As to the PR incentive, that only works when people make it known but there is abundant evidence to show that people tend to conceal such matters. If PR incentive, and property values for that matter, were of any real benefit in addressing this problem then why is this problem increasing instead of decreasing? For example, it is still unsafe to eat fish in Sydney harbour, Brisbane river, parts of melbourne, and there are now numerous warnings that eating too much fish can expose us to heavy metal contamination. In that regard take note: don’t eat swordfish, too much mercury. Whose property rights are affected by that? What PR incentive is there in this because mercury and lead levels are rising everywhere? There is no-one to sue because so many are contributing to the problem and these entities cannot be identified for the purposes of “proof” in law, a strategy that the tobacco companies used to very good effect. In science the problem is even more pronounced because it is extremely difficult to establish causation in complex multiple branching systems that typify biological processes. So when people say, science has not proved this or that, I don’t care because I don’t think Science proves a great deal at all. This is why Karl Popper’s concept of falsifiability holds the day, we can’t prove anything with complete finality but the least we can do is offer arguments that can be subject to empirical refutation. ie. We inch closer to the truth, that is sufficient.

Yes, the research makes it abundantly clear that we need much more testing of these chemicals being released into the environment. I study immunology and from the evidence I have seen I am very concerned that we are adding enormous flow on costs in terms of various developmental and degenerative pathologies and know that an increasing percentage of these conditions are occurring because of pollution. To suggest that we should just ignore this problem is intellectual and moral cowardice. The flow on costs to the community and government are already too large and will continue to increase as long as people think like you: let’s just ignore the problem.

And for heaven’s sake don’t think about pollution as being localised, it rarely is. Even if it occurs on the other side of the continent it does reach us.

I’m still interested to know if I summarised your position correctly.

Regards,
Terje.

Perhaps I misunderstood your original hypothetical. I thought the sludge-dump was a one-time only event, in which case you going and hitting the sludge-dumper wouldn’t be related to the future chance he would hurt you again. But it appears you’re talking about a serial sludge-dumper.

Still, at an individual level we have outsourced most elements of our defence to the police & court system. In your hypothetical the court system doesn’t work which of course undermines the concept of clearly defined private property rights. The libertarian answer is to have a working court system which defines and defends property rights.

However, this hypothetical takes us a little away from the original topic which was geo-political self-defence. Geo-politically there is no agreed police/court system, so there isn’t a third party to adjudiate. If country B is violating the sovereignty of country A, the appropraite response is to ask them to stop. If they continue then you must consider increasingly tougher response measures so long those measures produce a net benefit to your country.

2. There is plenty of stuff that is dangeous. Remember how phenalthayline was poisonous – turns out those lab rats were given ridiculous quantities of the stuff. There is also informational costs. Are you going to test every single chemical in food before we can eat?

3. The factory example is devious. Firstly, land values would dictate that an owner of land near a residential area would not build a factory without Government enforced zoning due to the capital loss they would be making. They would seek more marginal land. Secondly, land and water rights are easily enforcable. Thirdly, the company has a PR incentive to settle out of court and stop, a prohibitive cost in being sued and no real incentive to pollute other than to save a small marginal cost, which isn’t worth it. Fourthly, blowing up the factory would release more toxins.

4. The USA is a relative beacon of civility, amongst others. It has low rates of murder among the OECD and during peacetime becomes quite prosperous. It’s problems are foreign adventurism and internally bad policy like drug laws, which are wasteful and deleterious, and have serious blowback and black market crime problems. Humans survived because we have big brains and can trade and cooperate, not because we have big fangs or can fly with our arms. How do you kill a GW shark? With an ultraviolent skin diver or some well engineered fishing equipment?

“Your toxic sludge example isn’t about self-defence.”

Of course it is about self defence, if I am being constantly poisoned because someone is knowingly releasing toxins that affect my health then do I just sit back and let myself get poisoned? I approach the courts, the government, they do nothing(no surprises there). You seem to be saying that if the legal means fail then I should sit back and let my children be poisoned. Public protest certainly works but it takes sooo long, by that time the damage has been done(similiar problem to the court and govt route).

So some turkey comes along and blows up my factory, we cannot find the culprit. For those downstream the problem is solved and solved much more quickly than your proposed means. The downstream children are no longer being poisoned. I rebuild the factory, same thing happens. Now if we had a legal system that was more interested in justice than legal games then perhaps this would improve. Now that is being utopian.

This is an issue that is becoming increasingly urgent. For example, in The Lancet recently a study was released which indicated that 200 chemicals they tested have the potential to induce neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders. What is particularly frightening about this is the epidemiological studies reveal huge increases in neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disorders. The data on this has been out for years(The Lancet simply highlighted what many neuroscientists have known for years), in the meantime thousands of people are being poisoned and suffering debilitating illnesses. For example, a study 3 years ago found a direct correlation between pollution levels and neurodegenerative disorders. Cancer rates are also rising. Still far too little is being done to address the problem. This aint no utopia.

BH
“Mindless violence would lead to your genes less likely to be passed on.”

“Mindless violence” Just what is that? You’ve created a straw man to attack my argument. Have a look at some wild populations, the bigger the animal, the more aggressive the animal, the more often it passes on its genes. Extreme violence will certainly mitigate against the selection advantage but I wasn’t talking about “mindless violence” or extreme violence, just increased violence. I don’t believe violence is mindless, or any behavior is mindless for that matter. Hell, you need a mind to behave in the first place.

Yes, natural selection would suggest that self preservation holds sway but many people forego self preservation for a greater cause. Suicide bombers. So self preservation, while a strong drive, is not a determinant drive. The historical evidence suggests the USA is one of the most violent countries in the world, it is doing just fine.

If we want to talk hawks and doves and game theory then “tit for tat” seems to be the best strategy. The trick is to find a balance between “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “do unto others as they do unto you”. Zero tolerance, community based policing aims for such a balance.

There is an inherent tension you captured in the Somalia situation – if anarcho capitalism is so efficient why hasn’t it prevailed? Because law enforcement may be prone to monopoly. Same thing happened in Iceland when it ended up in the hands of 5 families and leaded to a revolt that destroyed icelandic society. So the lesser evil may be a politically accountable monopoly but then the political accountability bit leads to this monopoly doing more things because of the legitimacy which leads to big government and to things spiralling back down fom there and so on it goes.

And in some cases as you say statutory law may be more efficient if transaction costs of using case law gets ridiculously high. It’s hard to claim that there is a once and for all efficient framework which can be sustainable under anarcho-capitalism (if it leads to warlord capture and something worse than politically accountable big-gish government) but the current set up isn’t efficient either.

Going off on a tangent here, but this touches on one of my original objections to Libertopia.

We could have every wrong compensated through the courts system, but what that would mean is a vast, gigantic, behemoth of a courts system, with a lot of resources both human and monetary going into resolution of conflict.

This is one of the ‘invisible hands’ I see pushing the population of any Libertopia towards communal agreements despite themselves for efficiency’s sake – “let’s keep all the toxic industries in one place and not allow residential”, for example. That’s called zoning. Or, “let’s charge a fee on all toxic industries in exchange for not suing, and spend it on cleaning up after them” – that’s called tax.

Not to mention the concentration of power in those with resources to throw at lawsuits, which means that suing for damages can become difficult/impossible/pointless, and wrongs not righted.

Which leads to that other invisible hand – warlordism. It has played out that way in Somalia, the closest thing to a libertarian experiment I know of. The strongest/richest people become warlords, and (funded by businesses who wants stability) have become strong enough to impose government.

I agree that violence can lead to more violence. I argued against the Afghanistan and Iraq wars so I can hardly be seen as a warnick. But I have considerably more sympathy with Israel because they truely are facing a real threat, unlike the irrational fear campaign in the west.

For example, you can’t let Hezbollah kidnap your citizens and then wave at you across a border. Lebannon had almost no control over the southern regions and weren’t going to do anything about Hez, so I think Israel is within their rights to strike and strike hard. It was a no win situation, but I think they lost less than they would have if they did nothing.

Revenge is not self defence. They would be within rights to sue you for damages though.

A friend of mine used to say that natural selection may have played an important role in generating violence.

Mindless violence would lead to your genes less likely to be passed on. Natural selection would suggest that species that rely on social interaction for survival would have a strong sense of self-preservation, with violence restricted to self defence. Bad things tend to happen to overly aggressive individuals and collectives of individuals.