IRC log started Fri Feb 28 21:51 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "Objective Environmentalism" and will be moderated by Tym Parsons. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Tym. okee... Because environmentalism has a flawed philosophical basis, Objectivists often act as if that means that there aren’t any legitimate environmental concerns. It’s my contention that there *are* environmental concerns that deserve serious scrutiny when taken in the proper, man-centered context. But the resulting laissez-faire approach to environmental problems will be vastly different from the current statist approach. The purpose of the discussion will be First of all, I want to emphasise that I'm referring to *man's* environment in the context of *property rights*... ...unlike the environmentalists themselves, who are philosophically corrupt. Just a reminder, Tym - paste short messages. They get truncated at 256 characters. So briefly, can someone say WHY the enviros are philosophically corrupt, to make sure we're all clear on that? Intrinsic theory of value Tym: They do not hold man's life as the standard, but rather the standard of "natural animals." Kpart:define please Nature is inherently good. Man is inherently bad. Also, man is not natural...he's written out of nature totally. or that value resides"in the thing and not a judgement of the valuer man must sacrifice his life (ethics) and rights (politics) to a "higher" entity. Tom: Not just animals; plants as well They give intrinsic value to plants, air, rocks, the earth. Those things can have no value unless they contribute to a man's life. And that values are determined not by rational thought, not supported by evidence, but are the result of emotional outbursts. Wright: Well, true, meaning everything except man, I should have said. Often they there are real dangers, but they don't provide facts or scientific evdence. I'm not sure "environmentalism" is a valid concept. They are also very static in the way the hold nature. They presume that aspects of envoronmental change can only be due to teh influence of man Glenn: you mean value for what? Though I think "environment" is okay. A value for some purpose that a man has in his life. Sube: so yr saying, unlike the word "selfishness", "environmentalism" can't be reclaimed? Or can it ever be valid? Tym: Maybe we ought to get to what man's proper environment is before trying to answer that question? Tom man's *proper* environment ? Tym: I don't know. Seems to me that the premise behind it is some concern for a habitable physical environment, which is fine. But does that deserve a special word for itself? Haven't thought enough about it to say. i do n ot think that environmentalist should carry a negative meaning, at least not here. Looking out for one's surroundings as little to do with altruism tk: Yeah, he can't live in a heavily chloronated atmosphere, for instance. Tym: If "environmentalism" means "concern for the world we live in", which makes no reference to either selfishness or self-sacrifice, then the term should be rescuable, but NOT if it means man must practice self-sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Legendre: do you think that's the way MOST people understand it? I'm pretty sure environmentalism means the desire to *preserve* the environment - to *protect* the environment *from man*. Tom but aren't the conditons required for biological life metaphysic and not in th erealm of morals, or normative statements, ie proper ? change "from man" to "for yourself" Tym, I think a goodly number of mainstream people may start out holding that view. If by environment you mean MAN's physical context, I don't have a problem with that. After all, man has always worked to improve his environment by altering it to suit his needs. Gilles: That is what it has come to mean, the question is: Is there a proper perspective to have on man's surroundings that could be used in a similar manner to "environmentalism"? Gilles: could it be that it's a package deal that combines a concern for man with its opposite? But once they are propogandized by the "Eco crusaders" they tend to parrot the party line tym: trying to reclaim environmentalism (as concern for the env.) is the same as trying to reclaim "altruism" (as concern for others). Betsy: I agree. Tym: that's certainly how they use it. Gilles: And some pro-environmentalists do speak of keeping the environment safe for man, so i have to agree with Tym, i think it's a package deal. OK. We don't have a lot of time for what appears to be a semantic issue. Is everyone clear on what *I* mean by the term? Tym: no, I missed your definition. Tom: man's environment in the context of property rights. But they're smuggling in that rational concern, when the real meaning is different. Because the whole reason you form the concept is to distinguish it from selfish philosophies. I believe the concept "conservationism" covers what you are trying to say. Tym: Ok. OK, given this context, time for first question... Gilles: I agree they are smuggling it in...after all, if they came right out and said man must be destroyed for the sake of everything else, they would loose most of their sympathetic audience. Is it unreasonable to assume, apart from the validity of any one claim, that in principle global or ecosystemic carrying capacity can be overwhelmed at any one time? If so, what evidence is there for this? Tym: thre's loads of evidence this can happen, and has happened many times in the past. Tym: presumably you mean overwhelmed by human activity. joe: right Tym: Oh, you weren't clear. If you mean man can destroy eco-systems, sure, why not? joe: or whatever. The point is just that the capacity is threatened somehow. Capacity to "carry" what? Tom: it hasn't happened globally, no? At small [nationsized] scales it certinaly has. The quiestion is how far up can you up-scale it? Gilles: man's ability to use it. Tym: This has only happened LOCALLY in non-free countries where the free market was not allowed to make the necessary adaptations and/or where property rights were not recognized. Tym define an ecosystem and it validation in reality joe: When I answered, I didn't know Tym meant things done by man, but the global environment has been changed many times. Tom: ok Betsy: Right, the only examples I can think of are where property rights were not established. Betsy: so there's no evidence for systemic disequilibria or depletion? I don't get the question. Betsy: and of things like over-fishing in international waters, where schools of fish etc migrate all over the world? Agreed, the problem is lack of property rights, but how can that be solved??? Depletion of some non-renewable resource? Sure. That's just a consequence of using things. Tym: I can't think of anything world-wide. Even if we had another Ice Age, men could adapt if they were free to. KT Boundary and other mass extinctions are the best I can think of for world-wide scales. But nothing during human history All-out nuclear exchange is the only thing I can think of. Even Ozone depletion couled be dealt with. As Reisman points out in his new books, there are more natural resource availabe to man than ever. Betsy: the issue I'm posing here is not whether man CAN adapt to something. The question is WHAT he has to adapt to, and how. Legendre: Fishing rights, fish farms, artificial fish ... as i understand it *ecosystem* is an invalid scientific concept it's taken a large shock to do it in the past Tym: Man survives by adapting his environment to him, not the other way around. Tad: in that it assumes a static system? it is a valid system in the purely scientific sense. in the way that many envirponmentalist use it it tends to fall apart as soon as they divorse man from it. Betsy: I can think of several systemic problems off the top of my head. The problem is that the accumulation of evidence that there's harm is only possible or probable. Tym: The economic issue is diminishing returns. The solution is innovation. At one time, we depended on natural fertalized land. Now we know how to turn deserts into fertile land. joe yes and one that is somehow disconnected from everythig else , it exists seperately existentially Tym: So far man has adapted to outer space, under sea, the North and South Poles ... Betsy: and even where that's not at issue, the cause IS. Jim: exactly, people continue to find ways to solove envirnomental problems Betsy: Well, i wouldn't call that "man adapting" but rather man adapting that surounding to his needs. Is the question then that are there any "environmental problems" that man creates that are so bad that a free market can't fix them? If so, no, there's no evidence of that. Are we now discussing man ruining some aspect of existence such that he can no longer live there as he could before? I think we have several lines going at once. logically, it is in one's best interest to make an environment suited to one's own survival. Tym, could you specify the question? if survival is threatened, one comes up with a solution Man must do what is in his own best interest, which is to survive. Creating a cesspool for corporate interests is not in his best interest. Corporations don't breath. There are such things as environemental disasters, such as every time a volcanoe erutps. TomM: but nearly *ever* adaptation of man to various envs concsists of his changing the env. Also, since man can think long range, he doesn't wait until the last drop of water is used before looking for a substitute. He anticipates the need for a substitute. joe: I said that. Gilles: there's evidence that reefs are deteriorating worldwide, frogs and salamnders dying off at an unusual rate, all sorts of toxins floating around, etc. ter: and cororations are formed by whom? That's got nothing to do with this discussion, ter1. corporations No, but corporations *do* provide money to those who operate it..and they breathe... Tym: So you're asking if the same can happen regarding man? Tym: And how do those things effect man? and hire people... Kristin: Exactly It comes down to whether someone is using force on you. If he is poisoning you with some kind of chemical and you can *prove* it then you can stop it. There is no need for environmentalism. Tym: has any scientific information come about showing it is *man* who is killing off these things? Tym: bu is there any evidence that those things are happeneing to to man's actions? properly executing tort law could be used in those cases Glenn: You just need good tort law. Tom: jinx Hi, Jason! Tom, joe: doesn't matter. The point is there are lots of problems and potential problems, regardless of what caused them. Problems for whom? Tym if it can be shown that the burning of fossil fuels is killing the reefs, should the burning of these fuels cease ? Tym: You didn't tell me how those "problems" you mentioned effect man? Or if there is anything we can do about it? Betsy: Right--Common law and legal precedent would take care of the whole problem. (minus any existing enviromental precident) Tym: i think it matters a great deal. After all, many species have gone extinct without man even being alive. *should* tkTad: Killing WHOSE reef? If the owner doesn't mind, who cares? Tym: well that depends on where you are taking this discussion. Betsy , my point or, it may be that there is a treament of the reef, a way of (chemically, etc) protecting it...assuming you had a reason to keep it alive or constructing new ones All: do we need environmental research to find out what we are doing to the planet and ourselves? Tym: What are you trying to get us to discuss? Why is the decline of reef "health" important , and to whom ? Tym: I think so, provided the money comes from private sources, of course. Tym: in the long run, yes, but I'm not sure we know enough at this point to make a big deal about it. I think it can be handled on a much more local basis. I think we are ready for the next question (assuming there is a next one) Subetai: and what is the SCOPE of such activity? Is it very important? Tym" SOME people need the results of such research -- land developers, fisherman, and other people who have an interest in a liveable or usable envieonment. Tym: Sure. Such knowledge can be very useful. As Subetai said, if someone is willing to pay for it. Those who anticipate being affected will have the most interest in research. Show me a fact that demonstrates that such research is necessary. I've never heard one. Tym: If you buy a lake and want to make a resort out of it, then you will need to know what will/will not effect the life therein. Gilles: How's that? and if your new fish in this pond die, you'll want to know why Betsy: so research and capitalisation would be ecosystem-based? Is this a large undertaking? Gilles: Researching something doesn't mean there is a problem. Research is a way of determining what the actual situation is. Tym: If by "scope" you mean local community versus national or international, I'd say whatever the interested parties are willing to put funds into. I think there's information to be collected at all levels. Depends on what one's purpose is ... Tym: in funding the research. Tym: maybe you need to define "eco-system." On a rational basis, of course. Tym: Whether is it large will be determined by the amount of environment owned. My property and garden keep me rather busy. :) All: what I'm trying to do is get you to *concretise* how much different concerns about the environment would be handled under laissez faire. Betsy: Right. As it stands, we don't know what can effect the entire global eco-system, so how can one possibly answer the question? Tom: should we get started, or should we take a complacent head-in-the-sand approach? Tym: they would be handled by upholding porperty rights. You don't have the right to destroy or harm someone else's property. It has been suggested that world-wide changes be treated like the weather. People should take it as the given and adapt. Tym: The significant difference under laissez-faire would be in who puts in the money for research - those who think they're being poisoned, etc. And it'd be in how such cases are settled - that is, proving actual damage done. Tym: I didn't say hide, I said gather information until we know what effects what. And that is being done on local levels. Betsy: can you think of some examples? Say, that impacted yr home and garden? ;) Think of all of the progress that man made up until the 1960's before environmentalism was in full force. Mankind made great strides in improving his living standard and "environment". Glenn: yes, man's environement is the city ;) (or the internal conditions of his home.) every man's *environment * is his property Tym: The humidity has risen in some areas of Southern Calif. due to widespread irrigation. Now we can grow plants that didn't used to grow here. the difference between the current environmental attitude and a laisse faire one is if polution were going into the ocean, the government wouldn't pass an anit-ocean polution act, but would be sued by the owners of the beachs and such And external as well...I mean you don't want to plant things in your garden that you are alergic to ;) Glenn: good point. it used to be that converting jungle into farmland was considered a positive development for third world contries. Kristin, plus people forget that polution is... waste. Kristin: sue whom? midas:the person responsible How would problems like air pollution be dealt with under laissez faire? Tym: In a free system, research would follow need and interest. As man studies his own illnesses, he'll study the quality of air he needs, the quality of food, sanitation, etc. He'll learn alot just by solving smaller problems. As more improvements in human health occur, and men are able to save more with less health costs, etc., they'll... Kristin: waste... with beaches and stuff is cummulative. midas: If a particular harmful agent can be traced back to a dumper or manufacturer, that's the place to start. Tym, there's the idea of auctioning off the right to polute and then selling the subsequent shares when needed Kristin: .. there is generally no individual responsible, it is an amplfied effect. Kpart: how would that differ from the current system of doing that? ..have the capital to invest in less immediate research, such as how the conditions around the world effect our local lives. wait a minute, you mean that system is in action now? Tym: It depends on who is polluting whose air. If _everybody_ was polluting the air before you arrived, you either adapt or move. Midas: Is is a similar situation to pollution from cars on roads. The pollution is comming from somewhere, find the source and sue them! Kpart: yeah, but it's arbitrary. Tym: Under Kparts system, it's actually called "auctioning," rather than "pull" Man's life as the standard and property rights should be able to solve any such questions. cjs: how many car owners can you sue? "auctioning" rights ? Betsy: could they keep on polluting? Or would torts enable you to cap the amount? Midas: you don't. You sue the owner of the road. Tym: Under capitalism, air quality improved, as streets were cleaner due to less animal travel. City smog from factories allowed a level of production that provided greater sanitation for other areas. cjs: the road person did not produce the polution. THe idea was to spin it up by auctioning a given amount (I don;t know if that would be an analogy to home steading) Jim: yup. the difference is that *YOU* do not own the road. LA's pollution is caused by geography and general lifestyle. If someone doesn't like that, he would probably be better off somewhere else. TomM: I agree. None if it matters unless someone can prove force is being used against him. Midas: he's carrying the traffic that is causing the pollution. Tym: A big problem with evironmentalist thinking is they think the earth began as an eden and man came in and polluted it. Instead, it started off a dangerous place for man, and he's constantly improving it. Kpart: wouldn't you need torts to detrmine what could be bought and sold? Glenn: And if he can prove the substance is in fact harmful to man, or the things needed for him to remain alive. Jim, it;s been a pretty dangerous place for most critters as well cjs: I still don't follow how "carrying the traffic"==liable for the products of that traffic. It isn't the road owner's car. Jim and thinikng in terms of *ecosystems8 is a manifestation of enviromentalism , no ? it would be in the owner of the road's best interest to keep it clean, and a place that people will use I can;t remember how the intial "acution" would be set up, it's been a while since I looked in on it. Jim: right. But that's assumed for the purposes of this discussion. Midas: I don't know the name of the legal concept but if someone is allowing some kind of action that disruptive on their property they can be held liable for it. tk: i don't think there has yet been a rational definition of "ecosystem." Which is part of th probelm of this discussion. cjs: "Public nuisance?" Ecosystem implies that some animal has rights. midas: you would sue them all, the car owner, the road owner, the car manufacturer, the oil co. Betsy: Bingo. Thanks. Tym: Okay, but you asked what would be done about pollution, so I wanted to stress just how successful capitalism already is. Examples of what is to be done are all around us. Go back a hundred years and you'll have far worse conditions than we have today. Tom: are there environmental problems for man? If so, how does laissez-faire solve them? billmc: You can't sue thousands of people. Do we not have to accept our own responsibility? We have the ability to reason and reason tells us to keep our living quarters clean Glenn: One could define ecosystem to take into account a specific property, not the other living things per se, but only as they relate to the man who owns the property. midas: sure you can. Midas: why would you need to? Tym: And the solutions didn't come from government programs, but from innovations by businesses. TomM: You could, but why not use "property" instead? billmc, and just how would you ascribe the appropriate amount of guilt per person? Tym: Well, man does need an environment in which he can live that is metaphysically compatible to his nature. Kristin: because thousands of people have produced the polution. kpart: that would be up to the jury. And I've already discussed how capitialism would inable that to be taken care of. You can set up rules affecting YOUR own property (No smoking in my house) but not rules about how other people behave on other people's property. Jim: but the problems have changed. Plenty o challenges out there. Like the fact that there are hundreds of millions of chemicals that we're releasing and we have no idea what they're doing. Betsy: Agreed, that's what I was saying earlier. Betsy: but what about things... like in the open environment (polution for instance) Tym: If we don't know, why be concerned? Tym give an example of a chemical that is being *released* tkTad: right... how many chemicals were actually invented by man? not many. Tym: No idea? Tom: that is PRECISELY the sort of complacent, head-in-the-sand approach I'm questioning. Tom: what you don't know won't hurt you? Why does property protection from poollutin have to be handled only by tort? is it not consistent with LFC to have regulations as well (e.g. max auto emissions permitted per car), as long as these regs kept in mind that it is people's health and property that must be preserved, and not the "environment". Midas: If it's the air over YOUR land that used to be breathable and now isn't, you can sue the person who caused the pollution -- if you can objectively prove who that is. Tym: if a certain chemical has no demostrable effect on man's life, what's thee to be concerned with? tkTad: heavy metals. Betsy: but how can you prove it? Tym: Do you have examples of chemicals that are out of control, i.e. causing more harm than they are solving? joe: no. Well...radioactive materials maybe... Tym: You still have to have justification to stop someone's business from putting out a chemical. You have to prove that the chemical has caused specific injuries to specific people, that force has been used. Tym other than beoing released, what functions do heavy metals perform and aren't they beneficial to man ? Midas: Chemical analysis of the pollutants involved is one way. Joe: You can get an injunction to _prevent_ specific, provable, threats of harm to property, but that is different from regulation. Tym: I didn't say what we don't know won't hurt us, I said why assume harm will be done if there is no evidence to show it will do harm? even those exist in nature Glenn: that may be one way of dealing with it. If that doesn't work, what are some other approaches? cjs: but who can you sue? if its coming from all the millions of Car's in LA.. who do you sue? Joe: Also the company that writes your liability insurance policy may have something to say about the conditions you must meet to be insurable. Betsy , assuming a free market :) Tym: There is no way to prove that a chemical will not cause some "unknown" negative effect sometime in the future. If something unanticipated does occur, and it is proven that the chemical causes it, then people can choose not to use it anymore, and the company will look for a substitute. TomM: but there IS evidence..it's just not conclusive yet in many cases. Tym: i think you need to make a case that we need to be concerned. Betsy: I was thinking in terms of the regulain acting as a general ruling, offering a single ruling to thousands of potential court cases. tkT. I though that this part of the disc. assumed a free market tkTAD: Unless you assume a free market, there IS no solution. Tym: if it's not conclusive, what difference is there between you and the environmentalists shouting: DOOMSDAY IS UPON US? Tym: My point is that it's not an enviromental question, but a question for common law. Environmentalism is not needed. Kpart yes it was a bad attempt at humor sorry Betsy: so what do you suggest? Tym: If you don't hold out for _conclusive_ evidence of harm, you are doing an injustice and violating the rights of those accused of causing the harm. midas: you are restricting you thinking to our present legal system. a legal system under lasi-fair would be much more robust than our present system. with a not-so-free market? Midas: You'd have to keep in mind the context involved. LA is in a valley that encourages smog to form. But car pollution from thousands of cars on hundreds of roads can still be the target of legal action, quite possibly mass legal action. Tom: the difference is that enviros aren't man-centered, nor do they care about property rights. But there's more than enough evidence to warrant acting on. Joe: Legal precedent serves that function. Cjs: everyone is having to deal with those automotive pollutants. You won't have to deal with alone. Tym yes do not ingest mercury Tym: If there is evidence, then it can be handled as any other case of violation of individual rights. Tym: On the basis of your inconclusive evidence, you can choose to avoid the product. But without conclusive evidence, even you don't know for sure that the product is harmful. Tym: until you specify a specific, i think many of us will have a hard time aggreeing with you. Krisitn: I suggest working toward a free market. It will solve a LOT of problems. Betsy: legal precedent is a lousy legal system. Betsy, Glenn: what I'm saying is, if you can't prove tangible harm caused by someone, you have to look to the market for solutions, right? i.e. common law. Tym: if you can't prove tangible harm, what are you worried about? People are living longer now than ever. There are also more kids and adults being diagnosed with asthma. Tym: If there is no tangible harm, there is no need for a solution. Dagny better diagnostic techniques joe: I disagree. Take a listen to the SRC tapes on "The Rationality of the Common Law." But I'm going to have to throw this out-- Assume its 1910 and previous to this moment there was no indication that cigarrettes are harmful. All the sudden you get lung cancer and its probable, but in no way conclusively provable that the cigarrettes gave you cancer... what then? Reisman recently posted an essay on the web about Malaria making a comeback. The chemical DDT which wiped out malaria was banned awhile back, without any conclusive evidence that it cause harm. Yet, now thousands are dying of a disease we know how to wipe out that does cause harm. Tom: there are plenty of problems, it's just that no one person caused them. So how does the market approach the problems? tym: under lasi-fair gigantic enviornmental class action law suits would be common and just a little proof would make it very hard to buy insurance which would stop a poluter. Jim_N: i think the number is in the millions Tym: first of all, you have to scientifically isolate the problem, then go from there. Tym: What problems are you thinking of? joe: Right, I just checked. Millions. Dagny: If you have a problem caused by smog, it is a good idea not to live where there is smog. Personally, I have a problem with cold weather so I live where it is warm and put up with the smog. Tom: I trying to elicit a picture of what these problems are that need to be isolated. Tym: Well, you don't do that by being vague. Jim but thankfuly the pelicans have a consistently thicker shell Gilles: I've already thrown out several. Take yr pick :) Tym: ennumerate them? Tom: I'm asking *you* to do the concretising :) Tym: The point is that once you have demonstrated that a particular substance is harmful to man, then you deal with it as the person spreading it is violating your rights. midas: and show how torts or the market would solve the problem. Midas: Sounds like lack of omniscience on the part of the tobacco makers and/or contributory negligence on the part of the smoker. In a rational legal system, the smoker would not have a case. Tom, to pursue it in that fashion would only be proper if the persion wilkfully inflicted harm Tym: Unless there is no alternative and it effects very few people, like gasoline fumes, which some people are very alergic to. They will simply have to move to the country or wear maskes. Betsy: comeon! if there was absoultely no indication (ie, there was no "contributory negligence") then the tobacco companies are liable. you can sue for an accident! TomM: The person selling the substance may not be violating your rights even if it does cause you harm. It depends on whether you have a choice to use it, whether they intentially sold you something they knew was harmful for your purposes, etc. There are lots of dangerous chemicals that have uses to man. kpart: Oh, I agree, though he could be made to stop the practice. tom, true. Tom: good case in point: there's a growing body of evidence for something called "environmental illness"...and more and more people are coming forward with it. I'm speaking of someone throwing something into the environment that people will come across by chance. Tym: What does that mean? midas, what you say is true, but in the case of cigarettes, they've been calling them "coffin nails" for 200 years.. I don't think anyone is surprised that they kill you. Midas: If nobody knew smoking was harmful, you can't hold the tobacco companies at fault. If the smoker could have known it was harmful, you cannot hold him blameless. Tym so they could sue the environment ? midas: You start suing for every unknown effect that a companies product has on you, and you'll destroy the possiblity of division of labor. Even good chemicals chan accidentaly harm someone who is allergic to them. This is not the fault of the manufacturs. Tom: it means that it only initially seems like just a few people are effected. Betsy: well, i don't understand why you can't hold the tobacco companies at fault. Lets say your neighbors tree falls on your house. They neighbor had no clue it would happen, but you can still sue. tkTad: no, but there's a hell of a market demand for a solution :) Tym: that has been covered in spades. If a known substance will cause harm, then it needs to be cut back or stopped...within reason, of course. In the examples that Tym has used earlier and in the example of enviromental illness the argument has been that polluting agents cause "stress" on an organism lowering its resistance supply creates its own demand midas: It depends on negligence. If the tree fell because it was blown over by a tornado, you have no case. Midas: You can't collect if you, yourself undermined the tree. Smokers _choose_ to do the things which cause them harm. to disease. Tym: The market is the solution. When or if people decide that smoking is dangerous, they will quit smoking. Betsy: but i'm talking an 1910. that was the presupposition of my whole question. (Lets pretend that people didn't know cigarettes were harmful in 1910) Tom: that's only if you know who's doing it. In most cases, it's not any one person. But it's still harmful, and that means the market has to solve the problem. Get it? In these claims direct causal relationships between specific chemicals are very rare. midas: you can't sue someone if they didn't know it would be harmful. Glenn: right. TomM: why not? Midas: If NOBODY knows, then nobody is at fault. It is just a risk of life. midas: that seems like making people responsible for knowledge they could not possibly have had, you can sue, but you shouldn't win That's like you can't sue someone for accidentally driving over your wife. midas: Because you can only sue someone for negligence if they knew there was a problem and didn't fix it or post a warning. cjs: even more problematic are synergistic effects. midas: if they weren't looking backwards and ran over someone, it's negligence. Okay... well my original question is that-- what if it is negligence on the cigarette companies part... There is no way to conclusively prove that cigarrettes cause harm...so can you sue? Tym: maybe you need to define that term as well. midas: It's nothing like that. A driver is responsible for not hitting humans in his way. However, he wouldn't be responsible if she jumped off an overpass in front of his car. You can sue and win if you can prove that some specifice thing caused specific harm, even if it was an accident or unintended by the manufacturer. midas: No, not if you have no proof. Tym: they are extremely hard to diagnose. But it can be done. A property owner taking damages is going to have a vested interest in finding those answers. Tom: synergy? The cumulative effect of the whole rather than just the parts. cjs: yup. Scheduled part of the discussion is over. Please continue. midas: I don't know about the law today, but you should only be able to sue if you can prove negligence or fraud. Thanks, Tym. :) Midas: If they sold cigarettes as a heart disease preventer or cancel cure you might have a case. Generally though, it's caveat emptor. Anyone care to respond to what Glenn just said? Tym: give us an example of what you mean then. Tym: I can't find where you gave the examples - sorry, I was away for a while. Would it be easy for you to paste that part? Glenn gun manufacter's ? Tom: already did. Chemicals. midas: negligence requires that the knowledge was available, but not used, if it is something they could have known, but didn't, there is a case for negligence tkTad: What do you mean? Tym: Water is a chemical...you need to be more specific. BEtsy: lets say they did. you can't really prove conclusively that cigarettes cause harm. you can't isolate the cause so easily... so what do you do/? Tym: Chemicals aren't a problem as such. Your example will have to be more specific than that. Midas: Don't smoke. ;-) Gilles: are you telling me that if we abolished the EPA today, that there wouldn't be any environmental problems? you can sue if the manufacter did not know possible causes , re accidental firing ? Betsy: what if its too late? Betsy: good answer! midas: If you can't prove it, and you think you have a case, then what's to prevent you from suing everyone for anything? Tym: What? Do you mean to pose that question to me? Tom, Jim: I already mentioned heavy metals. Just pick a toxin, any toxin. They're legion. Shortage of lawyers. Tym, no mitigation of provable effects would shift to the area of property rights and tort law If someones finger pulls the trigger, it's not accidental. If you can *prove* the gun went off because of a defect in manufacture, you might have a case. Glenn oic , yes Like.. lets say Brand X Juice ate your lower intestine. There's no way to conclusively prove it did, so what do you do (assuming negligenec on teh part of Brand X)? Gilles: what I mean is no one here should be wanting for examples. Tym: Ok, toxins like heavy metals. first of all, since these have known effects, then ther person dumping them is responsible insofar as he is dumping them...what else? midas. You can't do anything if you can't prove it. midas: You ahve him take Peikoff's logic course so he knows what is a proof and what isn't ;) Tym: I'm wanting. Just give me one or two, because I don't know what you're referring to. Glenn: but there are certain things that are impossible to prove conclusively. There might be considerable evidence for, but not complete irrefutable proof. Like smoking. you can't PROVE its harmful conclusively. midas: Even if it's too late, if nobody knew that the harm could be caused, then it is not their fault. You chose to smoke, and you know more about how your health is repsonding than they do. In a similar manner, if your health is poor because you didn't have a balanced diet, it's not the fault of the fast food chains. You choose to use them as your only source of nutrition. Tom: scroll back and read what I've said over again please. There's no way to isolate the effects of smoking--you can only make statistical conclusions. midas: Well, as has been mentioned before. We have heard that stuff all our lives...no one can claim he hasn't been warned...and the cig manufacturers are not forcing anyone to inhale. Tym: i read it...I don't know what your point is. midas: Your doctor may be able to prove conclusively that your health is threatened by smoking. E.g. you're coughing a lot and your lungs look bad. But the answer isn't to blame the tabacco industry, but to change your smoking habbits. TomM: i'm talking about *proof* hear. Drugs and chemicals are impossible to conclusively prove the effects of. Tym: I think any example you come up with can be dealt with in the same way. Indentify the chemicals involved. Find how and how is Gilles: oh let's see...some more...wastewater treatment, deforestation, climatic change.. "relasing" it and deal with them. Jim_N: but why can't you just blame your bad lungs on polution? how do you know for sure it was smoking? Tym: Even if it is cumulative, the persons dumping it need to be prevented from doing so. Anyone here interested in fashion? midas: How do you know anything for sure. If you keep that up, maybe you'll think an asteroid is about to crash into your house...i mean, how do you know? Midas: with no conclusive proof, how can you know that there is a problem? midas: Your premise is incorrect. You can definitely demonstrate causal effects of substances. But it is a statistical kind of causality, not a direct 'if you eat 0.1 mg of X then effect Y of magnitude Z always happens.' cjs, Tom: in most cases, you can't identify who's polluting the air or a water table, or a river. No one person has done it. BradA: well is statistical causality conclusive proof? Tom: I've said that four or five times now. midas: Using controls. If others in your living area aren't also suffering from poor lungs and constant coughing, it's either something unique to you, or something unique to what you use. Smoking doesn't *cause* cancer, but it has been inconclusively proven to significantly increase one's chances of contracting lung cancer. Tym: Ok, so what is your proposal? If you can't know, you are acting like midas regarding cigarettes. midas: What in the world do you mean be 'inconclusive proof'? Proof of what -- statistical effects? Tym: Besides, this cumulative effect syndrom means no one would be able to dump anything, since anything in a great enough quantity under the right conditions can cause harm. tym: if you cant identify them to sue them how can you identify them to regulate them? Statistical causality is not complete proof. E.g., Beta-Carotine. Or that stupid economics curve that relates interest rates and unemployment. I can get cancer if I don't smoke. I can get it if I smoke. I can not get it if I smoke. How in the world can you 'prove' what caused my lung cancer if I get it? Tom: I'm trying to elicit a specific *picture* of how the market solves this particular problem. Tym: With current technology you can get very accurate assements of the chemicals involved. It is then a case of investigating likely sources of those chemicals. midas: yeah ain't that a doozy. Tym: I see no picture as yet ;) Tym: How do things change when it is a whole city doing the polluting? phillips curve Tom: that's ok, thanks for trying :) Blaming cigarette manufacturers for lung damage is like blaming Black & Decker for the death of some damn fool who drilled a hole in their head. Tym: that was a request for the big picture ;) BRadA: what if 90% of all Minute-Maid Orange Juice Drinkers die of typhoid fever. can you sue Minute maid? Tym: The most important thing to remember is that pollution is a disvalue. You can't just arbitrarily assert that some ubiquitous disvalue will somehow reign unchecked in a free economy. That doesn't make any sense. cjs: Kpart mentioned trading pollution credits. How do you implement such a system under objective law? Tym what is *deforestation* and is it always a negative effect? That is like saying that the price of everything is too high -- it is nonsense. Tym: Voluntarily :) BradA: never did. Tym: Well, if I gather this discussion correctly, you seem boggled at the idea that a non-toxic free world could exist, or how it would exist. cjs: but what sort of specific form does that take? Obviously, some people can't pollute more because of torts against them, so they have to buy from others. Besides, there are already stringent laws about dumping heavy metals. Maybe minute maid produced a bad batch of OJ... Sure, you can catch typhoid fever from other things, but what if in your case, drinking oJ was the direct cause. But how can you prove it? what if 90% of the people who drank the juice got it. is that conclusive proof? BradA: not at all. I'm just asking people to concretise how concerns about the environment would be handled under laissez faire. Pollution credits is a typically conservative wingnut plan, like 'enterprise zones', 'workfare', etc. etc. Tym: i think that's a silly idea anyhow. What if someone bought enough "polution rights" to kill off a whole town with polutants. He bought the rights, so is he legally responsible? BradA: Pollution isn't always a disvalue, is it? It depends on what's being polluted. If it's your land fill, then it's perfectly fine to pullute it. Rather it the city. Tym: I'd have to think more about Kpart's example before commenting on it. I've only heard it used in the context of a mixed economy before. Don't know what the implications are for a capitalist society. ok tym: in a free market system it would simply be too financially dangerous to polute because of the risk of devistating class action law suits. Tym: in short, I don't think you've brought up anything that can't be handled with man's life as the standard and property rights. The specific application will depend on the specifics ;) Tym :Under laissez faire, if someone causes harm to another's property then that can be legally stopped. However, we must be clear who has the property right. There is the concept of first come first serve. For example, if you move next door to an airport, you do so knowing it is noisy. If they move next door to you, that may be a violation of your rights. Blade: I think that's a libertarian pipe-dream for the most part. Tym: Nive try, but I don't know that you have resolved anything.... tym: I definately believe the government should exist to stop violations of property rights. The hard part is properly defining who had the right. oops...Nice Tom: that was never at issue. The issue is what does that *look* like? night all Jim: that hard part is what I wanted to chew tonight. Tym: Well lets take an hypothetical. Our rational society discovers that Ozone depletion is causing objective harm. At that moment two things will happen: First everyone is going to jump with Tym: We've gone over and over it. Find out if the substance is harmful, then make sure it is kept contained. tym: you are probably right both feet on the producers of the chemicals depleting the ozone. Two: A lot of people are going to be willing to pay to fix the problem. Tom: too general. I'm looking for concretes. Tym: You ahven't given us any concretes to deal with. Enough with the Minute Maid Example. we already know that OJ kills. joe: ;) joe *groan* :) heh heh TomM: By contained, I hope you mean, "prevented from forcibly causing harm to someone", rather than, "banned from use by anyone." Right? Tym: in other words, the specifics will depend on the specifics. Sure, they would be held responsible if anyone is harmed due to their actions. But that would aslo depend on the specifics. If a substance can't be contained, then I think a ban would be OK, but that sounds far fetched. TomM: consider lead. It's extremely diffused throughout the environment now and no one can be held responsible. But it's a threat and needs to be cleaned up. hi Tyn: But lead isn't a global threat. Just an indiviual threat dealt with locally. Clean up becomes a cost of living. Tym: How would that be handled? Well, you would want to make sure the property you are about to purchase is lead free, or protected somehow....what's the big deal? Lead has to be ingested to be harmful, so you simply make sure your water and soil are at a safe lead level. Tym: When considering lead, is this a man made problem? What harm is it currently causing? If the pollution level is at or above what can be objectively domenstrated to be harmful to human life, knowingly adding any additional amount could be justifiably pursued legally. Tom: right. That's whatI was looking for. tym: what about tom's answer were you looking for? (trying to understand the principle you are working from.) me too ;) Me three. Anyhow, I need to be going...maybe you can write up an essay and post it to the geekspeak mail list? Jim,Tom, cjs: we ALL know the principle already. I was looking for how it would play out. principles rather Oh. It played out very confusingly ;) Tym: Well, I said how it would play out much earlier. Innovation. If lead is a problem, we find ways to keep it out of the food and liquids we ingest. Tym: But as I have said before, that depends on a lot of specifics -- and no one was giving any ;) You can't apply principles without knowing the subsumed facts invloved. tym: are you saying that broad socitial problems must be dealt with on an individual basis? Tym: But what "play out" were you looking for? Were you hoping to see innovative solutions? Or were you hoping for something else? Thanks for an interesting disscussion Tym. Tym: Normally your discussions are very easy to follow. Tonight, while I liked the topic, I never knew what you were asking for. See you later...I think more delimited thinking has to be done along these lines. Jim: well, like this pollution credits thing. Jim: I agree. What pollution credits thing? (I don't know that term.) tym: You agree that I didn't know what you were asking for. Funny. Too bad though. Jim: buying a selling the right to pollute. Tym: How does that work? You buy land to store your waste on? Or you pay people to let you keep up the levels of smoke output at your factory? Jim: guess I live and learn *laugh* Jim: the latter. Zoning-like results are possible by simply extending an imaginary zone around any homesteaded property, of such a nature that similar properties are easier/cheaper to build nearby than those whose purpose may clash with the original homested. Tym: Okay, provided that they were there first. If people move into land surrounding my factory that I've been operating in unoccupied land, then I have the right to continue. However, if I move into an area that is occupied, I can see the need to gain consent. EricT: Yes. Jim, EricT: see, those are the sorts of responses I was looking for. The *mechanics* I should have shown up earlier. :) Eric: yeah! :-P Well, it's getting late for me now. Thanks for the discussion, Tym. Too bad it didn't work the way you had intended. I think a good thing to do would be to do a comprehensive analysis of the federal budget, and break down exactly which items should eventually be eliminated, and how much the remaining items can be reduced (if any).