Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Pollution

Rate this topic


Jon Southall

Recommended Posts

Playing devil's advocate for the sake of exploring this, say I am an individual who suffers from asthma and a waste incinerator company starts burning waste near to where I live. The smell triggers my asthma and means I cannot work as well as I could, it diminishes the enjoyment of my private life. Say I have proof of causality. If I can strictly uphold my rights, so they are not breaching them whatsoever, I could in theory force them to shut down the incinerator whenever there is a chance I will inhale polluted air.

Do you also have proof that the only spot on Earth where you can continue your work and life is next to that incinerator? If you don't, then you can't force the incinerator to close, the only thing you're entitled to is enough compensation to be able to move without any cost to you.

If you in fact are able to continue the same work and the same lifestyle you had before, but in another spot, then your rights have not been breached. Rights are to actions, not to objects or geographical locations.

For the same reason you can't buy up land around someone's house to force them to not be able to leave home, you can't use your property rights to stop waste management, or any other productive activity in your city. That's not what property rights are for. They are meant to facilitate productive action, not to prevent it.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what property rights are for. They are meant to facilitate productive action, not to prevent it.

 

From what I can tell his whole issue (and this is including the other thread he started) is (wrongly) with this statement. If we can prove this statement to him then all these issues and objections he has are answered and refuted. Might be worth starting a thread to prove this principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you also have proof that the only spot on Earth where you can continue your work and life is next to that incinerator? If you don't, then you can't force the incinerator to close, the only thing you're entitled to is enough compensation to be able to move without any cost to you.

Why?

 

If someone lives somewhere, devoting at least some portion of their time and effort to keeping that place habitable, and then someone else comes in and makes it uninhabitable (at least for them) then doesn't offering them enough money to move- essentially denying their right to live in the place they've secured for themselves- artificially render all of that time and energy worthless?  Isn't that what rights are meant to secure; the fruits of the product of one's labors?

 

Granted, a situation where one is objectively harmed by someone else's production is difficult to conceive of, but I believe that's exactly what his example is- one possible case in which industry could be said to harm someone, with objective validity.

If that's true then how would the suggested solution differ, morally, from Eminent Domain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone lives somewhere, devoting at least some portion of their time and effort to keeping that place habitable, and then someone else comes in and makes it uninhabitable (at least for them) then doesn't offering them enough money to move- essentially denying their right to live in the place they've secured for themselves- artificially render all of that time and energy worthless?

No. Why would building a house, and receiving enough money for it to buy a house that's just as valuable, elsewhere, make your house building efforts worthless? You've lost nothing.

Well, if you wrongly believe that you have an absolute right to that piece of property (absolute, as opposed to derived from the concept of rights to self-sustaining action), then being forced to move to an equally valuable property would injure your ego. But the egos of people operating under false premises don't deserve special consideration.

 

Granted, a situation where one is objectively harmed by someone else's production is difficult to conceive of, but I believe that's exactly what his example is- one possible case in which industry could be said to harm someone, with objective validity.

If that's true then how would the suggested solution differ, morally, from Eminent Domain?

In the case of eminent domain, the government acts to confiscate the property (for public use, no less), while in my example, the government refrains from acting to shut down an economic activity.

Don't get me wrong, that is not the be all end all standard of morality, but limiting government action to a high standard of objectivity is a necessary condition of having a moral political system.

So, if one were to rely on the principle "limit government to actions that meet a high standard of objectivity", then one ought to limit both a government's power to use eminent domain, and its power to prevent pollution, to cases where it can be proven with sufficient certainty that such actions are necessary to defend a person's rights.

 

Like I explained above, I don't think in the example above it's been proven that government force is necessary to protect individual rights. Not as long as sufficient compensation is offered to restore all economic damage caused (and, using those economic resources, the other party has the ability to easily prevent any kind of negative health effects - by moving).

P.S. I suppose that this difference I describe above doesn't really pertain to the Ethics of human interactions, it's more of a procedural difference that pertains to the more concrete functioning of government. The actual morality of the two (someone being adequately compensated for pollution, and someone being adequately compensated for a railroad being built across their property), is the same: both actions protect individual rights, rather than violate them.

And yes, if someone can prove that your refusal to allow them to take their railroad across your land is a violation of their right to self sustaining action, rather than you exercising your own right to self sustaining action, then the government should step in and void your title to the relevant piece of land. If used in this way, eminent domain is the moral course of action.

Such proof would have to consist of strong evidence that 1. you can't use your land to produce as much value as they are offering to compensate you with, and 2. them going around your land would cost them more than what they are offering to compensate you with. If these two conditions are met, then it is clear that you are using the land ownership system in place not to exercise your individual rights, but to deny the railway company from exercising theirs.

This, by the way, is very similar to how intellectual property rights are established (to the way patents are afforded, but voided once they are used not to reward and promote, but to hinder self sustaining action).

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, if someone can prove that your refusal to allow them to take their railroad across your land is a violation of their right to self sustaining action, rather than you exercising your own right to self sustaining action, then the government should step in and void your title to the relevant piece of land. If used in this way, eminent domain is the moral course of action.

Such proof would have to consist of strong evidence that 1. you can't use your land to produce as much value as they are offering to compensate you with, and 2. them going around your land would cost them more than what they are offering to compensate you with. If these two conditions are met, then it is clear that you are using the land ownership system in place not to exercise your individual rights, but to deny the railway company from exercising theirs.

A land owner has no obligation to let another person build a railroad across his land, no matter how much this second person claims to need it. The supposed need of others is not a claim against my property.

Your talk of "value" is completely misguided; a person may value his own property howsoever he likes. I may set any price I'd like on any piece of property, or refuse to do so entirely, at my discretion. Someone may offer me three-times "fair market value" for the least of my trinkets, and I may yet refuse to sell. This is what it means to "own property"; that IS the "action" that my property rights give to me (among others).

If I do not wish to sell my land to the railroad company then they must make plans that do not take their trains across my land.

Your defense of eminent domain is anti-property rights, and if it is meant to reflect Objectivism, it is deeply confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A land owner has no obligation to let another person build a railroad across his land, no matter how much this second person claims to need it. The supposed need of others is not a claim against my property.

Your talk of "value" is completely misguided; a person may value his own property howsoever he likes. I may set any price I'd like on any piece of property, or refuse to do so entirely, at my discretion. Someone may offer me three-times "fair market value" for the least of my trinkets, and I may yet refuse to sell. This is what it means to "own property"; that IS the "action" that my property rights give to me (among others).

If I do not wish to sell my land to the railroad company then they must make plans that do not take their trains across my land.

Your defense of eminent domain is anti-property rights, and if it is meant to reflect Objectivism, it is deeply confused.

Why? Because you said so? You make no attempts to link your declarations to Objectivism. Or any other philosophy, for that matter. They're just random statements you've heard before and are repeating for no particular reason.

 

The only thing that makes land (or anything else) your property is a society built on Reason. I can't imagine what rational basis there could possibly be for this supposed right of yours to sit in the middle of a swat of land, do nothing with it, and force everyone to conform to your arbitrary declaration that it's your right. And that you get to decide what the value of things is, on top of it all.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sitting in the middle of a swatch of land and "doing nothing" with it has long term repercussions as well. An individual would still need to eat. If they are not self sufficient (in which case, they would not being doing nothing) then eventually the "cost" of living is going to catch up with them. Either the need to sell (or rent) the property would arise to cover one's sustenance, or a cessation of "doing nothing" would come about as a result of the recognition or realization of  "in order to live, one must act" would arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Why would building a house, and receiving enough money for it to buy a house that's just as valuable, elsewhere, make your house building efforts worthless? You've lost nothing.

I can't imagine what rational basis there could possibly be for this supposed right of yours to sit in the middle of a swat of land, do nothing with it, and force everyone to conform to your arbitrary declaration that it's your right. And that you get to decide what the value of things is, on top of it all.

 

"Value" presupposes 'to whom' and 'for what'.

 

In the case of eminent domain, the government acts to confiscate the property (for public use, no less), while in my example, the government refrains from acting to shut down an economic activity.

 

A government- and an economy- is nothing more than the sum of many individuals and their respective actions.  If it's wrong for a government then it's wrong for an individual, and vice-versa.

 

Well, if you wrongly believe that you have an absolute right to that piece of property (absolute, as opposed to derived from the concept of rights to self-sustaining action), then being forced to move to an equally valuable property would injure your ego. But the egos of people operating under false premises don't deserve special consideration.

 

The exact same thing could be said, in the exact same way, about our hypothetical industrialist.

 

For whatever it's worth, I think the distinguishing characteristic has to be priority; whoever was there first should ultimately have the overriding claim (as implied earlier).

If someone lives somewhere, devoting at least some portion of their time and effort to keeping that place habitable, and then someone else comes in and makes it uninhabitable

 

If the industrialist were there first, and then someone with asthma were to move into the already-polluted area and try to make them stop, I don't think the former would owe so much as a single moments' attention to the latter.

 

This, by the way, is very similar to how intellectual property rights are established (to the way patents are afforded, but voided once they are used not to reward and promote, but to hinder self sustaining action).

 

Yes; I believe so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A land owner has no obligation to let another person build a railroad across his land, no matter how much this second person claims to need it. The supposed need of others is not a claim against my property.

Your talk of "value" is completely misguided; a person may value his own property howsoever he likes. I may set any price I'd like on any piece of property, or refuse to do so entirely, at my discretion. Someone may offer me three-times "fair market value" for the least of my trinkets, and I may yet refuse to sell. This is what it means to "own property"; that IS the "action" that my property rights give to me (among others).

If I do not wish to sell my land to the railroad company then they must make plans that do not take their trains across my land."

I'd agree with the sentiment here. If I own a dwelling, or a factory etc on some land, I have a right to action with regards to the dwelling or factory. If someone comes along and declares they are going to demolish my dwelling or factory for their own benefit, this is an initiation of force; an attack on my property. The only proper way would be to get my voluntary consent first. They cannot force me to give up my property for their sake.

That is what rights are about. They make it clear who can do what.

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I can't imagine what rational basis there could possibly be for this supposed right of yours to sit in the middle of a swat of land, do nothing with it, and force everyone to conform to your arbitrary declaration that it's your right. And that you get to decide what the value of things is, on top of it all."

Why can't someone sit in a middle of a swat of land in they want to? Why should they move out of your way if they aren't harming anyone? What right do you have to physically force them to move out of your way?

To bring this back to the main discussion. If someone lives in a manner which doesn't use the products of industry, and industry moves into their area resulting in more pollution, say that decreases the air quality such that they are breathing in that pollution. The pollution belongs to the polluter. The polluter is disposing of their pollution via a transfer of property which is non-consensual. Another easier to see example - you get a new neighbour next door who keeps chucking litter over your fence. He has a right to dispose of his litter, but normally we wouldn't think he has a right to force you to take his litter or have it dumped on your property without your consent. Now similarly, a polluter is transferring his pollution into your lungs, or against the walls of your property etc without your consent. Like you would tell your littering neighbour to pack it in, why can't you say the same to a polluter?

If your new neighbour says, look I am going to keep chucking litter into your garden but I'll put $10 through your letter box each week - would you have a right to decline this offer and still force him to stop chucking litter in your garden? Would you have the right to refuse any compensation and force the polluter to stop?

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that makes land (or anything else) your property is a society built on Reason. I can't imagine what rational basis there could possibly be for this supposed right of yours to sit in the middle of a swat of land, ...

This argument has strength in the determination of the original recognition of rights: e.g. where the existing practices and informal rights are part and parcel of whether a person is using the land in some way. Even in such original recognition, there is a danger of using someone's judgement on what constitutes use.

However, once land-rights are formalized into a system of property deeds, there must be security in the deed. While it is true that rights do not exist for people to do nothing with them, it ought to be solely up to the judgement of an individual. I think there ought to be one exception and one seeming exception. The exception is that the law should have objective rules about when it will assume some property is deemed abandoned. Builders often buy a lot of land all over the place and it can lie unused for decades before they decide the city is growing enough to need another sub-division. That would not constitute abandonment.

The seeming exception are the easements that come attached to the deed. There was a thread a while ago about someone who buys up land all around someone else's property, effectively imprisoning them. Nothing in Objectivism says this is fine (I know you'll agree, but just stating it for the thread). The original deed comes with some easements that retain certain very specific usage rights to other people, and leave the rest to the owner. Some "easements" -- like the restriction on imprisonment are universal and don't have to be specifically stated on each deed. Others might simply be enforced across a whole geographical area, again without being specified in each deed.

 

When rights are being recognized in an area already well-populated, the easements are particularly important and will be more extensive: reflecting the higher existing usage claims of others. So, for instance, when commons were converted to deeded land in Britain, a farmer's deed may state that he has to provide a path of a certain width across his field and not hinder people using that path. It could also specify conditions on usage: for instance that legitimate use constitutes sticking to the path, not lingering, not using any other path across the field, and closing and gates behind you so that the cows do not escape. Analogously, if one were to issue formal deed in Rio's favelas, they would likely have to come with various easements to account for all the neighbors who have small usage rights too.

Properly, the way property deeds are assigned will leave legal and physical space for roads, cables, railways, etc. They might specify some such easements in totality, or they might specify a option on such easements and a method by which that option can be valued. They may even specify conditions under which the easement can be removed from the property (e.g. if neighbors in a certain geographical relationship to Owner A agree to a certain type of new easement on their property, Owner A may be allowed to relieve his property of that similar easement).

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your new neighbour says, look I am going to keep chucking litter into your garden but I'll put $10 through your letter box each week - would you have a right to decline this offer and still force him to stop chucking litter in your garden? Would you have the right to refuse any compensation and force the polluter to stop?

Yes. I believe I explained the very narrow conditions, that would be met in very rare cases, under which the right to objects doesn't coincide with the right to self sustaining action. This obviously doesn't meet those conditions.

 

P.S. @SNerd, you're right that easement is a better word for it than "eminent domain". I never meant to argue that eminent domain, as it is defined today, is moral.

 

Just to clarify then, you do agree that, under certain conditions, a railroad could be run across someone's land without their consent?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can tell his whole issue (and this is including the other thread he started) is (wrongly) with this statement. If we can prove this statement to him then all these issues and objections he has are answered and refuted. Might be worth starting a thread to prove this principle.

Eric you're getting carried away. What about the asthma sufferer's right to life which the pollution is interfering with? Rights are about action, but by implication rights, if recognised, legitimately place restrictions on the actions of others.

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue your going to experience with pollution if that if it does not show a direct causal link to creating a medical condition it will be hard to put into objective criteria.  

 

This is further aggravated since rationally pollution is a good thing since it comes from sources that benefit each of us.  For example, there are studies that show that the presence of the factories and industries that cause pollution have added more days to the life of a man (through efficiency, time savings, power, medicine, etc.)  then the days decreased by that pollution (even if you take the alarmists at face value).  We're talking factories adding decades to mans life versus pollution costing several years.  I tried to find it but my search skills basically stink so I'll keep looking.  

 

I realize that is an average, which is why you need an objective criteria for a direct cause, but it does show the pollution issue is more complex and rationally it cannot be treated as a threat unless it meats that criteria.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Spiral. What you are saying still sounds utilitarian to me. We are saying where there is a net benefit to society, the few who are adversely impacted will have to put up with it.

In my example for use in exploring this, imagine some ecologists who don't use the products of a polluter. The pollution reduces their vitality. The fact may be that the products and services produced by the polluter benefits many, it doesn't benefit them. Is forcing them to endure reduced vitality legitimate in this case?

Edited by Jon Southall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my example for use in exploring this, imagine some ecologists who don't use the products of a polluter. The pollution reduces their vitality. The fact may be that the products and services produced by the polluter benefits many, it doesn't benefit them. Is forcing them to endure reduced vitality legitimate in this case?

You would have to prove that the industry is initiating force. Which would mean defining the byproducts of their activities to be a health hazrd and that they were negligent , with in some standard of reasonableness, as to the handling of the byproducts. If the only remedy is the cessation of the industry , than we already have Rand's answer, yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Spiral. What you are saying still sounds utilitarian to me. We are saying where there is a net benefit to society, the few who are adversely impacted will have to put up with it.

In my example for use in exploring this, imagine some ecologists who don't use the products of a polluter. The pollution reduces their vitality. The fact may be that the products and services produced by the polluter benefits many, it doesn't benefit them. Is forcing them to endure reduced vitality legitimate in this case?

 

Well, after reading that I can see why - I was doing that. D'oh.  

 

I meant it more as an overview of the problem and the need to confine to objective demonstrations of violating someone's rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jon

touche, yes the only remedy would be the only remedy, but not what I meant in spirit. I took the quote in the OP to mean that Rand would see the cessation of industry as the last resort.

I meant by negligence the common usage of the term. One should be held morally accountable for one's actions and in division of labor society this would/should be expressed in laws concerning property rights and identiying violations and by extension regulating abuses of 'polluters'.

If I were to start a garbage incineration business(or even just a hobby) it would be my responsiblitiy to know what the ramifications of such activities may be.

 

You state the ecologists would be the victims of force, could you clarify what you mean ?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tadmjones,

Re force. I'm trying to trace the actions and consequences. Say I create something of value but a byproduct is pollution (something which reduces vitality let's say). The Law of Identity applied to action would indicate that the pollution belongs to me. It is not your pollution or anyone else's.

I have to dispose of my pollution; I don't want to keep it as it would reduce my vitality. Perhaps lethally.

So I have various options. Depending on the pollution I could bury it, pour it onto a river, or release it into the air. That would protect my vitality.

However say I pour it into a river. Downstream there are some ecologists who use the water. It is now contaminated and I know that it will reduce their vitality. In effect, by making it practically unavoidable, I am forcing them to consume my pollution.

I would say that's an initiation of force. They could retaliate legitimately. However I am interested in this somewhat utilitarian position Rand takes on industry. Rand for sensible reasons valued industry immensely, and so do I; I'm not an ecologist and use the products of industry frequently. I am prepared to accept some pollution.

The position seems a little at odds with a rights based approach. I'm trying to understand the objective means of balancing rights, which seems to be needed in this context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...