andrew21594 Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 The Non-Aggression Principle presents a problem when applied to environmental pollution (damn, that's some alliteration there). Taking air pollution as an example, the idea is that if you pollute the air with cancer-causing particles and other people consume that air then you are exposing their bodies to danger without their consent, therefore you have committed an aggressive action. I think a lot of libertarians are familiar with this, and they either accept polluting acts as aggressive or they have an argument to say that it is okay. These arguments are normally along the lines of "If you don't like it, you can get out" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fZZqDJXOVg - South Park clip to demonstrate), which I hate to see coming from libertarians, or they say that your life is better and safer in a polluted world, which just disregards the NAP. There's an obvious alternative which is to say that the act of breathing is also pollution, because you reduce the oxygen content and increase the content of particles that cannot be used in respiration and of particles that your body has rejected because they are harmful. That of course makes breathing an act of pollution => aggressive, so I search with hope for an alternative. My response is to say that people have no ownership of the air being polluted, until they breathe the air in. Nothing can be owned until someone takes control of it (I'm talking about how the property rights over yet-unowned things are created, not about the philosophical origin of property rights in general). For example, you could not own some piece of wilderness just by looking at it; you would have to do something to that land (eg. build on it) in order to associate it with you for it to become someone's (your) property. You could not own an apple from a wild apple tree just by seeing it on the ground; you would have to take it in your hand for it to be yours. A body cannot be owned by anyone until the mind within it takes neurological control. Likewise, the air on the planet does not belong to anyone just by knowing that it is there; people need to collect the air in one way or another, breathing for example. It is not aggressive for Bob to pollute the air because Bill does not own that air until Bill breathes it in. Pollution is aggressive if it is done on something that is already owned. So, your thoughts on the whole problem and on my solution?
yagami Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 As far as owning the air is concerned I dont think there is much to talk about here. Remember that when there is no choice involved morality doesn't apply. So if I have no choice but to breath then even if I am breathing and taking your air (assuming you own the air) you can say I am acting immorally. Both of us own the air. In the same sense that if we both jointly own a harmless butter knife it would still be immoral for one of use to sharpen that knife and lace it with poison. The next time I use that knife I could be killed from the poison. Since there is more than on owner you cant change the object in question without the consent of all parties. It works the same way in business and relationships and everything else. All parties must agree to the change before it can be said no immorality has taken place. I imagine in a free society this would be dealt with by parties who are being effected negatively by this would go to court and plead their case. From a businesses perspective it would be much cheaper to put in measures that would prevent any pollution than to deal with lawsuits coming in constantly. Another thing is that in a free society people will not be able to hide behind the shield of a corporation. The owner of will be held personally responsible and you cant just push the cost onto your business.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 The Non-Aggression Principle presents a problem when applied to environmental pollution (damn, that's some alliteration there). Taking air pollution as an example, the idea is that if you pollute the air with cancer-causing particles and other people consume that air then you are exposing their bodies to danger without their consent, therefore you have committed an aggressive action. Not having consent is not the criterion for an action to be aggressive. It has to be unwanted. Without consent and unwanted are distinct.
dsayers Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 These arguments are normally along the lines of "If you don't like it, you can get out" This is not an argument at all. It sidesteps argumentation altogether. You can stay at greater than arm's reach, but this doesn't mean that somebody punching you in the face must be okay. It is not aggressive for Bob to pollute the air because Bill does not own that air until Bill breathes it in Bob's pollution of the air is binding upon Bill, so if it is harmful to Bill and without his consent, it is a violation of his property (his body). @yagami: I would argue that joint ownership is mythical. One of the definitions of ownership is exclusive control over something. Something being owned by more than one person is paradoxical. Not having consent is not the criterion for an action to be aggressive. It has to be unwanted. Without consent and unwanted are distinct. Perhaps a distinction without a difference? Unwanted denotes lack of consent in the context of inflicted behaviors. Since it can also apply to aesthetics, I would argue that "unwanted" is imprecise relative to "without consent."
yagami Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 This is not an argument at all. It sidesteps argumentation altogether. You can stay at greater than arm's reach, but this doesn't mean that somebody punching you in the face must be okay. Bob's pollution of the air is binding upon Bill, so if it is harmful to Bill and without his consent, it is a violation of his property (his body). @yagami: I would argue that joint ownership is mythical. One of the definitions of ownership is exclusive control over something. Something being owned by more than one person is paradoxical. Perhaps a distinction without a difference? Unwanted denotes lack of consent in the context of inflicted behaviors. Since it can also apply to aesthetics, I would argue that "unwanted" is imprecise relative to "without consent." I looked up a couple of definitions and I dont see anywhere where exclusivity is a part of ownership. Even if we are to say that no one owns the air then you can say you own the air when you homestead it. If you mix your labor into the air which I would argue pollution is doing then you own that air and must take responsibility for it. I cant beat my dog in my house and then unleash him into the world and claim no responsibility for the actions of that dog. In the same way if I own air then I cant pollute that air then unleash that air into the world that can and most likely will hurt others. So either both parties own the air in which case you are responsible for getting consent from all parties or only one person owns the air in which case you are responsible for unleashing your property into the world and harming others. I agree with ProfessionalTeabagger. If someone washes my car without my consent it can still be wanted bu it does have my consent.
Josh Takacs Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 I think we are missing an critical part of this conversation. From a societal standpoint whether the act is aggressive or not is not the issue. The issue would be the consequences for actions. Even in a peaceful utopia where no one uses force there would still be consequences for the polluters actions. The first one that comes to my mind is that the polluter would be totally ostracized for society. We live in a totally peaceful and prosperous world and you can't make what ever it is your making in a responsible way that doesn't hurt other people? This alone would be effective in stopping the polluter weather the act is aggressive or not. This is only one quick solution I have come up with, who knows what solutions the free market could produce. After all who would have thought 300 years ago one of the answers to starvation was invent the tractor.
dsayers Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 whether the act is aggressive or not is not the issue If the poster of the thread's purpose was to determine if air pollution is an act of aggression or not, how can you say that whether it is aggression or not is not the issue? @yagami: If you own your body, it is immoral for others to harm your body without your consent. I think it's of little consequence who owns the vessel by which they harm your body. For this reason, I haven't spent any time considering ownership of air. Though you make a strong argument that mixing your labor into the air makes you responsible for the effects of that labor. Still, this is incidental relative to the harming of the body, whose ownership is uncontested. I think part of the reasons why considerations like this aren't "solved" is because too much time is spent obfuscating with minutia. Assault is immoral (aggression). Harming somebody's body without their consent is assault. I think trying to determine who owns the air adds a layer of unnecessary complexity. Unless somebody who finds that to be important can find fault with that two sentence summary.
yagami Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 I think we are missing an critical part of this conversation. From a societal standpoint whether the act is aggressive or not is not the issue. The issue would be the consequences for actions. Even in a peaceful utopia where no one uses force there would still be consequences for the polluters actions. The first one that comes to my mind is that the polluter would be totally ostracized for society. We live in a totally peaceful and prosperous world and you can't make what ever it is your making in a responsible way that doesn't hurt other people? This alone would be effective in stopping the polluter weather the act is aggressive or not. This is only one quick solution I have come up with, who knows what solutions the free market could produce. After all who would have thought 300 years ago one of the answers to starvation was invent the tractor. While I agree that ostracism is probably a good solution to something like this the question is asking is this an act of aggression or not. When you dive into the world of solutions without acknowledging the question of morality you fall down the rabbit whole of answering every possible scenario someone can come up with. Given that though whether pollution is considered an act of aggression or not if people dont like it the polluter will not last long for sure.
Josh Takacs Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 Yes and I fully egknowledge your point. The only thing I wanted to bring to the conversation is that MAYBE in a totally free society such things could be seen as a thing of the past. More of a philosophical debate then a real societal problem like air pollution is now. I don't want to compare a totally free society to a silver bullet to all human problems but a boy can dream lol.
yagami Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 Oh well yea in a free society the thought of polluting would never happen. In a free society the competition will be much more fierce. If you were to do something like pollute and word got out that you were doing that you could be risking everything. I dont think it has to be a utopian society for this to occur just a free society. The same really goes for everything in society in regards to business. Competition would be so fierce doing anything that could bring your business into a negative light would be very dangerous. One last point. It always bothers me when people say utopian society when most of the time they are really just referring to a free society. Those two things are very different. We will have a free society long before we ever have a utopian society. Utopian implies everything is perfect which most if not all libertarians realize is probably impossible. Just wanted to point that out. Try not to use the work utopian in place of free society if you aren't actually trying to say something in regards to a perfect society. If this was indeed a "peaceful utopia" as you say there would be no polluters because as I've made the case above pollution is immoral.
luxfelix Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 When I read the original post, what first came to my mind was smoking. In a cigar lounge, for example, there is probably a general understanding that cigar smoking will take place; at a hospital, however, a surgeon with a scalpel and a stogie will likely raise a few eyebrows... If smoking is acceptable in the cigar lounge but not in the operating room, then maybe the act itself is not a matter of morality but rather the consent of present parties? So smoking while walking down the street (or in any public place where consent is not certain) would violate NAP, right? (This is probably why so many villains are portrayed as smokers... at least in cartoons)
Josh Takacs Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 We are in agreement. I should have said a free society with no one using force. The only point I wanted to make is that this society could lead to a "utopia" where the problem of immorality could be a thing of the past. Again I know this is a bold statement without any facts but when you see what limited human freedom has done in the past. It's reasonable to think unlimited human freedom could find a way.
yagami Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 I only mention it because the word utopia annoys me a little. It is used so often to demonize libertarians an make them seem like naive idiots (not that I believe you were doing anything of the sort). I also believe the utopian is an inevitability once we get a free society in place. Best practices for parenting will rise to the surface and eventually people who dont conform to these practices will be ostracized. Eventually all aggression will be bread out of humanity. God I wish I could live to see that. Maybe before I die we figure out how to make people live forever lol.
Josh Takacs Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 instead of hearing it used as some fairy world as a murderous political fool talk about why you should let them put a gun to your head because its whats best.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 Perhaps a distinction without a difference? Unwanted denotes lack of consent in the context of inflicted behaviors. Since it can also apply to aesthetics, I would argue that "unwanted" is imprecise relative to "without consent." The distinction is essential because we often do not or cannot give consent for things that are wanted or not unwanted.
dsayers Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 If smoking is acceptable in the cigar lounge but not in the operating room, then maybe the act itself is not a matter of morality but rather the consent of present parties? Morality is gauged by consent. Boxing is mechanically identical to assault, but it is not immoral because consent is present. Just as harming somebody's body without their consent (forcing them to breathe carcinogenic pollutants) would be assault, but the mechanically identical behavior in a cigar lounge would not be since consent is present. Rape is mechanically identical to love making, and so on.
luxfelix Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 Morality is gauged by consent. Boxing is mechanically identical to assault, but it is not immoral because consent is present. Just as harming somebody's body without their consent (forcing them to breathe carcinogenic pollutants) would be assault, but the mechanically identical behavior in a cigar lounge would not be since consent is present. Rape is mechanically identical to love making, and so on. Ah yes, I agree. I'm guessing andrew21594 was referring more to company-scale pollution, but I found the individual-scale example helpful for context (if it is still valid regardless of scale). So instead of a cigar lounge, it could be real estate in an industrial district where there is a general understanding that air quality will not be as high as say real estate in the undeveloped countryside (provided air quality is an important factor in the decision of where to live). In addition, Stefan Molyneux provided a possible example of interested parties pooling their resources to ensure no companies etc. move next door and pollute the air around their residences (I think it was an earlier video about DROs and Insurance... if anyone else knows?).
LovePrevails Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 pollution would be a complicated issue in a free society, in the sense we can't be sure of how it would be handled. nt once those solutions were in place they would probably be really simple. One thing is for sure, the government is not a solution. It was government who built all these roads, we have no idea what kind of awesome environmentally friendly mass transit systems would have been invented and used instead if they hadn't been built. It was the government that subsidised the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. It was the government that made wars bringing the greatest of environmental destruction and wastage of resources. The government picks up everybodies trash for free which means people to not have to pay to have it disposed of in accordance with how easy it is to dispose of. Someone throwing away a bag of waste paper is taxed the same as someone throwing out a bag of industrial batteries - that is mad. Or glass tin cans which can be recycled economically. It's insane.
Recommended Posts