Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

RicDiS2

Regulars
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

RicDiS2's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Good points, but please don't use the word Ideology to mean something false, or else I'll be down another word to use in argument. (My philosophy professor refuses to allow me to use the word selfish, and I must always use the term "self-interested." So I'm kind of afraid of losing more words... what a sad fear to have!). Ideology means the basis of a political or social system. The concept of rational self-interest is an ideology, and one that I support fervently. Other than that, thanks for the refreshment. Reading the words of a rational thinker feels like a refreshing rain falling on a dusty earth.
  2. Now before any rational objectivist takes offense from this post, please keep in mind that I am merely attempting to find a rational answer to this question, because the only answer that I've so far uncovered seems to me inherently irrational. This is in regards to Air Pollution. Air Pollution (and water pollution, to a lesser extent) seems to elude the concept of private property, for ownership of the air, at least in our day and age, is impossible (unless it is contained in cannisters - but we're talking about the air of our atmosphere). Because ownership of the air is impossible, industrialists attempting to produce for their own rational profit oftentimes expel their wastes (pollution) into the atmosphere, where they do not have to take responsibility for their own economic bad - pollution - at all. The atmosphere, being in a constant flux, then disperses the pollution amongst all of us - including the industrialist, but also including you and me and the entire society as a whole. Because air is an entity which no person can simply purchase (unlike land, per se), no person feels they have the responsibility to better it - whereas you can rationally say that you own our house, thus you wish the best for your house, no person can rationally say they own the atmosphere, thus they want the best for their atmosphere. So, this is where the problem arises. How do people deal with the pollution of the atmosphere? The first idea is that industrialists, fearing that their own life may be threatened by their own pollution, with automatically attempt to produce in the cleanest way possible. However, because this is inherently self-limiting, companies and individuals who choose to do this will probably have difficulty competing against companies and individuals who do not, and unless corporations form a joint pact to do as such, then this idea will probably not get off the ground. The second idea is that individuals will eventually come up with a replacement for air. This makes sense. Bottled water has come about because there is lower amounts of water in the world today than in the past, and thus, demand for water has rose to such a point where bottling drinking water is appropriate (also, tastes have an effect on this, but we'll just say that the reason is as aforementioned for sack of argument). So, in the future, individuals will come up with a bottled air replacement for air. I don't see why this wouldn't happen, so perhaps this is the only option that really makes logical sense. But, even further, I'm not sure how people would take to the idea of having to purchase air - to purchase the means of life. For, in essence, water and food - both things we perhaps purchase from others to support ourselves - take a while in absence to kill you, while a lack of air gives a person only a few minutes to live. In essence, we'd be tied together, as individuals, even more than ever before, for we would rely on industry for every breath we take (is this a bad thing? I don't think so. But please give any opinions you want). The third idea is that government, as a representative of all individuals, should have ownership over the air, and thus should tax industries in order to pay for cleanup of the atmosphere. This makes the most sense to me - but let me explain. The government, if it represents all of the people (which most governments do not) must inherently be the rightful owner of "public domain" - which, in this case, must consist of the atmosphere, for the atmosphere (as of yet) cannot be owned privately. As the atmosphere is one of the few things that are part of the public domain, the pollution of the atmosphere harms everyone (and this is true, for we all breath, marginally, the same amount of the atmosphere to keep our bodies alive). So, just as if a person lives in a apartment he or she is expected to pay rent, if a person uses the atmosphere, he or she must be expected to pay rent. As the owner of the atmospher is everyone, that entity which the person must pay rent to is a "government of all the people." In theory, the government would then divert the funds to clean up the atmosphere. Therefore, the industrialists who pollute the atmosphere would thus directly have to pay to clean up what they pollute - and thus, the competitive advantage which polluting industries have over non-polluters is evaporated, and clean air must inevitably come to be. HOWEVER, I must point out, the disadvantage with this is that we've now entrusted the government, which does not act in its own interest but in the interest of everyone, and is therefore the most easily corrupt entity available, with money of individuals to perform a task, and government is notorious for not performing tasks properly. But, I'll leave that to all of your arguments against me. This topic came up when I was presenting the advantages of nuclear power over coal and oil power. Nuclear power, which is inherently cleaner, is at a competitive disadvantage to coal and oil, for coal and oil have costs - pollution - which are not integrated into the cost of the electricity itself. Nuclear power is far cheaper relatively, when external costs are added to its competitors. But, that was many years ago, and now my arguments are more focused in my philosphy courses in college (I don't even know where to start about that, I have a professor who basically teaches that the word "selfish" by definition means "evil," and I don't know how to argue against someone who is false by definition and refuses to believe it). Well, go ahead and reply. I'll be waitin'. ~Rich
×
×
  • Create New...