4 thoughts on “Libertarianism and pollution: the limits of absolutist moralism”

  1. Posted 20/02/2015 at 15:57 | Permalink

    This essay is full of holes, the most glaring of which are (1) that the author cherry picks self serving assumptions about how “libertarian philosophy” applies the NAP to the question of pollution and (2) completely ignores the libertarian context in which ALL property is private.

    That being said, creating any pollution becomes an act of aggression the moment it is allowed to reach beyond one’s own property to encroach upon the property of another. The NAP allows for the victim(s) to take whatever defensive and or mitigating action (including violence) is appropriate to the circumstances.

    No confusion whatsoever.

  2. Posted 20/02/2015 at 17:27 | Permalink

    It would be interesting to know, if ALL property is private, who is the owner(s) of the Mississippi River, who should decide about navigation and pollution concerning it.

  3. Posted 21/02/2015 at 11:21 | Permalink

    @ EZ

    ” (2) completely ignores the libertarian context in which ALL property is private.”

    Is air private property? How do we establish what is private property? After all, the possession of stolen goods/land/people from other countries/neighbouring tribes was all once considered private property.

    As where your wife, children, and surfs working on your land.

    So, was everything above your land into infinity, and everything below your feet into hell.

    Things change.

  4. Posted 13/03/2015 at 12:44 | Permalink

    “environmental pollution, insofar as it constitutes or involves aggression against other human beings, is morally impermissible” This is true, but begs the question. It is not established that pollution is aggression rather than the use of a commons. For example, the air surrounding my property is not owned by me, but is a commons.

Comments are closed.