Quote:
Originally posted by SinisterMotives
Okay, let's use a universally accepted, presumably inocuous product as an example. I don't drive a motor vehicle, yet those who do drive pollute the air I breath, thus creating a potential health threat that undermines the steps I might take (as a matter of personal liberty) to protect my health. Moreover, since what goes up must come down, the acid rain is once again contaminating my organic cornfield. Granted, that probably wouldn't affect the marketability of my produce now that the current corporatist administration has rendered the "organic" food label all but meaningless, but let's say for the sake of argument that these are both valid concerns.
|
First, there is not universal scientific agreement regarding air pollution (re: The Skeptical Environmentalist). Second, there are always going to be economic vs. environmental trade-offs. For example, if we suddenly outlawed the internal combustion engine, what would happen to our economy? How many people's lives would be harmed due to lack of employment? How many would die due to lack of ambulance service?
The horse is out of the barn on autos. The best we can do is to transition towards higher fuel efficiency and cleaner alternative energy solutions.
In a societal context, the best we can do is to assess a valid cost-benefit of the solution to the problem, and act in the greater good.
To address the more general issue of property rights, I would prefer that we had less "commons" and more individual owned property. Air quality is a problem because air is viewed as being part of the "commons". If you owned the air above your property, then you would have more of a legal standing to protect it.