Objectivism Vs. Environmentalism?

[unskinned]

The problem with capitalism right now, is that this moral situation is not the norm. We spend rediculous amounts of money on products that serve nearly no purpose. Think about fashion and think about movies. Our consumer choices represent our values, and our values are rotten. We live in a society where people are so socially aware, that they'll starve themselves to death (Terry Schaivo)! Is that not rediculous? Capitalism will work, but only when are values aren't corrupted.

The major point is capitalism will work, but our consumer choices and business will represent our values, and only when are values are righted will unrestricted capitalism be successful.

I don't hate many things, because hate implies passion, which implies emotion, which tends to lack reason. But I hate fashion.

"Roark," Until you adress my argument you have pretty much lost the right to talk about capitalism and the environment. Your comments on emotion and fashion are disconcerting, I suggest you read more Ayn Rand. To equate reason with emotionlessness, is to eviscerate reason from the human body. So, you are either not using reason, or you hate life, or you need to clarify.

This conversation was ended succinctly about 15 posts ago. Non-capitalism is universally anti-human value because it renounces the prioritization of values in the reason of the individual. Capitalism is the only environmentalism. Socialism is responsible for a global warming, regardless of whether global warming exists. If you would like to continue talking about Capitalism and the environment, please address my argument.

Edited October 20, 2005 by unskinned

[donnywithana]

And let me just re-emphasize here that the burden of proof is NOT on the "polluter."

*sigh* This is exactly the point that I'm trying to wrestle with. In a perfect world, if someone initiated a force against someone else, and it was possible to know that they did it (factually), no one would need to "prove it" in some sort of court setting. It would simply be a case of "you did this, now deal with the consequences." This an impossibly hypothetical situation, but what I'm saying is that for an initiation of force to be wrong, it does not need to be complained about if there exists some ability to simply regulate against it.

I think that we have to keep in mind the two things that drive human existence. These are our individual rights, and our existential interrelationships. For example, a child has no implicit right to any of its parents' property. Objectivism espouses that it's moral to help someone only as much as it taking them out of harm's way in an emergency. However, we recognize that allowing a child to starve is bad, so we push to create some mechanism to ensure that we, as a society, care for children until they can fend for themselves. This is not a right in itself granted to the child for being a child, in fact it's a violation of the philosophy of Objectivism, but because we recognize that children don't operate by the same rules that we as adults do, we change the rules for them.

The same goes for the environment. Normally, whatever you do to your property is your own business. However, there are some things that you use without paying for. Air, for example. No one owns air, and therefore, if you do something to "your air (which doesn't exist)," you're screwing it up for the rest of us. Thus, a mechanism needs to be in place to protect "air" and "water" and all the other things that we use, but do not use up, and don't belong to us.

Edited October 20, 2005 by donnywithana

[JMeganSnow]

I think you're taking this out of context from what Ayn Rand intended it to be. She uses this to argue for objective reality (that facts are facts and that empirical knowledge is the only knowledge we have of the world - that scientific facts are facts and science is the only knowledge we have of the world).

Scientific facts are not the only kinds of facts. It is not status as empirical or "scientific" that determines whether a fact is a fact, it is reason.

I interpret Objectivism to state that one is free to pursue their own ends so long as they don't negatively impact anyone else's ability to pursue their own ends.

Wow what a package-deal. What exactly "negatively impacts" someone's ability to pursue their own ends?

A more accurate interpretation would be that Objectivism calls upon you to not violate people's rights, and since the only way to violate someone's rights is to initiate physical force, this is a general admonishment against initiating physical force. Not a general admonishment against negatively impacting people. Criminy! If I can beat someone out for a job, I will! If I can put a competitor out of business, I will, and so should you!

I really don't mean offense, but you will probably take it as that, but (and because) I think you are emotionally bound to your arguments.

I would avoid using those kinds of statements to stay out of the lob-and-volley style of debate you find on terrible programs on major news programs. Trying to be offensive is no better than being offended. It's imperative to emotionally detach yourself from your philosophy.

This is a general trait on this forum, because Objectivists take ideas seriously as applying to their actual life. It's imperative to get your emotional responses in line with your explicit philosophy. If you detach your emotions from what you think about reality, you have detached your fastest and best method of knowing what is good for you and what is not from reality as well. The consequence is to paralyze you in an emergency, regardless of the nature of your personal philosophy.

As for unskinner's response, I think most of it was pretty accurate, but I still think it's naive to think that we have had no negative impact on the earth (or in the future). I proposed that if we are harming it (in any way, or in the future) and the effect was delayed, that capitalism would have a hard time solving a problem that had already been created. Overall, I think it was well thought out.

The fact that you think something has no bearing on its truth/falsehood. If this is what you think, present some evidence for it.

Have you ever seen a dead person? Isn't it surprising how fragile we are physically?

Nice of you to include this emotional appeal, Mr. Detached.

[JMeganSnow]

This an impossibly hypothetical situation, but what I'm saying is that for an initiation of force to be wrong, it does not need to be complained about if there exists some ability to simply regulate against it.

The nature of regulatory law is to punish the INNOCENT for crimes they MIGHT commit. In what sort of fantasy realm is it just to punish the innocent? How much of a "negative impact" on their ability to pursue their own ends is that?

Regulations actually make it EASIER for villians to get away with their immoral activities. Look at the FDA, which has formally announced that it is INCAPABLE of doing the job for which it was created, namely ensuring safe and effective food and drugs. It's not incapable for the reason it claims, that it doesn't have enough arbitrary power, it's incapable by virtue of the fact that it exists. NO ONE could ensure 100% safe and effective food and drugs; it is up to the individual to make responsible decisions about where and when and what to buy and who to buy from. Regulations attempt to prevent people from needing to take responsibility for using their judgment, something that NO ONE can escape.

If you fail to seek redress for a wrong committed against you, you are only hurting yourself. It is no one's responsibility to see to it that the situation is addressed if you can't muster the desire to care. Your mother doesn't work here.

[Inspector]

The nature of regulatory law is to punish the INNOCENT for crimes they MIGHT commit. In what sort of fantasy realm is it just to punish the innocent?

Precisely! There's a reason for "innocent until PROVEN guilty" and just because you throw in words like "the environment," that doesn't change anything. I note also the attempts to obfuscate the issue by bringing children into the fray.

[BlackSabbath]

To begin, let's keep in mind that any kind of loyalty is a virtue of the enslaved (loyalty to your parents, loyalty to your favorite author, loyalty to Ayn Rand, loyalty to your philosophy yesterday).

Explain this further, please.

[NewYorkRoark]

First, to address Nate T's point (which I think was dead on and very problematic to my arguments) (and to an extent this covers Inspector objections), I agree. This is where my argument parts ways with objectivism (to rejoin later). It's almost Marxism in reverse. I know most of you will despise that. But I believe that there is right in the world and I believe that there is wrong. And I believe we're been so separated from nature (or the environment, although that seems to be an unwelcome word here), that we've lost a sense of what is truly valuable. And I think it's an enormous problem and that there may not exactly be 1 solution. I guess, before I propose my answer and get tackled, I'd like to know 1.) whether you think there is right and wrong, 2.) do you do nothing when someone is wrong?

As for unskinned, here would be a part of my response:

"Roark," Until you adress my argument you have pretty much lost the right to talk about capitalism and the environment. Your comments on emotion and fashion are disconcerting, I suggest you read more Ayn Rand. To equate reason with emotionlessness, is to eviscerate reason from the human body. So, you are either not using reason, or you hate life, or you need to clarify.

This conversation was ended succinctly about 15 posts ago. Non-capitalism is universally anti-human value because it renounces the prioritization of values in the reason of the individual. Capitalism is the only environmentalism. Socialism is responsible for a global warming, regardless of whether global warming exists. If you would like to continue talking about Capitalism and the environment, please address my argument.

You said earlier that "an Objectivist government would literally spackle the country with nuclear power plants, which have no effect on the environment as long as there is a capitalist around to watch over the spent rods.

OK, fine. But who's going to pay the capitalist to watch over the spent rods and why? The owner of the plants. What if he doesn't think spent rods are harmful? Then what do you do? This, I believe is the problem. First you need right and wrong to develop principles. Then you need near universal acceptance of those principles. Then you need action upon those principles. Then you can say that the owner will pay for to trash the spent rod's.

As for my distrust of emotion, perhaps I should use a better word, or define what I mean by emotion. When I think of emotion, I think of fleeting happiness. I think of terribly naive adolescent feelings. Feelings might be a better way to describe what I'm objecting to. Not all emotions come from reason. For instance, a man who kills his wife after she cheats on him and he finds out. Unreasonable and emotional, for a variety of reasons. She doesn't want to be with you? Move on. She cheats? She has poor values. I'm not referring to the kind of emotion expressed by Henry Cameron before he died - "that it was all worth it."

However, I also object (or caution) against using the kind of emotion I believe you are referring to. It's OK to have it. But to debate, I think it's important to set it aside. Otherwise, you can become so locked into your beliefs that - if another possible alternative to those beliefs arises - you're too narrow-minded to see it it as possible. For instance, I find that racial issues are often products of over-emotional over-identified individuals ( http://www.reasonvsracism.com is a terrific site I think ).

"Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defense." Lincoln

Explain this further, please.

I'm not sure how to explain it. If you are loyal to someone, than you are, in a sense, they're slave. Of course, this depends on how you define loyalty. For instance, if a member of Bush's cabinet knew that Bush had done something terribly wrong (I'm not asserting that he did, just proposing it for the sake of argument), he probably would not reveal it if he was loyal to Bush. Loyalty, to me, is when you put another in front of yourself.

[Inspector]

NewYorkRoark,

I think that there are so many small issues with what you are saying that you would be better served by educating yourself with the nonfiction works of Ayn Rand than by posting here. Try Philosophy: Who Needs it?, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution.

In the meantime, if you're going to post here, then do so on very specific issues and limit your context to only those issues. Be an asker of questions, not a stater of opinions... this forum is a place to learn and practice Objectivism, not a place to post ideas counter to Objectivism (although there is a debate forum for that...). Until you learn enough to even know what we are talking about, there is going to be a LOT of confusion here. That's why I say to post in the form of questions and take the learning process more slowly.

Suffice to say, people DO have morals backwards and contemporary values are empty and nonsensical. However, the PROPER morals and values are NOT what you think they are. It's okay, you're just on the verge of discovering the truth on this. I don't mean to discourage you, but you're going to look back at these posts and feel pretty silly. An example of this is your idea of "loyalty" is a little weird; what you're actually against isn't "loyalty," but "altruism" and the sacrifice of one's inviolate judgment.

But there's enough of the RIGHT idea in what you're saying that you will greatly enjoy the benefit of the wisdom found in the sources I mentioned.

Edited October 20, 2005 by Inspector

[Nate T.]

First, to address Nate T's point (which I think was dead on and very problematic to my arguments) (and to an extent this covers Inspector objections), I agree. This is where my argument parts ways with [O]bjectivism (to rejoin later). It's almost Marxism in reverse. I know most of you will despise that. But I believe that there is right in the world and I believe that there is wrong. And I believe we're been so separated from nature (or the environment, although that seems to be an unwelcome word here), that we've lost a sense of what is truly valuable. And I think it's an enormous problem and that there may not exactly be 1 solution. I guess, before I propose my answer and get tackled, I'd like to know 1.) whether you think there is right and wrong, 2.) do you do nothing when someone is wrong?

To address your first question: There is right and wrong in the world-- specifically, any given individual's actions can be moral or immoral. The crucial question is: right and wrong for whom? Rand held (and I agree) that each individual's life is to be the standard of morality (the measure by which one judges one's actions as good or bad), with the ultimate goal of morality (the motivation behind acting morally) being to enjoy life and live happily, as is fitting human beings. Do you agree with this? If not, what do you think the standard of morality is, and what are your reasons?

I'm puzzled by your belief that "we're been so separated from nature ... that we've lost a sense of what is truly valuable." I really can't comment on this without knowing what you mean by "separated from nature." Also, what does degree of separation from nature have to do with pursuing and achieving one's values?

In any case, to answer your other question, it depends a lot on the context in which you ask. Are you asking how I would act when I see someone acting immorally, or illegally? For example, if I see someone doing something which is clearly not in their best interests (such as smoking outside) but is not initiating force against others, it gives me no reason to interfere with that person. However, if I'm being mugged, I will summon the police if I can, and failing that, do whatever is necessary to defend myself and my property.

Edit: Hooray! I finally got my 3rd dot!

Edited October 21, 2005 by Nate T.

[FeatherFall]

Absent from this discussion was an explicit definition of "environment." Immediately, I don't have one to offer. But its important to point out that the concept "environment" depends on another concept; whoever or whatever lives in said environment. To make any statement involving an environment one begs, "who's environment."

I haven't witnessed anyone here state the opinion that nature has some sort of intrinsic value that needs to be protected from man's actions. If this were the case (I'm glad it isn't) it would only be proper for everyone to starve themselves.

The general consensus in this thread seems to be, "man's environment." So, the only way to have progress in this discussion is to transfer it to morality and the nature of rights and the nature of government. This has already been done.

Regarding property disputes: What fundamental difference is involved in lakes and air and ozone as opposed to other property? I propose that there isn't one, but someone else has proposed the fundamental difference is time. I am not convinced that this is fundamental.

The brand of environmentalism, or ecothiesm, that is pervasive today has no regard for the rights of individuals. This how many justify passing Kyoto protocols (legislation) to prevent anthropomorphic global warming (a baseless doomsday scenario). They are simply protecting the environment (who's?).

Edited October 21, 2005 by FeatherFall

[jrs]

Therefore, as an individual, I would never pollute ...

No organism can live without polluting its environment. To survive, grow, or reproduce, it must reduce its own entropy. This can only be accomplished by increasing the entropy of other things.

As a human being, you must: exhale carbon dioxide and ammonia; urinate; defecate; shed hair; shed skin cells; and cut, file, or otherwise remove fingernails and toenails. You probably also: spit occasionally; ride in motor vehicles or on horses; discard packaging; convert clothing into lint and rags; etc..

[NewYorkRoark]

NewYorkRoark,

I think that there are so many small issues with what you are saying that you would be better served by educating yourself with the nonfiction works of Ayn Rand than by posting here. Try Philosophy: Who Needs it?, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution.

In the meantime, if you're going to post here, then do so on very specific issues and limit your context to only those issues. Be an asker of questions, not a stater of opinions... this forum is a place to learn and practice Objectivism, not a place to post ideas counter to Objectivism (although there is a debate forum for that...). Until you learn enough to even know what we are talking about, there is going to be a LOT of confusion here. That's why I say to post in the form of questions and take the learning process more slowly.

Suffice to say, people DO have morals backwards and contemporary values are empty and nonsensical. However, the PROPER morals and values are NOT what you think they are. It's okay, you're just on the verge of discovering the truth on this. I don't mean to discourage you, but you're going to look back at these posts and feel pretty silly. An example of this is your idea of "loyalty" is a little weird; what you're actually against isn't "loyalty," but "altruism" and the sacrifice of one's inviolate judgment.

But there's enough of the RIGHT idea in what you're saying that you will greatly enjoy the benefit of the wisdom found in the sources I mentioned.

I agree. I thought about unskinned's example last night (regarding pollution caused by transportation and the government's hand in that pollution) and I must agree with that argument. But in my defense to Inspector, I do believe that my problem here was largely because I was far too broad, which you mentioned. I would be able to better explain myself, had I stayed on specific topics. So let me ask three question's, because I still am unclear on certain topics (obviously).

1. A lot of you have mentioned that you'd seek a payment from anyone who pollutes the land that you own, if that pollution is harmful. If the polluter says, "you're land is polluted," or "it wasn't me" do you go to a judge? Who decides whether you're right or not? And how does this judge come to be? Is he elected? Is it his business? And if it's his business, or if he's elected, who gives him his authority?

Seperately, how do you stop financial corruption in a capitalist society? For instance, what if that polluter makes a large profit and he gives the judge a ton of money to rule in his favor. Who do you go to if you find out? Do you go to another judge that can be paid off? Nobody is physically initiating force against you.

2. Everyone seems to tout individual rights, and I think that's fine, but it seems that what isn't getting as much attention is individual responsibility NOT to interfere with another individuals rights, which I think is just as important. And who's to judge whether something will or does or will not or does not interfere with another's individual rights. My pollution might affect a chromosome and cause genetic damage 2, 3 generations down the road. What if nobody figures it out until it's too late and the damage has already been done? Isn't better safe than sorry (in other words, to punish the potentially innocent for the crimes they might commit, until it's certain that those crimes won't be commited).

3. How does a capitalist society curb overpopulation? This is contingent upon overpopulation being a problem. Of course, it seems obvious. We largely live in a world with fixed amounts of resources (minus hydropower, solar power, etc.). So if there's too many people and not enough resources, who's to tell someone not to have more children? Why do they stop on their own?

[DavidOdden]

How does a capitalist society curb overpopulation? This is contingent upon overpopulation being a problem. Of course, it seems obvious. We largely live in a world with fixed amounts of resources (minus hydropower, solar power, etc.). So if there's too many people and not enough resources, who's to tell someone not to have more children? Why do they stop on their own?

One reason why people would stop breeding would be that they cannot afford to feed their children, which results in either a really miserable life where you are just barely surviving due to the dozen offspring that you have to feed, or, in the extreme case, they are actually dying because you cannot provide for the children. This consideration wiould be dispositive in a capitalist society, though of course socialism dictates that you aren't responsible for your family so socialism removes one of the rational safety valves on the population vs. resources question. In primitive agrarian societies it may be necessary to breed excessively in order to create farm hands, who tend to die off, but capitalism counters that tendency by encouraging the spread of technology that eliminates the need for lots of manual labor. Overpopulation only result from mindlessly following tradition (such as the 10-child family) simply because it is tradition, and not because there is a reason to have 10 children. But whatever your reason is, society (i.e. the government) should not be controlling population. Really, it's my business if I want to try to take care of a dozen people on my crummy salary. The one way in which you might argue for some state involvement would be that parental neglect of a particular level might be properly against the law (for example, simply refusing to feed a child because you can't afford to).

[donnywithana]

The corruption thing is something that probably would be better in its own topic, it's a bigger discussion than we can have on the side of this one.

Regarding property rights, the fundamental difference between air and other property is that you can't own air. You can own airspace, sure, but the individual molecules of air can not belong to you.

We pollute. That's a fact. Pollution is harmful to others in ways that can't be necessarily traced back to one person and proven in a court of law. Also, pollution's effects can often be delayed, and therefore by the time someone is "caught" doing something wrong, the damage might be very difficult to reverse.

For example, I'm a nuclear plant operator. I store my spent rods on my property unsafely. Radiation seeps into the ground water and flows into a nearby lake on someone else's property. By the time fish start dying, we've already got a huge problem. But what if someone's been running a fish market selling fish from, among other places, that lake. Now we have all sorts of people eating radiated fish. Not to mention the entire fish market staff who's been chillin' around them. Do you understand how it's much better to ensure that the rods are contained properly even if it means forcing the plant operator to do something not in his best interest?

Edited October 21, 2005 by donnywithana

[RationalBiker]

We pollute. That's a fact. Pollution is harmful to others in ways that can't be necessarily traced back to one person and proven in a court of law. Also, pollution's effects can often be delayed, and therefore by the time someone is "caught" doing something wrong, the damage might be very difficult to reverse.

We murder. That's a fact. Murder is harmful to others in ways that can't be necessarily traced back to one person and proven in a court of law. Also, murder's effects can often be delayed and go unsolved, and therefore by the time someone is "caught", the damage is impossible to reverse.

I suggest we regulate any activity or item that could lead to murder or be used to murder someone. Can't you see how helpful and good it would be to try to prevent all murders before they occur? It's not important how this impinges on the rights of other people who would never murder anyone. The end justifies the means.

The above is merely an example, not my actual position on how to handle murder. It's an example of the thought process you are using to justify denying the rights of others. Yes, you are clearly advocating the denial of rights to people who have done no wrong, or would do no wrong. I understand that you are okay with that. It's not that I don't understand that you think it's better to deny the rights of the innocent in order to ATTEMPT to protect other innocents, it's that I don't agree with that position. See, I believe someone should actually be responsible for doing something wrong before they are held accountable for doing something wrong. I realize that all potential harmful behavior can not, and should not be banned or regulated just because it may allow some people to get away with harming others. The actual damage that WILL be done by the protection is most likely more far-reaching than the potential undetected damage that might POSSIBLY be diverted through the protection.

[NewYorkRoark]

We murder. That's a fact. Murder is harmful to others in ways that can't be necessarily traced back to one person and proven in a court of law. Also, murder's effects can often be delayed and go unsolved, and therefore by the time someone is "caught", the damage is impossible to reverse.

I suggest we regulate any activity or item that could lead to murder or be used to murder someone. Can't you see how helpful and good it would be to try to prevent all murders before they occur? It's not important how this impinges on the rights of other people who would never murder anyone. The end justifies the means.

The above is merely an example, not my actual position on how to handle murder. It's an example of the thought process you are using to justify denying the rights of others. Yes, you are clearly advocating the denial of rights to people who have done no wrong, or would do no wrong. I understand that you are okay with that. It's not that I don't understand that you think it's better to deny the rights of the innocent in order to ATTEMPT to protect other innocents, it's that I don't agree with that position. See, I believe someone should actually be responsible for doing something wrong before they are held accountable for doing something wrong. I realize that all potential harmful behavior can not, and should not be banned or regulated just because it may allow some people to get away with harming others. The actual damage that WILL be done by the protection is most likely more far-reaching than the potential undetected damage that might POSSIBLY be diverted through the protection.

I still would like to know who is going to judge who is responsible for what (a judge?), what the remedy is for offenses (a payment?), who gives that individual [judge] authority (?), and how that authority remains pure and uncorrupted(?)?

Edited October 21, 2005 by NewYorkRoark

[donnywithana]

The thing is, you have to look at this from a marginal benefit standpoint. We can't take preventative action against murder because it would require everyone's thoughts be monitored. The cost would be higher than the benefit. However, the benefit of preventing pollution would outweigh the cost. And where it didn't, it wouldn't be done.

You will say, benefit to who? And I will preemptively counter with a simple illustration of Nash equilibrium. According to Nash's theory, if it's easier to pollute than not, it's in everyone's best interest to pollute. If you want a better explanation, I can give it, but I'll assume you're familiar with the prisoner's dilemma. However, as we see in Nash's illustration, it's more beneficial to everyone to "agree" to not pollute. This agreement, however, hinges on no one "cheating." If there's no reason not to cheat, everyone will, and we will be driven towards the Nash equilibrium. This is why I would propose a real penalty for cheating. Everyone, including the regulated, benefits from no one cheating, but only if NO ONE cheats.

Yes, this is a violation of rights, and the main tenet for Socialism, but pollution is something that works against our main value of life. Is it more beneficial to trade the right to do whatever you want, in terms of pollution, for the assurance that individuals everywhere will be doing the same? I would posit that it is.

Now, I understand that this is not the place to be contradicting Objectivism, but one of Objectivism's main pillars is that its philosophy is not based on, "We say this," but on, "We say this because." Now, I'm claiming that pollution has a negative impact on life that outweighs the positive impact that the right to pollute may have on anyone. Although your polluting act will benefit you, the polluting acts of others will harm you more. Thus, if we all agree not to pollute, we all win. We have to enforce this agreement, however, and the best way to do this is with a penalty system. The only entity with the implicit right to impose a penalty is the government. Do you see where I'm going with this, or am I being ridiculous?

[RationalBiker]

The thing is, you have to look at this from a marginal benefit standpoint.

No I don't, I have to look at it in terms of priniciples.

We can't take preventative action against murder because it would require everyone's thoughts be monitored. The cost would be higher than the benefit.

What is the "cost" of one human life? What is the cost of the denial of rights to one hundred human beings to protect that one life? 1000? 1,000,000? My analogy no more "requires" everyone's thoughts to be monitored any more than regulating pollution from industry. That's an absurd statement. Products and behavior, not thoughts, could be regulated, just as they are or would be in your concept of "protecting" us from pollution.

Yes, this is a violation of rights, and the main tenet for Socialism, but pollution is something that works against our main value of life.

Here you clearly step across the line. This is an admission that you actively support the violations of people's rights who have done no wrong. Also, your presumption is erroneous that you think OUR main value is life. I'm not sure who else you are speaking for, but as an Objectivist, my main value is MY life, not JUST life, and not simply my physical existence, but that which makes my life worth living.

Now, I understand that this is not the place to be contradicting Objectivism, but one of Objectivism's main pillars is that its philosophy is not based on, "We say this," but on, "We say this because."

Yes, you are contradicting Objectivism, and as a moderator, I must caution you at this point that further statements in support of either Socialism or the denial of rights will not be tolerated. We say Socialism is evil, because it's "virtues" have already been examined, as well as it's results. That's the reason support of Socialism or the violation of individual rights is not permitted on this board, not simply because we don't want to hear it.

Now, I'm claiming that pollution has a negative impact on life that outweighs the positive impact that the right to pollute may have on anyone. Although your polluting act will benefit you, the polluting acts of others will harm you more. Thus, if we all agree not to pollute, we all win. We have to enforce this agreement, however, and the best way to do this is with a penalty system. The only entity with the implicit right to impose a penalty is the government.

We all win when a system is in place that protects the rights of individuals, and punishes those who violates the rights of individuals. When you support and encourage the government being a body to actively violate those rights, we all lose.

Do you see where I'm going with this, or am I being ridiculous?

If I were to engage in a personal attack on you, I would say, "I see where you are going, AND I think you are being ridiculous." Since I endeavor to avoid personal attacks, I'm simply answering the question as put forth.

[Inspector]

I still would like to know who is going to judge who is responsible for what (a judge?), what the remedy is for offenses (a payment?), who gives that individual [judge] authority (?), and how that authority remains pure and uncorrupted(?)?

That question has nothing to do with capitalism, unless you're comparing it to anarchy for some reason. Why is that so important to you? There's no such thing as a social system that will work if its laws are not enforced...

[FeatherFall]

I still would like to know who is going to judge who is responsible for what (a judge?), what the remedy is for offenses (a payment?), who gives that individual [judge] authority (?), and how that authority remains pure and uncorrupted(?)?

These questions can be redirected to the bureaucrats that dream up environmental regulation also. So what is the point? We already know human beings are volitional and fallible. What is the guarantee that an eco-statist isn't going to remain uncorrupted?

There is no guarantee for the eco-statist, and there is no guarantee for the capitalist judge. But there are safeguards. The best safeguard is a body of law that protects individual rights. By setting up regulatory laws that damage the protection of rights -- and when we talk about polution, we are talking about property rights -- we are acting contrary to our goals.

The thing is, you have to look at this from a marginal benefit standpoint.

AisA already responded to this. But I think it is worth responding to again, so: No, I don't. I have to look at it from a principled standpoint. There is no practical benifit of trying to protect property rights by denying property rights.

Now, I'm claiming that pollution has a negative impact on life that outweighs the positive impact that the right to pollute may have on anyone. Although your polluting act will benefit you, the polluting acts of others will harm you more. Thus, if we all agree not to pollute, we all win. We have to enforce this agreement, however, and the best way to do this is with a penalty system. The only entity with the implicit right to impose a penalty is the government. Do you see where I'm going with this, or am I being ridiculous?

If I pollute on my property, and everyone else pollutes on their own property, and we all take precautions to ensure that the pollution does not damage any one else's property, then nobody is being harmed.

An extreme example: We pollute the moon. Who is harmed? (nobody)

A more realistic example: We transport nuclear fuel to Yucca mountain, which is surrounded by military bases and in the center of a spot where nobody is allowed to live anyway. Who is harmed? (nobody)

To follow up the last example: The truck driver from one of the nuclear plants falls asleep at the wheel, crashes his car and spills nuclear waste all over the center of a major metropolitan area. Who is harmed? (get your calculator) What happens then? The insurance company compensates the victims, and raises the freight company's rates. A truck driver loses his job. The freight company changes its hiring practices. A repeat of the incident is less likely to occur. In otherwords, the same thing that happens when any other accident occurs that harms someone. -- This is "the penalty system" at work. Only now it isn't violating anyone's rights.

For anyone who is interested in this topic, I suggest the book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg. It doesn't cover the legal/political side of environmentalism, but it is a refreshing and informative perspective on countless doomsday scenarios.

NewYorkRoark, Speaking of doomsday scenarios, what makes you think we are going to overpopulate? Have you been channeling Thomas Malthus? (I'm joking).

Seriously, though, there is one resource that only grows with the population: the human resource. It is what has shattered every overpopulation theory ever dreamt up, and it will continue to do so. Every time humans are deprived of something (food, space, etc) somebody puts their mind to solving the problem.

There was a great link on one of these threads, I don't remember where. It concerned the problem of horseshit in the 1900's and what on earth people would do about it in the year 2000. That doesn't seem to be an issue anymore. Why? The human resource.

Again on the topic of overpopulation, the birth rates are lowest in the more developed and capitalistic countries. In these countries, children become more expensive because they cannot be used as farm hands. they have to be educated to be productive, and by that time they are out on their own anyway.

[donnywithana]

Look, I want to be civil about this, but I think this comes down to whether or not you are willing to question your interpretation of Objectivism as not necessarily being the correct one.

Rand's philosophy claims to be based around the individual's life, but it could be looked at from an economic standpoint. I'm an economics major, this is how I do things. Rand explicitly, and correctly, condemns the idea of sacrifice. It is from this idea that her philosophy goes forth. She points out that any system rooted in the idea of sacrifice (she loves the term self immolation...I'll avoid it) is doomed to fail.

She points out that certain actions violate the rights of individuals, and must be condemned. She claims that no one has the right to violate the rights of another, but the problem is that while this can be logically shown, this concept is not an automatic condition of life. That's why we have to have laws, to take away someone's ability to violate someone else's rights without consequence.

Now, this idea could be rephrased to say that no one has the right to force someone to make a sacrifice.

To pollute one's own property doesn't require anyone else to make a sacrifice. When one's pollution impacts someone else, which it does in almost every case, you are requiring someone to sacrifice the quality of their life for nothing. This is wrong.

It's not a matter of whether or not you can be prosecuted. You don't have the right to do it in the first place. Because it's relatively easy to monitor someone polluting, the enforcer of "you can't do that" has every right to punish you for it. If you taxed a producer based on the pollution he produced, he could raise prices to compensate for it. In fact, the consumer would be the one paying for the manufacturing process, like it is anyway, and one of the costs of producing something is pollution.

This idea of externalities is well documented in economics. The idea that externalities are the burden of someone other than the creator of those externalities is perposterous. You honestly think that everyone impacted by pollution would sue? I don't know about you, but I don't have time for that. Why is it my problem? They're the one in the wrong.

[RationalBiker]

Look, I want to be civil about this,

That's a good thing, because uncivil behavior will not be tolerated.

but I think this comes down to whether or not you are willing to question your interpretation of Objectivism as not necessarily being the correct one.

Yes, I think that is what several people are trying to suggest to you.

Rand's philosophy claims to be based around the individual's life, but it could be looked at from an economic standpoint.

It could be looked at from any number of different views, but the correct view is the issue of rights, not economics.

She points out that certain actions violate the rights of individuals, and must be condemned.

I believe this is where you engage in the fallacy of the stolen concept. You say the violation of rights should be condemned, but then you ignore that when you support the government violating people's rights. You can't legitimately say that the government should protect rights by violating rights. You can assert it, but it doesn't hold water.

That's why we have to have laws, to take away someone's ability to violate someone else's rights without consequence.

This is a shame too. Drug laws are another prime example of this. Laws should be there to punish actual right's violators, not preempt actions which may or may not be rights violations. The sad affect of these laws is the that they do violate the rights of others, and with government doing the violating, they don't have to suffer consequence.

It's not a matter of whether or not you can be prosecuted. You don't have the right to do it in the first place.

Yes, it is a matter of prosecution, and due process (legally speaking). What people don't have the right to do, is violate the rights of others. What people do have the right to do is engage in activities that don't violate the rights of others. It is the government's burden to demonstrate that rights have been violating before punishing people, not to punish them regardless of whether a right has been violated. The government must assume at first that rights have NOT been violated, until just cause (or probable cause, legally speaking) is presented that rights have been violated.

Because it's relatively easy to monitor someone polluting, the enforcer of "you can't do that" has every right to punish you for it.

The convenience of "protection" does not justify the violation of rights.

The idea that externalities are the burden of someone other than the creator of those externalities is perposterous

Guilty until proven innocent. I see.

You honestly think that everyone impacted by pollution would sue? I don't know about you, but I don't have time for that. Why is it my problem? They're the one in the wrong.

I honestly don't care who chooses to sue and who does not. That's their choice. I don't care what values or priorities you have that dictate what you have time for and what you don't have time for. It's your responsibility to act in your best interest, regardless of whether or not it involves someone ACTUALLY violating your rights. If you can make the case that they have ACTUALLY violated your rights, you have my fullest support. If you want to protect your rights by violating the rights of others, I will oppose you in any way I find of value.

[FeatherFall]

Just wanted to apologize to Rational Cop... I attributed something of his to someone else. I was mystified by the avatar.

[RationalBiker]

Just wanted to apologize to Rational Cop... I attributed something of his to someone else. I was mystified by the avatar.

No problem. That actually came up before in theory, and I consulted with AisA to see if he minded. He did not.

[Unconquered]

To pollute one's own property doesn't require anyone else to make a sacrifice. When one's pollution impacts someone else, which it does in almost every case, you are requiring someone to sacrifice the quality of their life for nothing. This is wrong.

I think the point you are confused about is the environmentalist notion that "pollution" is invariably bad. "Pollution" is probably an invalid concept, when you get right down to it. It package deals the notion that *anything* produced by Man is destructive. If that's true, you should die right now, because no way are you, or anybody else, going to survive at all without "pollution", including exhaling CO2. But that conveniently fits the environmentalist agenda too - the most consistent ones do identify that only without humanity would their "ideal" world be possible. (I'm not saying that you're a deliberate environmentalist.)

The real issue is showing objective harm to somebody else. If somebody dumped a cyanide solution into a stream that left their property and went on to yours, and poisoned you as a result, you most certainly do have a right to sue them, and it might also be a criminal matter. They *are* violating your rights. On the other hand if somebody is careful to keep it on their own property, it is indeed their own business. This is not just a hypothetical, cyanide solutions are routinely used to leech out gold in low grade gold ore in otherwise marginal mines in sparsely populated areas.

So think: Objective harm, not: "Pollution". And keep it in context. If you build your house next to a freeway that has lots of carbon monoxide during rush hour, the freeway was there first, you didn't have to live there, and the CO levels are not lethal either.