At one time the Libertarian Party website had, as part of its platform, a blurb about property owners being the best stewards of their property because they have an interest in its well-being. I think that's all well in theory, but falls short of reality. I mean, look at how many people own a house and let it fall apart, or don't take care of the lawn. People with junker cars. But on a larger scale those same owners can do far more than destroy their own resale value. Look at the Everglades and how the sugar industry has really destroyed the land. Or with coal companies and mountaintop removal. So the question is, when a property owner is demonstratably and permanently destroying the environment, does their right to do what they please with their property come into conflict with the necessity of having a healthy environment? If so, how far does it have to go before the government can step in? If not, should a property owner simply be able to willingly destroy the environment at will? At what point does a property owner's rights end when it can be demonstrated that he/she/it/they are having a deliterious effect on the surrounding area?
How do we define harm? If I own a plot of land and I destroy the local ecology of decades to come, there will still be harm long after I am dead and gone. Case in point, the Everglades. Or what if you buy a house right next door to mine and I decide to quit moving my lawn, keep a junker in the front yard, and don't replace the siding. Your property values will likely drop and will affect you when it comes time for tax assesment and when you decide to sell your house. Is that harmful and requires government to step in? Or if you buy a ranch downriver of me and the river that flows through my land gets divereted because I want it for something else and your ranch fails because you no loger have access to that river. Is that harm?
Jesus, Jeff. I only dumped my old motor oil on the driveway that one time. And I said I was sorry about your well.
Classic argument against laissez-faire libertarianism. The usual rebuttal is that you can sue after the deed is done (in for-profit courts...), which usually leads to a round of from people who think that pure ideology has no place in real life.
Only if it's producing water pollution affecting others, only when it comes time to sell (I'd think lowering your assessment for property tax reasons is help, not harm), and yes, respectively. As for mountaintop removal, if there's air pollution generated by that, they are most certainly liable for any property damage or personal injury. Otherwise, level away! And let's not ignore the fact that it's not all that common for the mining and logging companies to actually own the land. Much more common for the government to lease them extraction rights. Especially for logging companies, a lack of property rights removes any incentive to be at all sustainable or clean.
And of course, let's remember that with proper respect for property rights, coal power plants would likely be unprofitable. So there goes the mountain blowing-up.
