The Environment

Questions about Objectivism
1

According to member ‘Bluey’ on a past debate with ‘Puppydog’, she eluded to an as yet unresolved ‘Objectivist’ fundamental issue. I would like to know what that is.

_____________________

I have 2 unresolved issues and I will only mention one here.

I am having a hard time accepting the Objectivist view that I should be politically and morally free to do what I want with our shared environment.

I have whittled the issue down to individual property rights.

I will put forward a practical and believable example.

Consider 200 humans living on a small volcanically formed island where the main water source consists of a river running from the top of the volcanic mountain to the sea and, for simplicity sake, there is only one river.

Should the man living at the highest point on the side of the river, where the river runs through his property, be morally and legally justified in dumping poison into it?

If it is a question of the right to claim, does the flowing water belong to him merely because it runs on his land?

I remember a discussion at an Objectivist meeting here in my home town that suggested the possibility to claim ownership of parts of the ocean and I always had an uneasy (read contradictory) feeling about it.

If I scoop up water in a bucket to wash dishes, then that body of water belongs to me. Same goes for pumping water into a huge tank for general household use. This is because I can point to the actual H2O molecules that belong to me. I can poison that body of water all I want. It is my property.

Outside of this, I have not claimed any ownership of the body of water running on my land and therefore should not contaminate the river.

The fact that the rest of my society depends on this river for their survival gives them a moral claim against me since their option to survive was stolen by me.

The same principle can be applied to the atmosphere. The air is moving and until someone catches and contains, no dominion should be exercised. Reality dictates that through our normal use of the atmosphere for our survival (breathing, sneezing, coughing etc.) it poses no survival threat to others. Should it though, a quarantine of the sick person would be moral. So there is no question of contradiction.

I have no such concerns with land since it is, for the most part, stationary. Should I dump refuse into my property (nuclear waste for e.g.) that later poisons yours and maybe eventually you, the case is quite simple. It moved and I am responsible for it. No different to my dog jumping over the fence to bite you.

______________

Interested in your thoughts.

2

“As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem. In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved—as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc. But such laws cannot demand the impossible, must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e., the industrialists, and must take into consideration the whole context of the problem, i.e., the absolute necessity of the continued existence of industry—if the preservation of human life is the standard.”

Quoted from “The Left: Old and New,”Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 167

3

My understanding is that the Objectivist position is similar to yours.

Once you bottle up the ocean and cart it off, it’s your property. But when you deal with geographical rights you often find that a given plot is part of a shared system that effects the area that surrounds it. It is proper for objective law to define usage rights for places like this with less tangible borders (water tables, rivers, oceans, airways, airwaves, etc). Such laws will properly give you the freedom to do what you like, and provide for penalties if your actions poison other people or damage their land or widgets.