Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights Author(s): Walter Block Reviewed work

(s): Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 16 (Dec., 1998), pp. 1887-1899 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25074025 . Accessed: 26/07/2012 03:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.


Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.


elephants. enemy save to the former the latter. human against is the only can best be characterized ends. Journal of Business Ethics 17: 1887-1899. concepts. making we must this be an increase in the one leads straightforward: a to in the other. they just nothing switched horses on the same old wagon: instead allegiances of formal ronmentalism these socialism. environ and This paper shall attempt and economic mentalism Before endeavor. ? 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers.S. in lock step marching to the vision of all power Thanks to But "proletarians. is the only proper function between appear envi direct as the very goal see man them are very forthright. oil spills. the power: running lives of others. arson. States legitimate theft. great benefit rate of species Environ lowered extinction. destroy legal enactments. also admits of centralized a straight legit they as well are particularly and enhancement concerned with the Environmentalism to the ecological movement is with Their real interest an axe to grind. And. reason for law. as a better people means adopted toward envi their definition. whether for their own good. Note. National Park (1989. daunted. a very moderate it is purely goal directed. environmentalism but are not the see real greens. Moreover. Some topsy prise munist governmental Economic forward imately own freedom themselves nature to the only fully com Korea. In this perspective. of communism (Mises." in that while they are green on the outside are on still red the inside. etc. decrease and vice versa. between relationship For example. for an inverse there is strong evidence indeed. who Service research biologist: "Until such time as to Homo should decide sapiens rejoin nature. for or for the good the good of society. Cuba. activity another by homesteading. globe the Marxist was this vast them. by either their labor or their legitimately called libertari Sometimes possessions.3 in this view is the initiation or his the improper only of threat or force too. p. some of us can only hope for the right virus to Graber 1998. and all fraud.Environmentalism Economic Freedom: and The Case for Private Property Rights1 Walter Block I. to these ends what It implies no means soever. To prevent murder. the relationship At first glance and freedom would ronmentalism is a U. there is the Marxist communist environmental background concerns. turned turvy. The most radical of as the could. they there Then. mentalists survival such of endangered species as trees. shifted their world their thanks to the then. green noise and dust pollution. with of the ozone house effects and the dissipation is this version of environmentalism layer. one. from It is the idea that people and the property "capture" as the additional trading owned anism. and advocates like these even of come quixotic seemingly sure we are clear on both be non con the two." inner contradictions 1969). 9). . command and control." They were doing unstoppable on this score for decades in Russia pretty well and Eastern part toward of the Europe. Printed in theNetherlands. as much enter in principle. would. free with compatible as it is with its polar opposite. further. property. such invasions other of This. and rhinos and whales. rape. They as a means toward an end. in 1989. trespass. North systems remaining: As for the others. Introduction to reconcile freedom. environmentalism is.. They unchanged as "watermelons.2 property they attain. itself. of the "forces of history.4 of some People with may sees as a philosophy which defined troversially and to a in clean air and water. They of and if they nature.

. own But if hurt very many their publicly people. from the Big Apple Television (30 July down a peg in the extremism of the are those who there so that he would made by this particular possible products are to For there calls instance. not the of people latter.10 This. not only there are those who oppose want to in but also competition general. If so. of the planet. their aim. with of a few unfor the exception nor not killed tunate have the greens loggers. industrialism itself". of version and to return gentler" interventionism. p.11 petitive. they merely that trees have have rights. It is reputed a went around wearing not of the p. and later on . 1990). of the other members (1989. capitalism. merely In their view. . eyeglasses (Mills." the Wilderness Society. Stepping concerned. for the ruination is needed is to curb these vicious what appetites. danger and make They would rather rape the environment a lot of money than not rape the for themselves environment. not yearn for virtually the end of the human Instead.8 What mentalism ciled?12 mental crisis can be of the environmental origin traced back to the capitalist precept that the choice is to be governed of production solely technology in interest by private profit maximization.1888 Walter Block come In the view along. and vice versa. The mills and they're making environment. But (Conquest. is greed. stay com be a greater the given to the communists. p. sense in which to prefer it is rational possible the reds to the greens. pp. 1986. in short. March at least so far. you know. are the exceptions? and economic How freedom can be environ recon Simple. p. and First!5 "We Other Winner statements of this ilk include Porrit lies not and 48). Nor In the view regarding of environmentalist operators Renate Kroisa 15 pulp mill (CTV Report. and free out of life. a lot of profit at the cost of our mentalism relationship it is not a freedom. technology. True. 1989. (Mills. said of some of the greens. Yes. blame markets. 106). . caring and want non-caring about the people to use the ocean their species. is a very limited but there Paradoxically. a philosophy are still reeling. By is the best means protection. tailored 1973. automobiles 1989. p. This. 1989. p. killed millions upon millions at least their goal. an to be inverse is the case there for believing environ between And The states Commoner. private washing machines (Bookchin. that it. p. 1980. governmental New regard to contaminated the Commissioner stated on Canadian of Health Public For example. which the entire world's peoples not it must be conceded. one: an increase in the direct and straightforward one does not always in the lead to a decrease and other. industry polluting but in . 45). rights.9 (Schumacher. pp. clothing toilet paper 57-58). They Some slightly race. However. with York City beaches. articulated the power human race 1989): intentions they might than even are to be believed. inadvertantly surgical mask." who is co-founder for of Foreman of Earth And here (1990. on the the motivation about and planet not the planet. 14): "The plundering human is paralleled spirit by the marketplace by the plundering of the earth by capital". unfortunately. is how Mills in (1988. p. However. the former. that free enterprise showing toward the end of environ This appears a daunting task . ecologically free enterprise. to a "kinder. 33). about who - non the live greed."6 her own species: "Debased are only do less radical. particularly can it be denied. they were traitors cannot the more to be to help end. 22). kill a micro organism by inhaling in this would be practice certainly keeping with philosophy.7 are here to make a lot of profit. that Ghandi. that radical ones. 11): "The danger or the odd maverick factory. . their beings. sometimes hold that animals have that microscopic rights. their human neous purpose. 106) describes human protoplasm. 216). was a tragically erro 1988): I think caring ocean. because markets "take the sacredness that has there can be nothing sacred in something Bookchin a price" Then market ban 1973. system. they picked from way of going about this. 1989. (1970. former lobbyist are a cancer on nature. clean up. organisms for instance. (Schumacher. 167-168). (Sale. p. prohibit 747 airplanes (Riflkin.

overuse of land administered Land Management. is Then desertification. excused they do emissions from the physical harm considering to the property the of others through of smoke Under their particles. roads. ernment subsidizes logging These Rather. private activity regulates or which Let forbids it outright (commissions). This as reasons health paternalistic II.S. and their hatred environmentalists But a hint of the solution may be for capitalism. And this is to say nothing of the infamous Yellowstone which the authorities refused Park forest fire. mustard shells. Samuelson to bear the 1990). failure: in socialism. the gold dissolved due Chapel p. even considerations. Lange Taylor private p. of airborne libertarianism is not due to a failure of government pollutants to protect this Instead. 159) gives in large towns which community . be interpreted be reasonably The is the reason failure for of government and other (omissions) to oil in just to state and Economic There is hard Freedom 1889 is so much to know we may Perhaps observation. may such a manner. Pigou of this view: the classic statement Smoke on the in the west. given the emphasis placed by most on socialism. set water it will of the entire board. ronmental spills. .S. of fact. sands of deaths. treatment of sewage there was little or in Poland. damage. course takes problem of pollution of market examples are instances of government they . are capitalists. in Cracow's is no way to force private polluters social cost of their operations. is not it is forbidden in the Volga ferry boats to smoke cigarettes. in the bud. property private rights. this river is so polluted but because with oil and other flammable materials that there is a great fear that if a cigarette is tossed over on fire. and incendiary devices. (1912. protect from air pollution tragedies.S. nothing could environmental then. a few test cases. The ecological record is the where government. this scenario it with wrong a refutation. 1970) in terms of the divergence between sentiment costs. of Defence has waste. over of trees. body Further. no waste roof to acid under Communism.R. there consequent not if thou which caused hundreds. be further Exhibit the Aral In actual from "A" the point truth. . to put out. the items entering into the The combined. democracy the is none day. social and and (1938. to begin where an empirical start with best criticism If this of the market were true. rious reason. under laissez faire. this into the central planner nipping of the account. Air pollution to the mainstream economic analysis. The 400. According The problem iswrong.Environmentalism at the outset. many crossings.S. contrast.13 for intrusive For River. order of of the absence of merely in the U. and unchecked cutting pollution. 103) are yet additional point: distinguishes on private socialists who make a Department tons of hazardous largest chemical Mountain complementary A feature which from one based a socialist enterprise economy com is the prehensiveness socialist price of system. savory. opposes strenuously or envi that and border sions. garnered by the fact that laissez-faire as adumbrated inva above. Chernobyl. comes about because of "market failure. couldn't successfully they could as far as the environment at least be trusted is concerned.14 ecological nor fired power the plants. even if the Soviets expect run an economy. (DiLorenzo. one would that. property rights either which property." a basic flaw in free enterprise. and the sulfur dioxide were in Czechoslovakia concentrations eight times levels was common it a matter in the U. citing nor the TVA's 59 coal underpricing by the Bureau that cutting and of for some strange dark myste In other words. Nor democracy of the U. are not nor forest over that fact the gov by building failure. the anti crop spray TX. there was a dark brown much of East Germany. capitalism. comes inflicts about a heavy because loss there Sigismund haze over rain. corporations Arsenal of Rocky carelessly disposed nerve gas. us consider of is perhaps the disappearance to due massive and and Caspian Seas.000 dumped more than the five too the same conveys (1956.

the legal jurispru and the U. or the planet's atmosphere. Fifth. There was a "way to force private polluters their operations": their past prohibiting future.16 of manufacturing decisions effected. was more the libertarian vision of legal philosophy property rights more important new longer private there was an even upheld. the public good. dirty on a clothesline. this was the "public good" Accordingly. to debilitating lawsuits.. dirtier in research methods and development of new and better of externalities: for the internalization there Fourth. there was an to use clean burning. 1830s when under He was was less predicated non invasiveness Typically. and other tech variety? Why or for engage output. courts this would take of the cognizance ably. negatively Needless chimneys or make research anthracite but burning. make and get transgressions. the incipient forensic was rendered stillborn. Now. high to it paid install scrubbers. an environmental this new told. to do this on the refused an unjustified invasion of is a name for such property? There one's pollutants keeping was a movement toward and other smoke forensic For to it is called "bankrupt. Under turned incentives of the previous regime were around 180 degrees. someone Or laundry hanging to matter in the would object foreign imposed invari Almost one's lungs without permission. setting up shop in a few people." This was no failure of guarantee From . no way to to force private the bear polluters a la Pigou.S. of that the jurisprudence a needless indulgence. since there is something more important And that property rights. to 1970. came to court plaintiff was he short shrift. The intimately be more that it would law implied to establish a plant in an area with very profitable or none at all.17 But then in the 1840s and 1850s took hold. reducing niques pollution in environmental use better devices. given of damages. more Why use clean expensive slightly sulfur content than the cheaper but dirtier high install scrubbers. coal rather individualistic selfish. that of course his private were but that this property rights being violated. First of all. even was entirely proper. the use better chimneys an devices. had (Coase. prevention in the industry was pollution Sixth. manufac and Samuelson. not act in could etc. them from such pay a court order invasions or and development. this will bankruptcy. is erroneous."19 in sound business prac engage environmentally a no tices under which longer legal regime a competi this is to impose on oneself requires tive disadvantage. and other smoke prevention decisions so as to as possible? pollution locational as few manner had property Upholding rights in this several salutary effects. to bear the social them cost of for in sue them.S. foundries. of the who is was to foul libertarian. 1977). too. that grounds other people. of lawsuits. on others as if the costs they imposed were of no moment.18 all the economic this legal convention. this is social cost of their operations" was a Samuelsonian of there "divergence why social and private costs. Other things equal. 1850 roughly incipient process of being developed. But what of Pigou and Samuelson's charge of effect of negative the misallocative externalities. in effect. or external Up dence or diseconomies? and Britain upon This. for and other reducing techniques pollution an impetus to engage Third there was output. industry And what didn't the want people impact to say. a railroad that complain decided engine or other haystacks to accuse a factory of sending airborne pollutants her clean her which would property. a farmer would emitted 1960. a vacuum. system. violation during award of plaintiff's this epoch was rights. railroads. No subject a new were the private property uphold rights. consideration: and progress of was it this end the 1820s and And of what did the public good consist in this The dispensation? growth the U. Second. result plus an set ablaze his sparks which a woman would Or crops. to the 1820s in Great 1830s. firms were able to pollute without "there is is This why penalty. but slightly more incentive than the cheaper coal rather anthracite expensive but less risk sulfur content variety. of encouraging manufacturing. firms was the locational to oneself. for example.Walter Block 1890 direct controls and inability or unwillingness to residential firm would area. to Pigou Contrary turers. people's and who "green" manufacturer.15 injunctive The usual relief. Horwitz. Toward economy.

the problem often seems insurmountable. power. for minimal per gasoline. Under means which this would be accom through a system of would be plished "rights to pollute. compulsory the mandated of substitution that of And their what back they they competitors. even increase levels less than 1/3 (or pollution by to in effect pay others them). be. Hahn instead of forcing 1989). with the government which made whole host of regulations only There were demands for electric things worse. fuels. one of all of them together system (Hahn. cutbacks not gas and other such in the amount of wide 55 mile motivated At its root all pollution is garbage disposal in one form or another. seriously propose that we should have economic We a command adoption In this (TERs). the TERs. The limit was violate nation speed initially but rather by ecolog considerations. say. to uphold protective In the quality was It was a failure of the government a legal system the air and Economic Freedom ? 1891 but under . long appreciated solidly on used. cost for the products in a higher and that resulted from the process that the is it And that how should produced garbage. for cars. technology If you took a bag of garbage and dropped it on lawn. so does one not have the right to place any garbage in the air or the water or the earth. but protecting to the cult. An property with free enterprise of private property rights. easy and cheap some could reduce pollution for expensive from 150 others. for subsidies solar and nuclear20 water. interests burning wanted for for taxes on coal. mileage gallon to wind. we all neighbor's Your happen. was made: 1970s a "discovery" based to human beings and other dangerous caused the problem itself. Why is this beneficial? Itmight be difficult and for to some 100 firms and to reduce tons. Just as one does not have the right to drop a bag of garbage on his neighbor's lawn. to eliminate and just serious pol as unconscionable. States Anderson (1990): Fortunately. as much air and water pollution is. and the more polluters a fee for polluting they more But the that is just like pay. to charge people The from stealing effective your way property. growth industry. scrubbers. The violation of property gets more complicated. private available approach rights. lution is to treat it exactly for what it is ? garbage. they would that this goal be attained. garbage your done in a way that does not know what would call the police and the disposal of your and that it must be anyone else's arbitrary into the air. oil. living creatures. neighbor would soon would find out that you is your responsibility.Environmentalism the market. . emissions oriented of the supposedly free of Instead School? of property private statist efficient" and of control tradeable regulations. Having a now set out to cure it. was the view to Chicago a system the of the market harking rights. 1989. pollutants per hour by safety ical ones. What the strict application of the idea of private property rights will do is to increase the cost of cost will That increased be disposal." an and market these organized through which could be bought and sold.not with economic incentives but with jail terms. and Hester. with a myriad to control of detailed the degree of regulations some even Now pollution. rights and Stavins. there is a simple. scramble. a role in the "Rent played seeking" as eastern sulfur) coal (dirty burning over western their (clean prevailed anthracite) counterparts. system. to cut back by. . Much of the cost of disposing of waste material is already incorporated in the price of the goods garbage reflected services effective approach . But if you took that same bag of garbage and it in a backyard burned incinerator. for freedom The of this scheme implications are clear. pollute they taxing burglars as an economic incentive to deter incentives. with all pay to clean up programs whereby government the garbage produced by the few. The essence of the problem is that our laws and the administration of justice have not with the refuse kept up produced by the exploding of and science. And when is invisible the garbage naked eye. We have tried to dissuade polluters with fines. while they would reduce The theirs by more than this amount. the their The own former coal for latter wanted property rights. them is more diffi rights is clear. 1990. Hahn each and every polluter demand third. if it in any way violates the property What only rights of others. letting the the problem sooty ash drift over the neighborhood. urged Instead urged "more have tried many remedies in the past. we need are tougher clearer environ mental laws that are enforced .

say. too in the present context. That is. Happily we can avoid this dilemma. although no great shakes it was not either. are of course objections to "turning There the to the 1820s. strictly speaking. be from the garbage made will a movement freedom thus implies to the legal status of pollution in the earlier we Nor need fear undue economic epoch. of proof is on the (the in have developed later period). intensive from Moving pollution was all but where system legal pollution one was con to it where (1845?1970). are complicit in be undertaken. can of the This be because any accomplished to 150 year gap. lawsuits thus as soon as we from of the have the to do rupting escaping horn industry) the power second (dis We to authority end an invasion. there clock back" to sue anyone is the fear that if we allow anyone else for pollution. but did not. For one thing. be plenty of invasive pollution over. or be too "disruptive" that this would grounds about such a you will Say what "impractical. industry would a a manner. or ones amounts of pollution were alleging only tiny disregarded. people emissions non carte guilty at present. that it enhances freedom. only those who benefit pay for its disposal. something on the other least On pragmatic grounds. from approximately 1845 1995. but also have a "waiting of perhaps 10 years or so in period" case. lawsuits for suddenly the first time industry altogether. accoutrements other This itself. tenable.22 a more is reasonable Another one. so before imposing sound with to the more it. there would around to find For with early period). could be seen as a pollutant. for a basic restructuring in another way. was not conducive ronmental forensics thanks been to to it. pollution. strictly trolled called cases of pol so only the more egregious plaintiff." Suppose we dilemma. was so that frivolous in operation. through will take at least a few years for environmental to develop to the point where forensics industry will changes. ceeded along with contrast. but for and we were mented.23 The some to a legal regime which point is. for example. Fortunately. objection. of all. then we this violations of the libertarian code during decade. We an prag have thus have 1845). say. draconian This matic. industry halting dead very hand. ronmental this would For halt. dioxide) this scenario forbidden. when could have devel environmental forensics oped. offered. First. we can allow environmental lawsuits immediately. 1830s modern First was era. Perhaps disorganize halt. that will And mean the end of and life. it will at least it might be better or warning period. and de minimis lution were in effect actionable. had envi over these developing reason not allow imple envi it command and control regulations. In emissions as non by this objection reason for this: to the compared as implied existent there is a Secondly. to an abrupt also bring even exhaling as. said option but there that that does indeed are problems amounts pollution someone had invasion. waiting could to be resisted at the in its tracks. law suits. immediately so for 10 years on the to and refused do slavery. Then decision maintained on it cannot pragmatic grounds. (in the strictly controlled would have pro development pollution blanche intensive on lines.1892 Walter Block and services produced. because escape to be successful in his lawsuit he for the plaintiff from . would drive indeed industry of proof would the plaintiff's burden More be easy to satisfy. Let me this point try to make There is a difficulty which the private property rights wrestle system if we did so. a set of measures. would (as it was before of industry. especially the public before had captured these concerns we ran of risk the imagination. and dislocation because of adjustment hardship back problems. environmental before period a ten year lawsuits theory with: of environmental if we institute protection a such must for a 10 year waiting so that industry could adjust. life not only of modern the curtain of industry civilized down on have to make more basic last 150 years. allow so. the burden industry (carbon and thus is not up to the of perpetrating."21 Economic All of it should be. if we for example. not will lawsuits that if allowing again pollution bring industry greatly to allow to a screeching it. in the 1960s abruptly. under these assumptions. of the fact that the first. too. For which and blatant apart from obvious has already been curtailed we can have our cake and eat it Fortunately.

The Waste disposal vs plastic and styro for economic also has implications paper over guaranteed to came brou-ha-ha it is precisely these materials. to to permission give McDonald's refusing new stores. have just and the clerk has charged you are asked that paying. of the brave. and be serve in assured of the same kind of meal they "Kansas. III. of burgers. On be returned reusable. armor What than a in the in the heart in the could popular be of the totalitari a greater restaurant of a cap of people. After inevitable. question: the only paper reason or for out counter. is and That styrofoam plastic are not to paper. to adjust to the legal dispensation for industry to the of the 1830s. etc. For at that time Russia was still under the control of Communism. years suppose great disruption. to end industry time as much That will take of this writing. has ever that everything any ecologist true. of the market place good. anyone them ruins his factories. housing. very big deal indeed. to environmental at Picture yourself check the supermarket selected your groceries. is a reasonable example It employs thousands to western these conditions. account members. Dozens into entry restrictions of town all across this great land of ours. You thanks to this initiative. Prices. this was a of other countries.S. graphical plastic.S. councils. Allowing a private firm to do business a weakness beast thus showed anism chink of the U.000 the Communists political economy. after all. it would appear prices might their task in the general accomplish are a it comes dismal failure when economy.Environmentalism must specific a reasonable is doubt that a and Economic But McDonald Freedom at about was 1893 the same time residence that Ronald prove beyond responsible polluter particular to do so. this is economy.R. plausibly. by what is the price system presumably to do. they they recyclable. these substances the in the ground. tomers. this in Moscow. young persons.25 it might out pre the error of its ways were open fifth columnists? good was all due to left wing so bitterly opposed the local greens Why were to more outlets? Because quarter pounder they and other plastic styrofoam one if there is thing practically an environmentalist to drive sake of in wrapped and packaging. particularly It brings joy immigrants. it was the poor to enjoy a restaurant meal. In opened was no the late a McDonald's restaurant 1980s. without any 10 it takes is. they us in the future as hazardous buried a as of result. they concerns. compared environmentally they are not biodegrad friendly. minority to millions of cus precisely designed signs. . bad) so that it is taken the After all. Why? A takeover of Soviet up A communist a bit revolution of in the it old U. are not are not able. Kroc's great Ray emporia burger in hundreds had by that time been doing business But in other ways." he was running free and the home and other barriers. us Let the for assume. foolish land for And that to dispose farming. shopping Under ability edge into tied intimately McDonald's italist enterprise. fateful $64. away from home dining a commonplace for those with has become modest poor with world's means. said about foam wrappers freedom. capitalism. into the let us enquire to transmit this knowl (paper. back at home. environmentalism. In some ways. of A? Not it. choice All as a was not a in all. its doors shakes. billions You can travel practically the world over. plastic bag? Under these circumstances. Before its birth. they contrary. almost unbelievably.26 on direction glance the economy. McDonald's in the stakes high gambling chip over the future of the you for them.S. take for time as it will for behind the taking up in "the land of the Iron Curtain. Instead. Just impose At first space. when come back to haunt wastes." been difficult This for a boon has chain (and other imitators) to the poor. apoplexy. cannot to nature. enough subsequent malls. or property. This will not be as harmful as might be economy take a similar amount cisely who is polluting supposed because of time to figure whom. are like street as the latter the guide former us are around supposed that while geo to in the and has sold. It is an indication of quality. But his person invading foren the sad sorry state of environmental given sics at least at the time. merely argument.

planet us to mobilize not just one of both motivations. pay cent for .01 You pay a cases. cases. benevolence to base our which upon tion. or has nationalized. price as the in much the same manner groceries. considerations all know a keen what possible for by the stipulation are penny equal.27 there is the phenomenon of "moral thing.28 This medicine is a hypochondriac's dream come true. or or of the store. that paper. site owner will be able to charge more dump a plastic than $5. continue failed? Is has the price system seemingly Why one of the "market to capitalism. be established? Assume that us. Charge people more will much than at normal they buy or will "waste" the good Further.00 for burying lest the bag.00 worth the no it is placed. to them? They would What would go happen a themselves for would bankrupt. agement. longer Now checkout be able let to continue us return Only make to in business. to tax disburse for money government and are then given these services purpose. Given the hopes of benevolence its elimina of ridding the importance it behooves of these noxious substances. share with but benevolence. on smoke prevention spend money it is clear that the invisible hand will be solution upholds not do of but some and For suppose the personality to and refused prices inoffensive paper costs only a penny per burying is so harmful that the bag. paper it is in the the included of rather. cannot it will fall below this all who amount. The Everything trucks which make deposit requirements. sound and For we are forced Instead. them. to be privileged. economic calculation an entirely than before. courtesy medicine. agree bankrupt to if a private site owner were dump to per for agreeing accept $4. priva from the pickups as well as the dump sites themselves.30 laws against trespassing: onto other people's material be How would bottle there would disgorging only waste Benevolence that half of a liberarian is far from Mother sufficient.29 in be garbage would market It is not the butcher. roughly others devices. on about? Not at all. the government the we industry do not of solid waste a red man scenario.1894 Walter Block picking the environmentally the toxic plastic. For systems have several disadvantages. it is only or you don't pay for the bag. No. but from state prohibition. have to pay to dispose of package it is no wonder that the manufacturer to economize a private on containers. Nor is it a question selfishness. new attract additional earned thereby profits manner entrants In like the into the industry. Right now. plastic. pollute equal ability. this is explicit. has little How Given that the house wrapped. had of all industrialists Teresa. of our tax dollars. appreciation the baker and the candlestick their wares. this we privatization.32 our supermarket time. example. In other either one. manently plastic bag on that transaction. For private property. under full different price does. but that plastic variety one to of damage31 each does $5. this by lose $1. or for your fellow Benevolence for the planet. cleaning. rather that maker from a very low or zero price. creatures choosing economic for each.00 Multiply a few truckloads and he will no of this substance. provided along too. even though to do so by law. the only us." In other of are lines words." by this for eschewing let us assume each. disposal. Given reed for the evils indeed versus is a weak us incentive would function? of plastic. socialized for this service is run There. of self interest. is your only the paper. "free. they give are If all industrialists competitive disadvantage. municipalized." the services These one and hazard. garbage "free. this intrinsic are always economists failures" that socialist prattling not from Specifically.00 compensation on a store his he would land. advertising lighting. since if it to it. penny implicit: for In some for the cost to you is $0. is benevolence. The failure stems laissez faire. Given land in which competition. are and that consumers items which purchase promiscuously wife doesn't coverings. allowed pollute. One Smith from (1776) said about motivation for But we benevolence. not helping choking is to change the law to one which so that trespassers property rights. they seen is in the fact that socialized service. prices. homeowner nor There would be no mandatory recycling disposal tized.

environmentalists and those who freedom might called of can appear a "basic be reconciled. on the basis of armchair economic decided It may safely be left in the hands of site industry. for these owning dump unlike environmental bureaucrats. and that either paper or plastic. to choose there was no impetus Previously. The seeming ecological case the economic was effect that contradiction issues of in how I handle the two can be reconciled in this way. general. use lose of enforced system which private But in final for property argument rights. Given disposal costs of one penny for paper and five dollars for our total costs are two plastic. would but only when their value to the user was greater than $5. King. readily calculated: cents for paper. consonant and hence with actual harm to in to the environment disappear economic conditions? right mind in one would The IV. dump to consumers. not but rather telephone books.01 $5. the breach of economic freedom and is no less apparant. . the concerns of economic there refereee unfriendly prohibitive. globe assump of the planet to "garbolo so much If there a is nothing disposal. of course." I am tremendously to this referee in grateful an opportunity to further that he has given me libertarian environmentalist explicate theory. ronmental This plastic.Environmentalism Purchase cost cost Total and Economic Freedom 1895 to the planet it is paper. "magic of the market. to For we are called upon not merely different." continues . Now. After gas. in order tandem. they will site owners. are very matters however. the existence of a applaud of these "On on of the planet.01 $0. competitors (Burger Taco Bell. was the end of it. fluids might still employ plastic containers. If plastic are truly hazardous to the health and styrofoam costs tremendous impose These will be passed on to insist IfMcDonald's continued and styrofoam. different altogether infraction consists of the nationaliza freedom gist"33 Rathje to the hazard is not property it takes . This be dangerous and plastic will on a somewhat cannot is an empirical which question. the bag material. still be utilized. to compete more equal If substances. structural (my) argument" in each conclusions anonymous flaw in the development in that the public policy be very different." we can again have our cake and eat it too. not mean. and five dollars and one cent for plastic. but also to dispose of purchase it later on at our own expense. that plastic bags would be totally banned They by economics. one to be what favor However.) concerned for their assump freedom in Under present pocketbooks. (1989). A&W. private although the Here. of the violation and were upon would plastic out to other Pizza Hut. Wendy's. Under a full there is no property private rights regime. were more who greatly customer's tions. to the thanks Thus. this firm would Everyone and select thing" I have air pollution and waste disposal. many years and other of burial.01 anything dangerous in the form of bags.01. this referee. these release methane so.00 $0.02 $5. people's case waste of their In the of lungs. does solution and other medical intravenous blood. property private rights allowed by law to in to say other land. styrofoam. paper. there is simply no need to reduce to protect it is now the planet. Is there would his any doubt problem these swoop under no consumer in Virtually choose environmentally fell costs would "do simply be the right envi that the whole perhaps paper one another with footing. "(I) pre-1850 legal two cases appear to the one hand.01. the private are not prices their property. time The two work our polluters on trespass But tions plastic about and the to question to relative harm According plastic as it is inert. rights an form. be able Disposal Paper Plastic $0. In air pollution.01 $0. entrepreneurs. For example. reason to legislatively ban McDonald's. etc. Conclusion tried to show that in at least two cases. if their stand to lose their own personal fortunes theorizing. . (my) waste the market control is there letting disposal no clear indication of what environ role if any mental law would play. Each cost $0.

Hayek see Rothbard (1982b). that no one. No." ("Chappaquidick" The Dianna to thank Jonathan Adler of CEI. there 12 that attempts is the U. for another (1990b). Their views were 2 in a different both For are income the socialists private wealth way. and actually succeed in. another. one for which nor can neither halt collect damages through But why is B so powerless? It is my injunction. reverse actions is the speak case. there of what But would cases Without a far their assistance less cogent one. al. this article would have been in both is a transgression of the free enterprise in each. a For Nozick rebuttal of these. Jan Leek College and other help. (1991). Seemingly. people. see Rothbard (1973). Therefore. On the other mentioned even deeds. II. p. (1973).) point 14 is.1896 Walter Block tion (e. whatever. One last point. Forest lost his life at Three Mile fires. Rubin (1994) and Kaufman (1994). P. Stroup et. not (1991. dis former medicine." Island. Vol. placing a metal the chain saw of spike in trees so that when the lumberman encounters his it. oriented a return to market environmentalist will advocate In the one case this consists of an end principles. The of treating typical way as an in is the literature pollution "externality. for in the law. The author wishes Reinhart. 5. F. 1991. example. political Hoppe perspectives see that are sometimes confused with this vision. But not really. injury or even death based will result. Laws pro in the present of smoke particles. 11 Of this basis the greens do not even deserve in the same breath. the same philosophical principle. the capitalist ethic.. is "Back to the et.g." or indeed. Mary Jo Kopechne. 1989. since both are of an underlying vision. louder than words. than on to be hand. we can with Called suits. municipalization) otherwise be private dumpsites. dumping. 7 in "On Balance. 3). None of NCPA for bibliographical are responsible for the content of this paper. But some sort into of sticker puts this perspec bumper tive. For economic (1989). of course. they are but opposite in that they both emanate sides rallying cited cry slogan in Goodman. 4." Reported p. Helen Caldicott. redistribution. Jeremy Sale and E. For a critique of homesteading. For Rifkin. see Block For a rejoinder. and however. Kirkpatrick see Horowitz discussions of this phenomenon. Now these for the latter. in see Stroup (1988). this analysis. 5 This is the group that urges tree spiking. (1993). counterpart nuclear meltdown Notes 1 a popular at Three Mile Island. pollution came about due to a "government to failure" the any alleged of law against because trespass. to do just this. 10 It is on this ground to the Nazis." 6 These Stroup tizing dumpsites In actual point of fact from of the same coin. and priva are superficially very different. An external a harm perpetrated B by A on B. Pleistocene. see Block. 13 True. . in the other of privatization of no is there "structural Thus. killing massive numbers of In terms of actual numbers of people killed. Previous of inadequacies was no there This externality.. two very aspects It is the hibiting they are incompatible things." for very substantive help in the rewriting of this essay. "market failure" such as externalities. garbage flaw. p. Let me Egalitarian and parities they advocate socialized distinct with one make any this inconsistancy point oppose medicine. contention himself that the victim of pollution finds in this precarious position solely because to 1850. 3 For a general explication of the private property free enterprise system. hindsight see them as environmental complaints. that the Communists may be For apart from members of the Aryan nations. preferred 8 (1990). same trespass case. Cited in DiLorenzo 9 Cited in Goodman. 4 come to mind in this regard include Names which Tom Hayden. It stated: "More people died at Chappaquidick than at Three Mile refers Island. (1974). are "natural. while The being driven by Senator Ted Kennedy. see Hoppe defense of homesteading. J. not a single solitary individual. Jane Fonda." By now it should be clear that I totally reject this as is defined diseconomy approach. Jane Shaw and Rick Stroup of of Wheaton and PERC. the Nazis actually did intend to. Hill author wishes also to thank two anonymous referees to the death of a single individual. it turns out. Schumacher. intentions though are the former are not less morally important irrelevant. al. 9. Bramwell (1989). actual uphold For a book 1990a. and nothing must 15 be done which at the time interferes with "nuisance nature. to legal trespass.S. the course.

plastic. (I owe point to an anonymous referee). at least compared to their colleagues furthest away.Environmentalism 16 there and Economic Freedom 1897 have been they were anonymous It is only because murder was a call for a forensic and rape were industry. capabilities one when importance the establishment 17 Of course. blood. it must not rely on the accidents of time or place. itmust be applicable at any epoch in history. Here. very we least are in terms presuming of eco that buried plastic and styrofoam has much as a toxic waste. now began to do so. However. 19 A. minimum ran a socialized milk program as we do and medical care. DNA. itself. pollution pollution. ." Ordinarily. one of the defensive measures they besieging would take was to tear down the street signs. it is incumbent upon me to show how it would apply not only when 32 discounted that the present implicitly assuming a of (dis)value burying single plastic bag to charge only $4. 1870. of environmental "coming to the grateful forcing to clarify my presentation of this point. Each yearns to "get I am here an to the bottom" Each analyses their respective subject matters. and if a he goes broke. 23 From 1845 to 1970. or no vote whether democratic people. 282-285). D. On this see Rothbard. illegal that capable of environmental the 25 law. fights. 24 If a legal theory is to be a robust one. did not havoc with 27 that is. but further infringements upon the this this economic Science can not at present precisely determine amount of damage that might be caused. hair folli etc. see Rothbard (1982a. but would play the invader's ability to travel around town. referee for into determining cles. one could not build a abode in an area first homesteaded by sue On this then for and emitters. . 30 31 expensive to recycle.00 for this is $5. selfish seeking of profit leads to the public good. would Similarly. For is in very short example. I am but concerns also when to an incorporated not. and hence most needed by the populace. 20 The Price Anderson Act . our 28 If we A. 1966). guilt based on semen. see McGee 1994. and alternative plated. See Horwitz (1977). no longer local perpetrator of invasive pollution But th local of course plaintiff. to at the reiterate. these not have developed. Block (1990. person acts in an environmentally responsible manner. But make no mistake about it. rather. C. If these activities were legal. air and counting. guilt or innocence. it is of the utmost to determine hence. Those dumpsite owners the same effect who allow and their lungs. gious 21 For another critique of tradeable emissions rights. All of this makes it more is the exact opposite of Adam Smith's (1776) in laissez faire capitalism. other people's property to entrepreneur presents no philosophical challenge owners are Those whose ship. of . They did so on the ground disaccommodate that this would hardly much long time citizens. as of this 1995 writing.00. them from their own perspective. For. pp. approximately. 22 1982a (1990). etc. to pay for things they have no desire to purchase. by (Spooner. service would be to lose money 33 as is A garbologist is to mounds of waste material archeologist to ancient ruins. storing paper certainly dumpsite nomics. negatively impacted this did no more than sweep the problem under the rug. tin different materials and other metals. on the deal.is the most egre for accidents legal responsibility case of the latter. instead. he affected longer affected complainant And polluters B. lawsuits is still. dumpsite predictions the closest to reality will prosper. Which are freedom. from the immorality of forcing Apart. uses (housing. into the clouds. and Block. people would disposal (instead of water probably have "milk gun" gun) cars wash their with and take milk baths. That is. a city was faced with a In the days of yore when army. farms. . concern and water storage of these items under their land will reduce its economic value after the landfill is complete. but only command and control (and in the last few years emissions tradeable rights for environmental Provision schemes) regulations. . virtually nonexistent. such as paper.who previously harm zero price policy has also lead to the combination of in them. nuisance" was not deemed acceptable. me 26 forensics. "invisible hand. given ceterus paribus conditions. For if polluter A no others.protecting firms from . can sue for pollution. earns the greatest possible profit. or. cardboard. the law and judicial was so as to altered require very high practice residential In this way the heights for smokestacks. That is. polluters had a free run of the atmosphere. given the on the basis of which we are now assumptions most will harm the operating. one invests in a good which This supply. etc. Since I claim that libertarianism fits this bill.) are contem borne pollutants. 1990) 18 As a sop to the plaintiffs. garbage 29 In addition to excessive amounts of wrappings. Obviously. there was From roughly for 1970 invasive to 1995. milk.

TX). Journal of Law and Economics 3.): A Reconciliation Economics and the Fraser Institute. and Fred M. Anarchy. Louis. 'Toward and Ecological Bookchin. Legislation and Liberty (The of Chicago Press. Can al. L. Los Angeles Times Book Review (22 October). Whatever Happened San Francisco).: 1973. 1912. Law. Barry: 1990. The Green Crusade: Re Rubin. Vancouver). Ramparts (May). Harvard University . 95-114. Ludwig 1981. 'Time Wars: A New Dimension Shaping Our Future'.: 1977. 1991. York). Deconstructing theLeft (Second Thoughts Books. Entropy: A New World View (Bantam. David: Save Goodman. 'Only Man's (April). Hahn. Alberta). Ecology in the 20th Century Press. (ed. Perspectives 3(2) (Spring). 'Where Did All The Markets Go? An Analysis of EPA's Emissions Trading Program'. (Oxford University York). Kaufman. John Progressive C. Rifkin. Rifkin. 'Rubbish!'. Utne Reader (September). 1989. F. (Humanities Highlands. Journal of Economic and Winner. Environment: Vancouver). A Theory of Socialism Hoppe. 1990a. 237-253. and Environmental Center Energy Policy Discussion 26. Walter: 1990b.: Ronald 'The Problem of Social 1960. State and Utopia Books New York). Bramwell. London). Rothbard. Jeremy: 1980. Robert W: Environmental Followed for 1989. Harpers and Presence Environmentalism: et. Making Peace with the Planet York Pantheon Books). David M. Task Force Dallas. June Hayek. The Economics and Hoppe. Property Rights. MD). Robert 1989. Boston). Mises. Pigou. Report. Indianapolis). Yale Journal on Regulation 6(1) (Winter). 1973. 'Law. Commoner. Hahn. A. (National Pro-Free Enterprise Agenda for Change Center for Policy Analysis. The Ethics of Liberty Murray N. Rothbard. The Transformation of American Law: 1180-1860 (Harvard University Press. 1990. Nature'. 'Pollution Socialism. (Yale University H. Lanham. 'Does Capitalism St. Study of American Issues Series 38. Charles T. von: Socialism (Liberty Fund. J. For a New Murray Liberty New (Macmillan. David: 1988. No Turning Back: Dismantling the Phantasies (Basic of Environmental Thinking Books. The Harvest Conquest.. toEcology? Mills. Hans-Hermann: and Capitalism: Politics and Ethics Economics. Business. Stavins: Hahn. 51?77. Trading Permits as a Form of Market and the Search for a Real Market to Solution Environmental Fordham University Law Pollution'. Taylor: 1938. Science Monitor. L.).: 1989. in Walter Block (ed. University Hans-Hermann: 1993. 1969. (The Bookchin. Press. Horowitz. and Robert W. N. (Sierra Club Books. Robert: Nozick. NJ). Murray: 1989. Paper. Stroup A Pro-Human.: 1989. 'Earning Happiness Through on Unowned Land: A comment Homesteading Federal Land" by Richard Social Political and Economic Stroup'. N. Murray N. 1990. Inc. Porrit. 19. of Sorrow New Press. 'Economic Prescriptions Problems: How the Patient the Doctor's Orders'. Wallace: 1994. New York). David: 1991.: Atlantic Press. The Progressive (August). Coase. 1970. On the Lange. 'Incentive-Based Environmental A Regulation: New ERA from an old idea?'.1898 Walter Block References 4 January 1989. Washington Pollution?'. and Environmental Journal VI(1) (Fall). Anna: 1989. Richard L. Walter: 1994. Morton Horwitz. Stephanie: 1989. Cato Journal 2(1) (Spring). (December). Oscar Economics of Theory of Socialism (University Minnesota Press. London). Robert: 1990.: 1982a. p. (Dordrecht. (Edmonton University Thomas: Cause DiLorenzo. Hester: and Gordon W. (New Robert: 1986. William 99-109. Block. Journal of Studies 15(2) (Summer). Economics and the reprinted Environment: A Reconciliation (The Fraser Institute.: 1990. 1982b. University: Center for the Comtemporary Foreman. "Buying Misery Walter Block. New York). reprinted in Block. The Christian Martin: Anderson. Boston). Chicago). Minneapolis). Cambridge). McGee. Robert and Block. Pro-Science. with 1990a. Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy (Kluwer. Robert 1990. Hothouse Flower'. 109-153. New Haven). 1974. The Great Terror Edmonton Conquest. Jeremy: 1987. The Jonathan Coming of the Greens (Fontana.: 1994. as a 'Mother Nature Graber.: Rothbard. 1-44. Atlantic Monthly Rathje. Cost'. and Air Pollution'. Murray: Solution'. (Basic Arthur: Wealth and Welfare (MacMillan. 'Death of a Small Planet'.

Kirkpatrick: 132 (January-February). Treason 1966. An Inquiry into theNature 1776/1965. 'Buying Misery with Federal Stroup. . AR wblock@mail. (McGraw Hill. Small is Beautiful (Harper Schumacher. Samuelson. 1988. Richard: Choice Public 57. Economics. Paul A. New and Row. York).uca. 69-77. Sale. E. of Central Arkansas. 'Presidential Matters'. 70(1) of Quarterly Journal (February). 1-22. New York). (Modern Library.Environmentalism the Roots of Environmentalism (McMillan Thinking Free Press. Lysander: Spooner.edu. 1989. 72035. Land'. New York). Smith. Samuelson. No (Larkspur. Economics Curves'. E: 1973.: 1970. Economies and Finance University E-mail: Department. Indifference 'Social Paul A. Resurgence 8th ed. Colorado (1870)). Conway.: 1956. Adam: and Economic Freedom 1899 ofNations and Causes of theWealth New York).