest to the many many times that things have been attempted in areas that from a perspective of incentive don't make sense. I personally have seen people attempt to open strip clubs in the middle of residential neighborhoods. I think that he was right on to bring Houston into the discussion though in order to prove that zoning is not exactly necessary.example, but I dont think he specifically answered my concern about the building (in a properly zoned area) of something that the construction itself may cause collateral damage. I suppose my question could also fit into environmental regulations, impact studies, etc, as well.

Thank you Mike for bringing up the fact that business would be held liable in court for damage to my property or person. I hadn't thought of so simple an answer and it makes much more sense now. The problem of not being able to get insurance on your project may also prevent some of the more dangerous job sites. I guess that wouldn't work for protecting the environment though without lengthy regulations. So how do we protect the environment?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I guess that wouldn't work for protecting the environment though without lengthy regulations. So how do we protect the environment?

Derek,

Are you sure "lengthy regulations" protect the environment?

I'm not.

Here's one example, but others are pretty easy to find.

A reasonable case could be made that the 2010 BP oil spill (Deepwater Horizon oil spill) happened precisely because of "lengthy regulations." In other words, BP would not have been drilling in such deep waters if it had been permitted to drill closer to shore.

Added to that fact, there is what happens when a "greedy capitalist" from BP learns to play the game. (btw - I don't consider such folks as "greedy capitalists." I just said that to be a smartass. I consider them as "greedy crony capitalists." The difference is in partnering with the government. Apropos, an exact meaning synonym for crony capitalism is corporatism, in case you prefer that term.)

You can read about the new "green" BP, as opposed to those other dirty oil companies, especially the story of John Browne, politically correct crony capitalist par excellence, in a very interesting book called Winning the Story Wars: Why Those Who Tell (and Live) the Best Stories Will Rule the Future by Jonah Sachs. Fortunately, Sachs put the part dealing with BP online:

The Marketing Monster: When executives begin to believe their own hype.

Sachs tells the story from a Progressive-friendly viewpoint, so the extent of government corruption, backstage deals, etc., is played waaaay down. But the truth is government had just as much blame in that oil spill as BP.

Think about it this way. The same kind of fine folks who you insinuate should protect the environment are directly responsible for the Obamacare rollout fiasco. When they fuck up, they fuck up big. Are you sure you want the safety of the world in their hands?

I repeat my question from above: "The question to me is what on earth has granted government employees (especially regulators) such extraordinary wisdom to make good decisions about other people's property--wisdom that the owners apparently do not have?"

I will grant you that regulators are very good at protecting the environment in one sense--shutting out humans altogether. If humans don't do jack, they can't impact jack on the environment one way or the other.

I realize the enormous folly humans constantly engage in, but I have more faith in my species than those who say humans cannot use the earth except in human zones.

(Incidentally, I am not an ancap. I believe government has an essential role in human affairs, but it is limited.)

Michael

[Derek McGowan]

Hey Mike, thanks for your ongoing feedback.

Just a clarification, I never said that government should be in charge of the environment, my statement was suppose implicitly (and then my follow up question was explicit) ask the the question how do you protect the environment without government and the lengthy regulations that come with it. In no way am I saying that the government is the answer, Im just saying that the government's standard answer IS lengthy regulations and I am seeking a logical way to avoid that.

But since you mentioned the fact that BP had to drill far out.... this brings to mind the question of who should (and how should they) come to own parts of the ocean. If the government rightly owns (and Im not saying they should) the shoreline and up to 500 miles out, then it should be well within its property rights to say where and if a third party can dig. If a country's government does not rightfully own the surrounding ocean, then who should and how do they come to own it?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Derek,

I cannot give you an Objectivist answer, especially since the tenor of this site is independent thinking using Objectivism as a starting point, not an end point.

(I believe working out ideas is a messy process--gloriously messy at times. And each of us has to do it in our own manner. That's the reason for so much flexibility here.)

What I can give you is my observation of history. Normally, countries have been established by settlement or conquest. After people are occupying it under some kind of despotic rule and defending it by killing invaders when need be, only then do the people start to think about individual rights, constitutions, elections, etc.

So as far as the ocean is concerned, I think it first has to be defended by settlers who use it. Not because that would be the right way according to some principle or other, but because that's the way humans have done it up to now. I think it's a mistake to apply ocean ownership to the same standards as land ownership, if for no other reason than because the ocean is not fit for human survival without a crapload of investment and technology.

We already have some kind of ownership going with seal lanes. But notice that they are not real property, but instead, pathways for ships protected by force. Oh, and we have treaties. But these are only as good as the navies that back them.

The best way I can think of for a country to establish the extent of the ocean it shall own from the coastline is to simply declare it, then defend it. If it has declared too much, human nature will take its course, invaders will come and it will lose the boundary (and possibly a lot more). If it has declared too little, it can simply move the boundary and defend the new limit.

I know that's not very satisfactory, but I believe it is a good reality-based starting point. A "what is," so to speak, not a "what should be."

Michael

[Selene]

how do you protect the environment without government and the lengthy regulations that come with it.

You don't

A...

[Jonathan]

Rand believed in a type of zoning, as we discussed on this thread:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5560

Limiting people's uses of their own property by establishing "adults only" sections by means of government force and preventing the owners from displaying images that others find "loathsome" is a kind of zoning. But Rand's position wasn't an Objectivist one -- it wasn't consistent with the Objectivist view of property rights.

As for your other questions, the Objectivist position is that property owners may do whatever they wish with their property, as long as whatever they do does not violate others' property rights. If one property owner believes that another has contaminated his property, then he must prove it in a court of law.

And private property ownership would apply to oceans, lakes and rivers, just as it does to land.

J

[Derek McGowan]

I've got an example of zoning which I think should be permitted under Objectiivism. People should be allowed to take drugs sure and they should even, in objectivistism, be allowed to produce drugs but we have a history of meth labs exploding. So I think that if you are going to make meth then it needs to have a minimum amount of space between you and your neighbors or some sort of certified barrier system. Both of which would be regulations and if your neighbor suspected you of producing, then a warrant should be issued to do some sort of heat scan of you house or something to determine the truth at which time you would face fine or jail time

I think this example is different then other examples that have a mere possibility that something bad could happen to others when you do or build things on your personal property. This example has many historical results that bad things do happen when inexperience people build home based meth labs (we could assume that the destruction that has occurred historically would be multiplied greatly if there was no laws against meth production and thus no need to keep it secret and thus much much larger production facilities per house.)

[BaalChatzaf]

how do you protect the environment without government and the lengthy regulations that come with it.

You don't

A...

Global effects of individual actions are one of the issues that we have to factor in when we construct a government.

Was the Health Department of New York City wrong for locking up Typhoid Mary?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

I've got an example of zoning which I think should be permitted under Objectiivism. ... I think this example is different then other examples that have a mere possibility that something bad could happen to others when you do or build things on your personal property. ...

Derek, you do not have the right to threaten someone else. A meth lab or nuclear power plant or whatever else that degrades the property of a neighbor is not defensible. You can construct what-if scenarios to test the limits, but ultimately, in any society with law, it will come down to a decision by a court that represents the community. At least, we all want that.

In wet England, "riparian rights" say that you own the shoreline of water abutting your property going out as far as is practicable to show control as evidence of ownership. You can do what you want with it. In desert places - like the American West - a different view of water rights evolved: you do not have the right to damage (limit; control) your neighbor's water.

Issues such as that are resolvable objectively, but not absolutely. In other words, you cannot use "pure reason" to come up with one theory that will apply to all possible cases. Case law recognizes the variety of circumstances, while always keeping to an objective standard of fundamental principles.

in The Art of Community by Spencer MacCallum (Wikipedia here) is the outline of how shopping malls for instance indicate what a purely free market society would look like. Note that within the mall, you do not have anarchy and certainly not chaos. But if the rules are ridiculous, no one will rent. It all works out, if you let it.