Zachery Davis

I am excited to see that Rep. Ron Paul ® of Texas, is running for President. He is a true champion of limited government and individual freedom. Ron Paul is a stickler for the Constitution and an advocate of laissez-faire Austrian economics. I think most people who agree with fundamentals of Objectivist politics will be interested in Ron Paul's message. Check out Ron Paul at: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=70183124 or, http://ronpaul2008.com/

Thank you both for your input. I just realized how long the article was so I've decided to include and exerpt that captures the essence of Rothbard's case. His view doesn't suggest that property rights and the environment conflict, rather the opposite: property rights should be the sole means of enforcing environmental laws, not regulation. I found this copy at the Mises institute: "We have attempted to set forth a set of libertarian principles by which to gauge and reconstruct the law. We have concluded that everyone should be able to do what he likes, except if he commits an overt act of aggression against the person or property of another. Only this act should be illegal, and it should be prosecutable only in the courts under tort law, with the victim or his heirs and assigns pressing the case against the alleged aggressor. Therefore, no statute or administrative ruling creating illegal actions should be permitted. And since any prosecution on behalf of “society” or the “state” is impermissible, the criminal law should be collapsed into a reconstituted tort law, incorporating punishment and part of the law of attempts. . . . The tortfeasor or criminal is to be strictly liable for his aggression, with no evasion of liability permissible on the basis of “negligence” or “reasonability” theories. However, the liability must be proven on the basis of strict causality of the defendants action against the plaintiff, and it must be proven by the plaintiff beyond a reasonable doubt . . . The aggressor and only the aggressor should be liable, and not the employer of an aggressor, provided, of course, that the tort was not committed at the direction of the employer. The current system of vicarious employer liability is a hangover from pre-capitalist master/serf relations and is basically an unjust method of finding deep pockets to plunder. . . . These principles should apply to all torts, including air pollution. Air pollution is a private nuisance generated from one person's landed property onto another and is an invasion of the airspace appurtenant to land and, often, of the person of the landowner. Basic to libertarian theory of property rights is the concept of homesteading, in which the first occupier and user of a resource thereby makes it his property. Therefore, where a "polluter" has come first to the pollution and has preceded the landowner in emitting air pollution or excessive noise onto empty land, he has thereby homesteaded a pollution or excessive noise easement. Such an easement becomes his legitimate property right rather than that of the later, adjacent landowner. Air pollution, then, is not a tort but only the ineluctable right of the polluter if he is simply acting on a homestead easement. But where there is no easement and air pollution is evident to the senses, pollution is a tort per se because it interferes with the possession and use of another's air. Boundary crossing — say by radio waves or low-level radiation — cannot be considered aggression because it does not interfere with the owner's use or enjoyment of his person or property. Only if such a boundary crossing commits provable harm — according to principles of strict causality and beyond a reasonable doubt — can it be considered a tort and subject to liability and injunction . . . Finally, we must renounce the common practice of writers on environmental law of acting as special pleaders for air pollution plaintiffs, lamenting whenever plaintiffs are not allowed to ride roughshod over defendants. The overriding factor in air pollution law, as in other parts of the law, should be libertarian and property rights principles rather than the convenience or special interests of one set of contestants" (http://www.mises.org/story/2120#14). Zack

As an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism I have encountered many people (conservative and liberal) who cite environmentalism as a reason why regulation is necessary. Since all human life exists in some form of environment, it is in everyone's self-interest to care about their own environment to a certain degree. I think that the "environmentalists" however, are misguided by false premises and an irrational hierarchy of values: they accept original sin as fact, and value plants and animals above human life. I am not suggesting people should be unconcerned with the environment, I'm merely saying that the environmentalists are confused and overly emotional. Nonetheless, the environment is a concern for us all. This brings up the question, "how does an ideal laissez-faire society address environmental issues?" If a logical goal for an Objectivist is to try to persuade people into accepting our philosophy, we must be able to address this issue intelligently. I have found little work in this area; too many free-market proponents give me the impression that they would be content pretending that environmental issues were impossible contradictions. I think there are very few areas where regulation may be necessary, e.g., long-term disposal of radioactive waste--I can't imagine free-markets would flawlessly dispose of toxic materials which are still harmful for generations to come. Still, I believe that nearly all of the regulation existing today can and should be replaced with a more elaborate system of property rights with definable, objectively demonstrable standards of proof. Murray Rothbard wrote an interesting article in the Cato Journal entitled, Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution, (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj2n1/cj2n1-2.pdf) in which he thoroughly examines how a restructuring of the current legal system using tort law can be used to implement objective laws addressing environmental issues. I think Rothbard raises many important points and introduces very good ideas. Has anyone else read this article or other informative works on free-market environmental issues? What are your thoughts? Zack

Hi everyone, my name is Zack. I initially became a member in October but haven't had much time to visit. I've recently had a chance to read some posts and I find many of the ideas very interesting. I get the impression that most of the members here view Objectivism as an open, rather than closed system. I think this is an important distinction because many of the "orthodox" Objectivists can be intimidating and, as ironic as it seems, may sometimes encourage conformity. I feel comfortable knowing I can share my thoughts without fear of excommunication. I look forward to many future discussions. Zack