Philosophy Monthly from Scars Publications

Regulations

10/15/96 1:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Randomthot -- environmental issues are most definitely economic issues. The solution is to internalize externalities (in the jargon of economics -- sorry, I was once a doctoral student of that art). I have read that governments actually overturned property rights in the 19th century in order to encourage industrial development. If they had not done this, the property owners could have sued for damages caused to their property by pollution. (Some of the green movement is starting to realize that the market could be a powerful ally.) Air pollution is a more difficult issue than land or water pollution. I believe you're thinking is on track, but instead of "collective rights" we might want to use pollution permits that emitters would need to buy. The amount of permits available could be adjusted to whatever level of air quality we desire and the polluters would bear the direct costs of their activities.

Thanatos (TNO Enroad) -- your concern is understandable, but you should research the history of government regulation. In the United States, one of the first regulatory agencies was the Interstate Commerce Commission, set up to regulate railroads. Within a generation, industry insiders had taken over the Commission (it is afterall a political body) and were using it to block competition to the existing railroads. They set rates and other parameters of service, so that new firms found it difficult or impossible to enter the business. The history of the State using its police powers to enforce and protect monopolies is very old. Think back to the period of mercantilism and the monopoly charters (in the new world among other places) granted by the various sovereigns. The reality is that the State monopoly on force is a very tempting and useful thing for villains of various stripes to try to possess. And they have been successful in doing so in numerous instances, especially in this century.

Subject: Re: Regulations Date: 10/15/96 12:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: TNOEnroad Message-id:

My real name is Eric, the other is a character name. AC Space: >

AC SpaceA, I have looked at your response to me and other person and I have to ask a question concerning enviormental matters. So, now I have to ask you something, do you believe that every problem that occured is solely caused by government. I ask this for that you talk about what government did and it sounded like if government did nothing, monoplies would not have powers. With the ICC, that occured because that government was much more corrupt then by today standards. I have asked these question for the simple reason that I do not want to go back to days when a single indivdual has more money then the entire government. Remember, we can easily change whatever we feel that is wrong with government by voting, we can not do that so easily with indivaduals.

Subject: Re: Regulations Date: 10/15/96 7:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: LEBarber Message-id:

< Remember, we can easily change whatever we feel that is wrong with government by voting, we can not do that so easily with indivaduals.>>

Why do you feel the need to change what is wrong with other individuals. Are you willing to grant them the same power over you? Unlike the government you can ignore any individual of whom you disaprove. The government sticking a gun in your face tends to get your attention. If you disaprove of a monopolist, laying aside for the moment that it is impossible for an abusive monoply to exist without government assistance, you can refuse to have any dealings with him. If enough people agree with you there will no longer be a monopoly. Note, this could cost you since you will have to buy from higher price suppliers, or find a substitute product that may not be as good, or just do without.

Without government interference in the market, an abusive monopoly cannot exist. It may be instructive to read parts of the decision in the Alcoa anti-trust case (issued by Learned Hand, who was usually more sensible) :

"It was not inevitable that it (ALCOA) should alway anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never exluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exlusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as ti opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel."

In other words, ALCOA was found to be monopolistic on the basis that it was too aggressive in meeting its customers needs. It evidently should have left its customers to competitors which were less efficient and more costly than ALCOA was. This is the core of antitrust laws, they are not about protecting consumers, they are about the government gathering ever it more power to itself.

Larry Barber

Subject: Re: Regulations Date: 10/16/96 12:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: ACSpace Message-id:

Eric (TNO Enroad) -- No, I don't think that government causes all the problems. And yes, the potential for development of monopolies always exists in a market economy. But remember that in the absence of some type of police power (in other words, government force), monopolists have a difficult time keeping their monopoly. Unless they can call on the coercive power of the State, they can not stop competitors from also supplying the products or services. That's what patent and copyright laws do, for example.

Most monopolists maximize their revenues by restricting or reducing their quantity supplied. It is this effect that results in an increase in price that the public notices. But the higher prices produce higher than normal profits. Other potential suppliers notice these excessive profits and move to enter that market. You might object by saying that the monopolist would use force to resist this intrusion. Perhaps so, but look at the "illegal" drug market for what happens when they do. Even extreme force doesn't prevent competitive suppliers from entering that market.

Subject: Re: Regulations Date: 10/16/96 12:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: ACSpace Message-id:

Dan (Dangfitz) -- I think your position is correct. The military (government, taxpayer) is liable for the environmental damage. It is one of the hidden costs of national defense. Similarly, if a B-52 should crash into an apartment complex, the military would be liable for all the property and personal damage it caused. Your example is another reason why national defense should be set at the minimum necessary for protection of just the United States. In addition to the needless loss of life of our brave warriors in pointless foreign excursions, there are the direct and indirect costs to bear, like compensation for mistakenly blowing an Iranian civilian airliner out of the air.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/23/96 9:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: LEBarber Message-id:

< I would like to know what the Libertarian solution is to air pollution? Specifically I'm interested in areas related to autos. Without regulation, how could we make cars cleaner? >>

I have always been partial to the idea advanced by Milton Friedman, among others, of taxing the producers of pollution. I think that this route should only be taken on things like air and water that are difficult to assign property rights to. The size of the tax should reflect the costs that the pollution imposes on society. These costs do not need to be limited to just human health, but can also include other environmental factors, or even just aesthetics. Specifically, in the case of autos the price of a car, or the registration fee, would include a tax based on the amount of pollution your car produced. Now that I am thinking about, it might make more sense to apply this tax to gasolline instead of directly on the cars, this would compensate for the number of miles that are driven. Of course, it would not take into account the relative cleanliness of your car as measured against others. Sorry if I am rambling here, I am just typeing this as it come to me.

Larry Barber

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/23/96 11:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: KEVMORRIS Message-id:

>>I have always been partial to the idea advanced by Milton Friedman, among others, of taxing the producers of pollution. I think that this route should only be taken on things like air and water that are difficult to assign property rights to. The size of the tax should reflect the costs that the pollution imposes on society. These costs do not need to be limited to just human health, but can also include other environmental factors, or even just aesthetics. <

The only thing I don't like about that is that it just taxes the people more. Maybe adding this tax to the sticker price of an automobile would help people make the right choice. But I was hoping to see some kind of market based idea to phase out polluting cars altogether.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/24/96 12:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Beirhere Message-id:

Air pollution is a tricky subject for the LP. This is one of those issues where the individual makes a dissision, rather than the party as a whole. Typically, the position is that a company, or anybody, is allowed to pollute, as long as people are not being seriously effected in a negetive way by it. If a factory in the middle of nowhere is polluting, there really is no problem, unless it is proven that harm is being done (not even the Green House Effect has been proven, yet. Still only a hypothesis). A factory that is in the middle of a neighborhood that is emiting pollution that is making everybody sick, would be held liable for all the damages and health care bills of the innocent people. As for car pollution vs safety, when the government required cars to get so many miles per gallon, with the current technologies, the only way to make that possilbe, was to make the car lighter (thus, less safe, more people die from wrecks). The LP position is that the consumer should choose which is more important. If 90% of the public chooses safety, then our air pollution levels and safety records should reflect that (understand that a car with better gas mileage pollutes less). Basically, this is how the people are sending a messege about pollution, if we want it, we will buy cars that pollute more. BTW, did you know that a normal push mower, leaf blower, or weed wacker can produce up to 13 times as much pollution than an average car? For cleaner air, use manual lawn keeping tool (push mowers, rakes, snow shovels, etc.).

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/25/96 9:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: LEBarber Message-id:

< The only thing I don't like about that is that it just taxes the people more. Maybe adding this tax to the sticker price of an automobile would help people make the right choice. But I was hoping to see some kind of market based idea to phase out polluting cars altogether. >>

I would use the revenues collected to reduce taxes in other areas, thus compensating people for the external costs that polluters impose on them. I don't know if I would trust the current bunch in Washington to implement this though. The market cannot really eliminate *polluting* cars since there are no real alternatives. Electric cars are not currently a viable alternative, they are too expensive and perform too poorly, and aren't really non-pollutiing in any event. They just move the pollution to a different place. There is an alternative fuel that is quite a bit cleaner than gasoline or diesel and we could probably have vehicles that use it in a couple years if some of the environmentalists would get over their love affair with electricity. The fuel I am speaking of is natural gas.

Larry Barber

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/27/96 1:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: LAWECON Message-id:

>< I would like to know what the Libertarian solution is to air pollution? Specifically I'm >interested in areas related to autos. Without regulation, how could we make cars cleaner? >>

>I have always been partial to the idea advanced by Milton Friedman, among others, of taxing the >producers of pollution. I think that this route should only be taken on things like air and water >that are difficult to assign property rights to. The size of the tax should reflect the costs that the >pollution imposes on society. These costs do not need to be limited to just human health, but >can also include other environmental factors, or even just aesthetics. Specifically, in the case of >autos the price of a car, or the registration fee, would include a tax based on the amount of >pollution your car produced. Now that I am thinking about, it might make more sense to apply >this tax to gasolline instead of directly on the cars, this would compensate for the number of >miles that are driven. Of course, it would not take into account the relative cleanliness of your >car as measured against others. Sorry if I am rambling here, I am just typeing this as it come to >me.

>Larry Barber

I believe that you'll find that Friedman has abandoned this suggestion. It was pointed out by Ronald Coase, in his "The Problem of Social Cost" about 20 years ago, that the above suggestion in no way "eliminates the externality". Since it is the "externality" that is the problem, not the "air pollution," all the above does is transfer more income from private individuals to government.

I'm going to import some recent lecture notes here to illustrate why the problem is the externality, not the pollution, and what Coase had to say about externalities:

>HOW THE WORLD WORKS: A User's Guide > > >DEFINITIONS > > > >(1) GOOD: A good is something which a >particular person wants more of, >given the circumstances of that >person [including his present >endowment of other goods]. There are >no such thing as natural goods or >natural bads, goods or bads are >defined only in terms of the wants >and circumstances of particular >individuals. > >(2) SCARCITY: Some goods are "free" >[one can have an unlimited quantity >without giving up other goods]. Some >goods are "scarce" [one can obtain >more of a scare good only by giving >up some of another good]. "Scarce" >and "costly" are, hence, synonymous >terms. Bads can also be "free" [ if >they can be disposed of at no cost] >or "scarce" if they can only be >disposed of at the "expense" of goods. >Scarcity is a situation faced by >individuals and by societies. At the >individual level, individuals must >choose between more of Good X [and >less of Good Y] or more of Good Y >[and less of Good X]. For society, >productive resources [land, labor >and capital] more production of Good >X implies less production of Good >Y. SCARCITY IS THE FUNDAMENTAL FACT OF >HUMAN EXISTENCE. > >(3) ALLOCATION: Conceptually, it >is often convenient to distinguish >between "allocation in production" >[the decision of what will be >produced in a society] and >"allocation in consumption" [ who >gets what and in what amounts]. In >actuality, these two decisions are, >as we shall see below, two sides of >the same coin when markets make the >allocation. > >(4) THE MARKET ECONOMY or THE >PRICING SYSTEM: the market economy >refers to a situation where >decisions about allocation in >production and allocation in >consumption are privately made >rather than publically made. A >market economy requires (a) well >defined rules establishing >individual ownership rights in goods >and productive resources, (b) well >defined rules by which such >ownership rights may be transferred >from one person to another. As we >will see below, a well functioning >market economy also requires the >existence of money and the rule that

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/27/96 1:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: LAWECON Message-id:

>from one person to another. As we >will see below, a well functioning >market economy also requires the >existence of money and the rule that >individuals own themselves and their >labor. > >(5) COST: all costs are ultimately >alternative or opportunity costs, >that is, they are, for a particular >individual, the value to that >individual of the next most >desirable alternative in either >consumption or production > >(6) MONEY: money has three >functions in an economy, (a) it >serves as a "medium" of exchange, >or intermediate good through which >all other goods can be exchanged, >(b) it is the unit in which accounts >of all other goods are keep , and >(c) it is a store of value. In >order to fulfill these functions, >money should be highly divisiable, >durable, portable, easily >recognizable, and universally >desired. If all other >characteristics of a money are >present, so is the last >characteristic, since money is >nothing other than a "placeholder" >for all other goods in an economy. > >(7) THE STATE: the organization >that may permissably utilize >cohersion to finance its activities >and that relies on command rather >than inducement to obtain compliance >with its wishes > >(8) EXTERNALITY: [Wrong Definition] a >cost resulting from one person's consumption or production >activities that affects another person; [Right >Definition] a cost resulting from one person's consumption >or production activities that affects another person, >without such affect being adjusted or accounted for through market >interactions between these persons. > >ARGUMENT > > In a market economy, individuals >earn their incomes [their money] in >only one way. They use their >resources to produce goods desired >by consumers cheaper or better than >their competitors. ["Cheaper" means >"cheaper" according to what >particular consumers prefer; "better" means >better according to what particular consumers >prefer. No abstract standards >of cheaper or better are relevant. >If consumers think that tail fins on >their automobiles make them better, >then they are better. If consumers >think that a gallon of milk for $ >2.00 at Circle K is cheaper than a >gallon of milk for $ 1.00 at a store >where one has to stand in line for >20 minutes, then it is "cheaper".] >

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/27/96 1:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: LAWECON Message-id:

> Once individuals have earned >their income, they then use their >income as consumers. One such consumption >good is, of course, giving their money >to family, friends or charitable activities. > > No one seriously doubts this >account of how a market economy >works. What is questioned is whether >the "initial" distribution of >resources between individuals is >"fair". There is no answer to this >question, for it rests upon an >historical account of "fairness" >that is incoherent. To be "fair," in >this sense, not only must all >current income and wealth >"endowments" in a society have been >earned or received through permitted >means, but all previous "endowments" >of income and wealth must also have >been received through those means. >Such a demand is ridiculous, if, for >no other reason, that it makes >universal the particular rules of >ownership and exchange that we have >adopted in this society at this >point in time. It is also a >pernicious account of "fairness" >since it is the root of the concepts >of inherited guilt and inherited >merit that should have been >abandoned with the class >distinctions of militaristic >feudalism and slavery. > > There are two fundamentally >different ways in which humans >attain their goals. They may take by >force what they want from their >fellows, or they may induce their >fellows to voluntarily "give" them >what they want in a context of exchange or >charity. Robbers, invading >hords and government officials use >the former technique. >"Capitalists," employees, >independent contractors and beggers >use the latter technique. The >former technique has the >disadvantages of either killing the >goose that laid the golden egg or >requiring constant monitoring and >escalating use of force and the >threat of force. It makes the >perpetrator brutish and tyrannical >and the victim servile and >dependent. The latter technique >increases the abilities of both >buyer and sellers and ends up with >both of them experiencing a gain over >their former positions. > > In psychology we learn that >behavior can be molded by positive >reinforcement with some certainty, >but that negative reinforcement >works at best sporatically. Thus it >is with the market and the state. > > The character of the state is not >different whether it is small or >large, only the results. Politicians >are like cockroaches, the harm that >they do derives not from what they >pick up and carry off but from what >they fall into and mess up. >

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/27/96 1:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: LAWECON Message-id:

>"Market Failure" > > A common criticism of the market is that it doesn't work because of >externalities ["market failure"]. There are two responses to this >criticism, both of which are derivable from the Coase Theorem. > >The Coase Theorem is the simple proposition that reassigning liability rules >in a society does nothing to underlying costs of production [except when the >reassignment shifts demand curves]. Hence, the output mix in the society >will be the same regardless of what liability rules are adopted [whether: >(1) Group A has the right to sue Group B to enjoin a particular activity of >Group B [and or collect damages for harm >done Group A by that activity] or (2) Group B has the right to carry on the >activity and Group A has no right to sue]. > >Example: > >Assume that a train runs through crop land, that the >wheels of the train periodically throw off sparks, >and that the sparks predictably light fires that >periodically burn a certain number of acres of crops. >Assume that the following "externalities" are predictable from >running the train: Burned crops at $ 100,000 per annum. >Further assume that the profit [gain over next best alternative >use of the resources for the railroad] of running >the train is $ 80,000 and that the cost of installing devices >on the train to eliminate the sparks is $ 60,000. > > What difference does it make how the >rights are assigned [whether the farmers >can sue the railroad, or the railroad has >"the right" to run the train and the farmers >have no right to sue]? It doesn't make a difference. > > If the farmers can sue, the railroad would not run the >train without the spark eliminating device [since the >profit of running the train to the railroad is $ 80,000, hence >the maximum offer the railroad can make to the farmers for >settlement of the dispute is $ 80,000, but the cost to the >farmers of having the unmodified train run is $ 100,000]. However, >the railroad can prevent the harm for $ 60,000 and still make >$ 20,000 profit. So the train will run, but with the spark >eliminating device. > > If the farmers can't sue, they can offer up to $ 100,000 >[their loss if the train runs] to the railroad not to run the >train, or to otherwise prevent their loss. The lowest cost way >to the railroad of preventing the loss is to install the spark >eliminating device rather than not running the train [thus maximizing >the value to the railroad of the "payoff" from the farmers]. The >train will run, but with the spark eliminating device. > > The first conclusion of the Coase Theorem is that "externalities" >are always "internalized" into market outcomes except when some fact of the >world or the legal system prevents effective low cost bargaining between the >producer of the externality and the parties harmed by the externality. The >second conclusion of the Coase Theorem is that: insofar as such costs of >bargaining are due to technically >based costs of bargaining it is unclear that the externality should be >internalized. Insofar as such costs of bargaining are based in some >feature of the legal system that prevents the bargaining and can easily >be modified [e.g., price controls or more generally "government failure"] >the externality can be eliminated by simply changing that feature of >the legal system and allowing the parties to bargain away the externality.

> >More Government Failure > > As alluded to above, government created "solutions" to the human >problems arising from scarcity suffer from inherent defects that cannot be >remedied. The first of these problems is the necessity of arriving at a >policy agenda that is "agreed to" by those affected by it. Such a policy >agenda must, of course, be uniformly applied. Hence, it is necessary to >decide what is "best for all". Are citizens to be dressed in blue or black, >are schools to teach religion or atheism, are eggs better than beef. Such >are the problems of government organization of social affairs. Needless to >say, such questions have no answer that satisfies everyone. > > The second defect of government solutions to scarcity is that once >an agenda is arrived at it must be implemented. This defect has several >parts. First, most government programs suffer from a total divorce of >promise and performance or "solution" and experience. Every bill passed >through Congress is entitled "A Bill To [Solve Some Social Woe]" but there >is generally no analysis by legislators of the actual relationship between >the incentives created by the particulars of the bill and the promised >performance of the bill. This is not surprising in two respects: (1) >legislators are not rewarded in relationship to their knowledge of social >science, they are rewarded for taking acts that please constituent interest >groups that can offer the legislator campaign donations, future employment, >or other forms of "pay-offs" and (2) legislators long ago abandoned their >responsibility to analyze the effect of the legislation they produce to >bureaucrats - that is, the typical bill is not a comprehensive program to >"solve" some woe but a general admonition to some bureaucracy [including a >bureaucracy created by the bill] to "do good" [without any particular >direction in how good is to be done]. > > Some of this divorce of words and reality is inevitable, as no one >really knows how to "fix" a particular national or economic problem in the >same sense as they know how to keep themselves clothed, fed and sheltered. >In everyday life a person faces generally repetitive situations with more or >less ascertainable alternatives, the costs and benefits of choice between >which alternatives will accrue mainly to the individual making the choice. >Not so in "social decision-making." The alternatives are generally not well >known, the "outside variables" that will influence the outcomes are seldom >analyzed before the policy is implimented and it is thus "always possible to >argue that a policy was right" even though it fails [or that it failed due >to unforeseeable changes in the larger social environment]. Conveniently >enough, also, the wrong policy maker typically suffers at most a slight >decline in reputation [presuming that his excuses are not convincing >enough], not a direct and immediate impact on his income or wealth. As >Mises first pointed out seventy years ago, there is no pricing system [no >market] to test an activity carried out through government, and, hence, >there are no definitive standards for evaluating a program or an >organization as there are in a market. In a market, organizations or >programs that do not please consumers fail through making losses. If a >government program fails, the supporters of the program claim that it will >succeed if given more funding. > > All of the above leds to a slight modification of Hobbes' >characterization of government as a great monster [a leviathan]. It is a >monster, but it is a blind and deaf monster, the actions of which bespeak of >no logic other than the logic of power and no goal other than the goal of >more power. > > > > >

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/27/96 3:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Dangfitz Message-id:

>>> The market cannot really eliminate *polluting* cars since there are no real alternatives. Electric cars are not currently a viable alternative, they are too expensive and perform too poorly, and aren't really non-pollutiing in any event. They just move the pollution to a different place. There is an alternative fuel that is quite a bit cleaner than gasoline or diesel and we could probably have vehicles that use it in a couple years if some of the environmentalists would get over their love affair with electricity. The fuel I am speaking of is natural gas.<<

Don't forget hempseed oil, which can be used in a slightly modifies diesel engine. Growing plants would store solar energy ands carbon at the same rate burning it would release it into the air, achieving equilibrium. The technology is available *today*, and american motorists would not be inconvenienced, and there is no danger of explosion as with natural gas and gasoline.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/27/96 6:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Presbyte Message-id:

"Don't forget hempseed oil, which can be used in a slightly modifies diesel engine." -Dangfitz

By now, most or all of us are familiar with the odor of a diesel engine exhaust, especially as compared to that of a gasoline engine's. Reminds me of a factory or waiting for the right bus to come along. Would the aroma of a hemp-powered diesel remind us of a love-in or rock festival, I wonder? Those diesel VW bugs and magic buses could make a comeback!

-Jim (who views the hempseed oil suggestion as a serious and workable one, but who also can't help but imagine some more fanciful and humourous possibilities :-)

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/28/96 5:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Dangfitz Message-id:

>>> Hemp produces an oil more efficiant than gasoline, and contains far fewer toxins than gasoline (questionable source for that, but has never been disputed. <<

Now, when people run a hose from the exhaust to the passenger compartment, it will be for a different reason...

Subject: Air Pollution Solution Date: 10/29/96 2:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: KEVMORRIS Message-id:

I have to admit, I am disappointed with what I've heard. I was looking for Libertarian oriented solution to air pollution from cars and other sources. What I got were more taxes, and alternative fuel vehicles. Let me pose my question this way. Currently we have air pollution generated from cars, factories, portable gas motors, etc. All this pollution effects us. All of it can be considered a violation of our right to clean air. I understand we already have these things, so it's not like we can just get rid of them. But we have to start somewhere. So my real question is: What kind of program or solution, consistent with Libertarian ideals could be instituted that would reduce air pollution? Alternatives like government regulation and taxes are already provided by the Big Two parties. How would the Libertarian solution be different?

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 10/29/96 3:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: ACSpace Message-id:

Kevin (KEV MORRIS) -- the answer to your question is that in about 30 years the Democratic-Republicans will have bankrupted us and no one will be able to buy cars. This is the ultimate solution to air pollution. Oops. I forgot that all those horses then, assuming we can afford those, will create a tremendous odor problem, not to mention all those dangerous flies.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 10/29/96 3:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: CheffJeff Message-id:

"my real question is: What kind of program or solution, consistent with Libertarian ideals could be instituted that would reduce air pollution?" --Kev

I don't have the issue, but Reason magazine did some writing about a portable pollution detector that some government agency (private company?) is using at intersections to catch and prosecute the small number of out-of-tune cars who contribute the most pollution. By targeting the actual polluter (vs. everybody), the libertarian philosophy of stopping the perpetator is upheld. Hope this helps, Jeff

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 10/29/96 8:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Randomthot Message-id:

From what I've seen, that is a tough question and one that bothers me as well. While it's possible to construct an abstract theory of rights infringement to cover the air and water pollution problems, deciding what to actually do about it gets messy. Frankly I have yet to see a good answer to this question that does not involve precisely the kind of government intrusion that we're supposed to be against. The only market based help I see on this is that if we were to stop subsidizing road construction and maintenance as well as fossil fuels (through military intervention in places like Kuwait) we MIGHT see the cost of owning and operating an auto rise to the point that consumption of fuels would drop and market forces could produce even more efficient autos. I stress the word "might". Economics is a tricky damn thing -- any calculus has to take into account a hundred variables and interelations, most of which we can only guess at. I think we're forced into either a) fully embracing Lib principles and living with the pollution or b) deciding to do protect the environment and living with anti-Lib gov intrusions.

Randomthot

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/29/96 11:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: LEBarber Message-id:

< Insofar as such costs of bargaining are based in some >feature of the legal system that prevents the bargaining and can easily >be modified [e.g., price controls or more generally "government failure"] >the externality can be eliminated by simply changing that feature of > the legal system and allowing the parties to bargain away the externality. >>

I don't doubt that this is true in the simple case you describe. But, it seems to me that the costs of bargaining in the case of air pollution are huge and it is not primarily because of the legal system. Most of the costs would stem from the logistic problems of bringing together the billions of producers/polluters (all of us) and the billions of consumers/"pollutees" (again, all of us). Even if you were able to reduce the number of parties present by some sort of representational scheme the costs would still be large, and you would have the additional costs of determining how the representation would be accomplish. (These representatives would also look suspiciously like a government).

I don't particularly like the idea of taxation, and as I mentioned above I certainly don't trust the current Congress with a new tax, but I have heard of nothing else that I think would work better with less government intrusion. I don't really consider it a new tax, since,as I said I would use the proceeds to reduce other taxes. (this is the part I don't think the current Congress would do). I would certainly like to hear of better alternatives.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/29/96 11:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: LEBarber Message-id:

< The technology is available *today*, and american motorists would not be inconvenienced, and there is no danger of explosion as with natural gas and gasoline. >>

The technology may be available today, and would even have the advantage of using existing infrastructure like filling stations and storage tanks. However, natural gas is legal *today* and I don't see hemp being made legal any time soon. After all this is a society the kicks teenagers out of school for "carrying" Advil and "pushing" Midol.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/30/96 1:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: DCarlsten Message-id:

Sometimes we libertarian thinking folks get too mired in abstract discussions.

Lets get the government monkey off the back of inovative americans, and let the miracle of the free marketplace find new solutions that none of us could possibly imagine. Wherever there is a need, the american marketplace can find an answer... provided we stop choking it to death with red tape and taxes. Getting rid of this monstrosity that is destroying our (and our childrens) future, is top priority.

Doug

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 10/30/96 6:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Dangfitz Message-id:

>>> I think we're forced into either a) fully embracing Lib principles and living with the pollution or b) deciding to do protect the environment and living with anti-Lib gov intrusions. <<

I don't think that that's the entire menu of choices. By protecting property rights, we can prevent pollution. If I know that I can get a good piece of change out of Dow Chemical for some solvent fumes wafting across the jungle gym in the backyard, I'm going to go for it. Eventually, Dow will figure out that it is cheaper to be environmentally sane.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 10/30/96 11:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Randomthot Message-id:

Actually the Dow Chemical's and Pittsburg Steel's of the world aren't really the problem anymore. Whether you take the libertarian "sue-em till they bleed" stance or the Republicrat "drown em in red tape" approach, the big polluters are fairly easy to counter. In fact, the EPA has actually been reasonably successful (not that I'm endorsing that approach). The bigger problem at this point is millions of private citizens driving privately owned autos, pouring motor oil on their driveways, cutting their grass with gas mowers, spraying a gazillion tons of herbicides to kill dandelions, etc. In short, it's the cumulative effect of countless minor, even individually insignificant transgressions. Living on the east coast we breathe the results of 240 million Americans to the west just living their lives. Obviously I can't sue the entire population of this country that lives to the west of Connecticut. It's impossible to assign blame because it's so diffuse. Similarly, damages can only be proven in the aggregate in the form of demographics -- increased incidences of cancer, lung disease, whatever. The purely Lib approach just isn't equipped to handle this. Who sues whom? And for what? How do you prove it? I'm afraid the only choices we have are to just give up. Either live with the pollution (and it WOULD get worse with no regulations), or accept government intrusions in the name of the common good. If someone has a better idea I'm certainly open to it. Anyone?

Randomthot -- A moderate Libertarian (whatever that means)

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/31/96 2:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: KEVMORRIS Message-id:

>

Get the government monkey off our back and companies would pollute more, not less. Maybe one day pollution free energy and transportation will be a viable economic reality, but today and the next decade or two we are left with the question, How do we reduce air pollution? And the only answer I can think of is government regulation. Not regulation by micromanagement, but regulation saying automobiles may produce X amount of pollution per mile. Then reduce X over years and let the manufacturers work out how.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 10/31/96 2:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: KEVMORRIS Message-id:

>

You gonna sue all 100+ million auto owners too?

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/31/96 6:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: KC3VA Message-id:

> KEV MORRIS

What if X amount of pollution per mile is still causing someone breathing difficulty or is still causing smog or is just an unacceptable nuisance? Even with the government regulations, if someone's "air pollution" is affecting another's property in a manner they find displeasing, they have little or no legal recourse.

As far as vehicular exhaust emmissions are concerned, gasoline is cheap. Our federal government works to ensure it stays this way--remember the Gulf War?

Government regulations, in my opinion, create more problems than they were implemented to correct. This in turn leads to more regulations. One area I am familiar with is the coal industry. The U.S. still has large coal reserves that can be mined. With our current scrubbers and gasification processes, coal can be burned very cleanly. Government regulations(not only on pollution, but "safety") have made it so expensive to mine the coal that importing or strip mining(which I personally dislike) have become commonplace.

Most of us can agree that it is government's place to protect our rights, but when we ask for federal regulations, it does little to protect our rights and gives more power to government. The immediate effect of most environmental regulation is to disrupt the marketplace by shutting down business and industry and putting people out of work. The regulations generally do more to cripple local economies(which collectively represent the national economy), than to protect the environment or people's rights.

A more effective approach would be to decrease regulation and/or enact legislation that allows for individuals or communities to sue the offending polluter. Considering that most people operate automobiles, they should take the first step by purchasing lower emmissions vehicles or stop using fossil fuel combustion transportation.

Supply and demand is simple and effective. If a demand for less polluting vehicles exists, someone will supply it(except when government gets involved). You can't fault a company for not producing more lower emmissions automobiles than there is a demand for.

-KC

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/31/96 11:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Randomthot Message-id:

Sure. But they (we) won't. As I've stated earlier (and got stomped on for), the reason the LP has a problem with the environmental issue is that the philosophy isn't equipped to handle it. The LP philosophy is fine in purely economic or political arenas. The environment is actually a moral issue (i.e. some people care and some don't, but these collective decisions affect all of us) that can only be addressed effectively in political terms with economic consequences. If your environmental decisions didn't affect my life then this wouldn't be much of an issue for the LP.

Randomthot

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 10/31/96 9:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: LEBarber Message-id:

< Sure. But they (we) won't. As I've stated earlier (and got stomped on for), the reason the LP has a problem with the environmental issue is that the philosophy isn't equipped to handle it. The LP philosophy is fine in purely economic or political arenas. The environment is actually a moral issue (i.e. some people care and some don't, but these collective decisions affect all of us) that can only be addressed effectively in political terms with economic consequences. If your environmental decisions didn't affect my life then this wouldn't be much of an issue for the LP. >>

I would agree that libertarianism has difficulty handling air and water pollution, but not environmental issues in general. The problem with air and water pollution is that is *difficult* to assign ownership rights to air and water, thus nobody has much incentive to keep them clean. Most of the other environmental problems that people complain about seems to me to stem from an unwillingness to "put their money where their mouth is". Unfortunately, they generally don't have a problem putting other peoples money where their mouth is.

To say that environmental actions are unique because they affect others is not really true. Any decision or action, be it political, economic or environmental can, at least potentially, affect others. For instance, if millions of other people did not want automobiles, my Dodge would, being one of a kind and completely custom built, probably cost around $20,000,000. I would think that is obvious how political decisions affect others, that, after all is what politics is all about.

Larry Barber

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/1/96 12:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: WaltFT Message-id:

I agree, Dangfitz, property rights is the way to fight air pollution. We must not forget that the U.S. Government's Clean Air and Water acts essentially deprive Americans of suing for damage to their property from pollution, including that form of property known as the human body.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/1/96 12:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: WaltFT Message-id:

It's interesting. Presbyte thinks that suing polluters would drown the violators in lawsuits. Randomthot thinks that suing would be ineffectual. Surely, both positions can't be true.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/1/96 12:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: WaltFT Message-id:

KEV MORRIS>>You gonna sue all 100+ million auto owners too?

Interesting thought, isn't it? Just think: the Big 3 might actually get flooded with demands from Americans to produce vehicles that run on other fuels!

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/1/96 12:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Presbyte Message-id:

"It's interesting. Presbyte thinks that suing polluters would drown the violators in lawsuits. Randomthot thinks that suing would be ineffectual. Surely, both positions can't be true." -Walt

Well, I think a practical limit on the deluge of lawsuits would be the amount of damages that any one individual could receive. In order to have the big-splash punitive effect that such suits would need to have, in order to modify polluter behavior, I anticipate that many plaintiffs would have to team up in some form of "class-action." This would have the effect of lowering the numbers of suits, but increasing each separate suit's potential effectiveness.

On the other hand, if individual plaintiffs could get big awards, then we might very well have a flood of suits.

-J

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/2/96 12:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Randomthot Message-id:

Sure they can. Different situations. Presbyte was referring to large point source polluters like factories. I tend to agree that Lib solutions will be effective against those types of problems because it's relatively easy to assign culpability. They're big, sitting targets. All we really need is to establish a theory of communal property rights for air and water such that private environmental organizations can effectively act against polluters on behalf of all of us.

The more intractable problem in my opinion is how to deal with the zillions of little sources of pollution, any one of which is inconsequential, that combine to form a really big mess. Here in CT I'm infinitesimally affected by someone driving a car in Ohio, yet his exhaust fumes, combined with millions more like him, DO have an effect on our air quality. So who do I sue? Everybody to the west of me? Add that up and it gets mighty expensive to live in California :).

- R

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/2/96 3:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: WaltFT Message-id:

But the flaw, Randomthot, is in believing that you will TRY to sue all those 150 million! However, that won't necessarily stop you from suing a neighbor with a smoking car.

Market calculation principles aren't just limited to economic behavior.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/2/96 11:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Randomthot Message-id:

Of course I'm not going to sue all 150 million people! It's also pointless to sue my neighbor with the smoking car. What are my damages? Unless he's got a hose from his exhaust pipe straight into my living room I'm not actually inhaling more than an infinitesimal fraction of his pollution and it will be impossible to show that he is actually causing me any physical harm or hazard. These damages show up only in the aggregate. For example, my lifetime risk of lung cancer might be increased by 25% due to the increased levels of toxins caused by the cumulative effects of millions of cars in this country. Even if I get cancer I would have to prove that it was caused by automobile exhaust pollution (impossible to do) and then assign a level of responsibility to all the auto owners in America. Traditional legal theories of liability just don't cut it in this situation.

- R.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/2/96 11:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: WaltFT Message-id:

Randomthot>>These damages show up only in the aggregate.

What's wrong with using the aggregate as a basis for assessing damages?

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/3/96 3:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Randomthot Message-id:

How? As I understand the law, in order to successfully sue and be awarded compensation you must a) show that damages were suffered, and b) show that the defendant was the cause or contributed to the damages.

Ok, Walt. We both live in CT. I drive a car. Let's assume it needs a tune-up and is therefore polluting more than you personally find tolerable. Sue me. Convince a jury. How much do I owe you? The idea is ludicrous.

- Just another annoying and pointless Randomthot

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/3/96 4:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: WaltFT Message-id:

Randomthot>>As I understand the law, in order to successfully sue and be awarded compensation you must a) show that damages were suffered, and b) show that the defendant was the cause or contributed to the damages.

a) I have to breathe polluted air, which I would not normally have to breathe were it not for those who pollute (including myself). I should not have to do so. Regardless of whether I can demonstrate that I will get sick, there is no doubt that I have been harmed. Pollutants have been deposited in my lungs against my will.

b) If there are 150 million cars, and assume for the sake of discussion that cars account for 50% of all air pollution, then you are responsible for 1/2 of 1/150 millionth of the damage.

Well, let's say that the total damage from all polluting cars is arbitrarily worth $150 billion (a fair assumption, considering how much money the Federal gov't has wasted on its air pollution programs over the years). There are 150 million cars, which works out to $1,000 a car. There are roughly 260 million people, which divides into $150 billion at $577 per claimant. Now multiply by 50%, which is our arbitrary figure for the contribution of cars to overall air pollution. So an award between $288 and $500 would certainly be fair.

Why isn't this approach taken? Because the statist courts and the government have made it virtually illegal!

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/4/96 12:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Randomthot Message-id:

Talk about pointless! Who gets the money? We all write a check for a couple hundred dollars and then that gets deposited into a big pool of money to be distributed to everyone in the country because we're all defendants. Sounds like the way the government does things now!

-R

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/22/96 1:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: MLTyler Message-id:

Dangfitz: >

Who can afford to buy better Lawyers & Judges, you or Dow?

Subject: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 11/22/96 1:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: MLTyler Message-id:

Randomthot: >

Exellent point. as you say, when these myriad transgressions add to the soup, who sues whom? The Libertarian approach is less capable than our current mess of dealing with this. Marc

Subject: Re: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 6/18/97 8:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: ChrisToto Message-id: <19970618121500.IAA02646@ladder02.news.aol.com>

In reply to:

Randomthot: >

Exellent point. as you say, when these myriad transgressions add to the soup, who sues whom? The Libertarian approach is less capable than our current mess of dealing with this. Marc>>

There are two immediate libertarian solutions to these problems:

1) disallow corporate shielding of an environmentally offending corporation's owners/board/managers

2) discontinue goVARMINTS subsidization of highway construction which has incentivized movement out of environmentally and acreage-wise thriftier land development of the cities. Don't use public funds to incentivize suburban sprawl. See my post elswhere on this board.

Before the Eisenhower administration started the exodus to the suburbs in the 1950s as a decentralizing hedge against nuclear warfare, we had a fraction of the autos and oil consumption and air pollution of today. Yet another product of the war making prerogative of the state and the industrial-military complex, eh?

Chris Toto (ChrisToto@aol.com)

Subject: Re: Re:Air Pollution Solution Date: 6/23/97 9:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: CheffJeff Message-id: <19970623131701.JAA02239@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>

"Mess" says it all about today's government "solutions," doesn't it?

Marc, wake up and look at what government "solutions" have (not) done (subsidized roads, prevented entrepreneuers like Tucker from creating market solutions, funneled stolen research money (taxes) into areas that support current oil consumption, even fought wars to protect oil companies, etc. etc.) And you want MORE of this!!!--all in the name of "protecting" the environment, of course. Marc, they are using you to support their dishonesties. Wake up, dupe. Jeff

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/22/96 1:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: MLTyler Message-id:

KC3VA: < Considering that most people operate automobiles, they should take the first step by purchasing lower emmissions vehicles or stop using fossil fuel combustion transportation.>>

Nothing is preventing this now. A Suzuki Swift is as available as a Ford Explorer, but our national fleet milage is down as a result of the overwhelming popularity of minivans, sports-utility vehicles, and light trucks. Greenhouse gas production is tied to fuel burned, so smaller cars are cleaner. The problem is that people are generally short-sighted, government is short sighted ( re-election) and business is the worst of them all (next quarter). Can America as a collection of self interested parties see past it's nose? no. Can America as a community see past its nose? Yes! Marc T.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/22/96 12:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: BIOSGUY Message-id:

One can create two classes of pollution. The first is localized and specific. The second is general and diffuse. The legal system is well suited to handle the first class. The latter (air pollution) is more problematic. The best solution is to charge those who pollute a "dumping fee" based on the type and amount of pollutant expelled.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/22/96 1:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: CheffJeff Message-id:

Can America as a collection of self interested parties see past it's nose? no. Can America as a community see past its nose? Yes!--MLTyler

Isn't this a contradiction? For what is a community but a collection of self interested parties (ie, individuals)? Jeff

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/23/96 1:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: MLTyler Message-id:

Jeff: >

No contradiction, A community, a *functioning* community, is a collection of individuals, more than simply self- interested, self-absorbed, they are interested in the whole. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts in this case. A collection of discrete individuals, merely self-interested, is tantamount to a house divided against itself. Marc

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/23/96 2:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: CheffJeff Message-id:

No contradiction, A community, a *functioning* community, is a collection of individuals, more than simply self- interested, self-absorbed, they are interested in the whole. --MLTyler

I assume you're one of those interested in the whole. What are your reasons for this? Jeff

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/25/96 12:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: WaltFT Message-id:

MLTyler:>>Can America as a collection of self interested parties see past it's nose? no. Can America as a community see past its nose? Yes!

What makes you believe this is so? I see no preponderance of evidence to support this thesis.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/25/96 12:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: WaltFT Message-id:

MLTyler>>A community, a *functioning* community, is a collection of individuals, more than simply self- interested, self-absorbed, they are interested in the whole. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts in this case.

The first sentence assumes that individuals who are primarly self-interested are not community-oriented. This is nonsense. I am self-interested, yet I also have a community interest. That interest is one of the reasons I ran for Congress. It is also a reason that I support private, local, non-profit organizations. Further, all people are self-interested.

By Marc's definition, no one could belong to the "community" he defines, because they are all primarily self-interested and their self-interest comes ahead of their community interest. Even the most altruistic community worker is more interested in putting food on her own table than she is in helping her neighbor. Does that mean she doesn't care about others? Of course not.

The second sentence is also nonsense. It assumes that a community is a separate being from the individual parts. The idea of a community conciousness has been an effective metaphor used to promote collectivism, but it has no real meaning.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/25/96 7:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Beirhere Message-id:

MLTyler, businesses that are sucessful see past their noses. Yes, lots of businesses are only concerned with the next quarter, IBM, AT&T, GM, Chrysler, Proctor and Gamble, Microsoft, Intel, etc. are all businesses that have been able to look into the future, and be able to see what needs to be done so that the business will be sucesssful at least ten years down the road. Believe it our not, it actually happens, it happens a lot.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/27/96 1:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: MLTyler Message-id:

Walt: >

It is my belief, not a theory. Perhaps I should have prefaced this with "I believe". Marc

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/27/96 2:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: MLTyler Message-id:

Jeff: >

The logical ends that "self interest" are taken in these forums are IMO stretching it. If people operating out of self interest (standard operationg procedure) was as wonderful a self-leveling system as argued in these parts, government would never have needed to be implemented. Seeing as it has, and has so often resulted in tyranny, is testament to the shortcomings of self interest based society, as it is the self-interested and strong who subjugate the self interested and weak. It comes down to my hokey pie-in-the-sky beliefs against your hokey pie-in-the-sky beliefs. truth is people are no damn good in general, and we're choking on our own excrement.(At least that's how I feel today ;)

Marc

Subject: Re: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 2/15/97 9:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: J39 Gripen Message-id: <19970216012500.UAA14862@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>government would never have needed to be implemented.<

I believe that most governments are imposed upon a subject class, not implimented by the citizenry.

But, concerning low emission cars, the solution is easy to discover, if not to impliment. Remove all government imposed regulatory and stautory roadblocks to the developement of alchohol based fuel.

Alchohol based fuel has MANY pluses. Clean burning, renewable, spends dollars on raw materials grown in the USA instead of imported from abraod, readily compatible with existing vehicles, mass produced alchohol fuel is cheaper than gas or diesel, etc., etc., etc. Why don't we do it? Why can a nation like Brazil have over 80% of the internal combustion engines in their country fueled by alchohol but we can't? The government's protection of the hugely influencial petroleum industry. Get rid of that gov't protection and free market entrepeneurs will begin distilling huge quantites of alchohol fuels from US grown grains. The consumer benefits, the environment is improved, the new industry created to manufacture the fuel employs tens of thousands, etc. There is no down side to anyone except the petroleum industry at the initial production level. Shipping companies, service stations, etc., all merely begin retailing/hauling alchohol instead of gasoline.

But, no. We need government to create environmental regulations to compensate for the environmental damage caused by other government regulations. Madness

Subject: Re: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 2/19/97 12:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: PMill32182 Message-id: <19970219134900.IAA18530@ladder01.news.aol.com>

So;rry-- use gasahol, and ADM corp; simply collects more billions in natgov subsidies, and they kill old cars-- like mine, a '54 Kaiser, which doesn't pollute any more than yours, cause I keep it tuned, or don't use it. Jerry

Subject: Re: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 3/24/97 10:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: BKS III Message-id: <19970325023900.VAA17286@ladder01.news.aol.com>

>use gasahol, and ADM corp; simply collects more billions in natgov subsidies, and they kill old cars-- like mine, a '54 Kaiser, which doesn't pollute any more than yours, cause I keep it tuned, or don't use it.<

NOT gasahol, alcohol. NOT gov't subsidized corps, entrepeneurs. Alcohol does not "kill" older cars, you simply need to do about 400 dollars in gasket and seal replacements. This cost is made up quickly when the artificial inflation is removed and alcohol costs 65-85 cents per gallon.

What in the world made you think that the alcohol proposal advocated the asinine, gov't controlled gasahol fiasco? That's not the way I read the post at all.

Like J39Gripen, I am sold on a privately controlled alcohol based fuel system for our country. It is an easy fix to a problem that has been artificially made complex.

Subject: Re: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 5/7/97 1:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: ChrisToto Message-id: <19970507174501.NAA19653@ladder01.news.aol.com>

To: All

I've read most of the posts on this topic though not all due to its volume so I apologize if I am repeating someone else's similar comments.

I'm astonished that there has been little or no discussion of the true cause of the auto air pollution problem. Before solving a problem, identify the cause.

The origin of the huge auto emission pollution problem is the explosion in the number of automobiles in this country since 1950. A major cause of the increase in automobiles since the 1950's is the government's subsidy of highway construction. This was part of the social/military engineering agenda embarked upon by the Eisenhower administration and continued by everyone since then to decentralize US population and industry as a hedge against nuclear attack. Of course, practically no politician Demo or Repub, Fed, State, or local ever objected because it was a huge public works program which payed off seemingly everybody except the environment. This is another example of how the invisible hand of nature and its corollary, the free market is getting ready to grab everyone by the cuillones who has enjoyed all those federal superhighways and highways to the 'burbs.

Before we let the government and its lapdog the EPA blame all us bad, bad consumers and auto fanatics, let's ask them, whose idea was it to start this game? Who decided to build all those highways anyway? First the government invites us to play and now they want to take away all our marbles?!

I don't want to rant too long on the enormous, profound and sometimes subtle ways that the government's subsidy of highway construction has transformed the US and in many ways not for the good; I'll mention just a few. In the main it has transformed US from a country which was predominantly environmentally and economically thrifty city dwellers into suburban sprawlers and mallers.

Instead of supporting the local economy with our transport dollars, we send dollars either to Detroit, Japan or Germany. Instead of walking to and from work, market, school, church, and relatives we sit on our butts and drive. And we expend more time and resources on just getting from here to there. Enter health problems or expenses for excercise equipment.

Instead of relying on shrinks or social welfare workers, we really could rely on family or friends in time of need or crisis because they usually lived in the same neighborhood or within walking distance. If you didn't like one family member's advice you could just go see another relative, perhaps someone more sympatico with your situation. If you really needed to "get away from it" you could stroll to a neighborhood or the next neighborhood's tavern and not worry about gettting caught for drunk driving on the way home. I think Americans used to help each other much more before the suburban exodus because they could much more efficiently.

There was little need to own a car because everything and everybody you needed was within walking or trolley/bus range. There either was very little out in the country to see except for vacations or there was no decent road to take you there. It used to take 6 hours to travel from Brooklyn, NYC to the south Jersey shore by auto and 2 hours by train. Now you can drive it in 1 1/2 hours and there is no train.

We didn't need to import petroleum because we used so little and had so much we exported it! There was no danger of being held hostage to foreign oil interests.

Most wealth, productive capital and industries, the middle class was in the cities. After the 1950's and the exodus to the suburbs, began the decay of the cities, the bankruptcy of Penn-Central and most private suppliers of mass transit. Any civil construction that did occur in the cities or near suburbs lost all sight of the need for safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle access to mass destinations and nodes of non-auto transport.

Before the 1950's, the countryside was natural or open farm/range space. There weren't millions of acres of suburban housing developments and shopping malls.

I know the highways are already built and no, I don't advocate the demolition of these magnificent engineering wonders. What's done is done. But, just stop funding the future subsidy of new highways. Don't incentivize private auto ownership with one hand of government while slapping us with the other hand, the EPA.

Before the government gets high and mighty about telling the private market how to behave concerning pollution, it should first clean its own house and take a clue from the Hippocratic oath (not its more usual, hypocritic :-)); first, do no harm. Stop artificial government support for the means of transportation which is causing so much pollution and the lifestyle which creates such a large human footprint on the countryside. If people want to continue moving further out into the country, let them but let them pay their own way without government assistance.

Sorry if this seems too simplistic, but before we get all tangled up in complex knots, why don't we attack the basic and simple stuff first?

Chris Toto

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/27/96 2:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: MLTyler Message-id:

Walt: >

Did you run to represent the interests of your prospective constituancy? Marc

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/28/96 2:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: WaltFT Message-id:

Marc>>Did you run to represent the interests of your prospective constituancy?

Yes, I did. Their primary interest is to not have government telling them how to run their lives.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 11/29/96 8:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: MLTyler Message-id:

Walt: >

I assume you conducted polls to this effect, and, pray, did you win? Marc T.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution solution Date: 12/2/96 11:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Ptiye Message-id:

MARC You have the wrong view about "self interest". In a free market, a lumber company will plant 6 trees for every tree it cuts down so, it can have a future. A company will pay higher wages, have safer working condition, ect. So it can attract better workers; thereby production a better price than it's competitors. Government OTOH, will tell people that it is necessary to take their rights away to level the field. Politicians then propagandize to the people so they can get elected. You think Libertarian beliefs are "hokey pie-in -the sky" beliefs. In fact, the U.S. went from 13 colonies, to a world power with those beliefs. More recently, Taiwan, using Libertarian beliefs, 30 years ago had 1/3 the standard of living of Great Britain, now has 1/3 higher standard of living of Great Britain. IOW, by using Libertarian beliefs, a person with $20,000 income would have the standard of living of someone making $80,000. With your belief,during the same period, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer, the middle class shrank, crime increased, morality decreased, one spouse works for the government, ect.. You asked Walt if he conducted polls to ensure he represented the interests of his prospective constituencey. The U.S. is not a democracy. The minority interests are important to his prospective constituency too. You asked, what is the libertarian approach to building codes and health safety? It's in the platform, but basicaally, it's not a federal or state concern, it is a local problem. Besides, government created the homeless and forbids affordable housing and passes silly laws like; how many light sockets are permitted to be placed in a cardboard box. You also assume the populace is not responsible and gave the example of people who complain of taxes and then complain when the street -sweeper doesn't come. First, those people are statist, not Libertarians. Second, that is an example of how irresponsible the government is. It shows the government can't even clean the street right. Third, you can't say the populace is not responsible unless you eliminate the possiblility of the government cleaning the streets.

Subject: Re: air pollution Date: 10/24/96 4:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Dangfitz Message-id:

Theoretically, you do not have the right to pollute the air I breathe. If your pollution reaches my lungs, you have committed a tresspass, and I have a case against you.

You also can choose to purchase the least polluting vehicle you can find.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution/ hemp oil Date: 10/28/96 3:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Beirhere Message-id:

No, only the burning of the Cannibus leaves produces the oder so commonly associated with the plant. Also, only the leaves contains THC. Burning other products of hemp would not at all produce a smell resembling a rock concert. I have burned hemp paper, it actually burns cleaner than wood paper, with no offending oder. Hemp clothing contains very similar characteristics of polyester (a substitute for hemp when it was illegalized in 1938), wool, and nylon. I have even eaten hemp seeds, quite filling, and I didn't get high. I have never seen, let alone burned, hemp seed oil, but I would imagine that since it is the plant that produces common marijuana chemicals (with a combination of soils, sun light and fertalizers), that the non-leaf parts of cannibus contains no THC, and that plant contains no hydorcarbons nor sulpher, burning hemp seed oil would probaly be cleaner and more odorless than diesel.

Subject: Re:Air Pollution/ hemp oil Date: 10/28/96 5:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Dangfitz Message-id:

>>> No, only the burning of the Cannibus leaves produces the oder so commonly associated with the plantAlso, only the leaves contains THC. Burning other products of hemp would not at all produce a smell resembling a rock concert. <<

No wonder smoking those socks didn't get me off...

this website copyright scars publications and design. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.

this page was downloaded to your computer