From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 08:35:54 MST
Kai wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 9. Februar 2003 21:08 schrieb Rafal Smigrodzki:
>> ### No, you got it backwards - it is the punishment of polluters that
>> reduces pollution and saves lives.
>
> Ah! Punishment. By Big Bad Government! That's a threat to my freedom
> to burn and pollute as I want to...
>
### Ah, Kai, you know I am a right-thinking guy, how *can* you suspect me of
supporting the jackbooted thugs? :-)
Actually, while using the direct regulatory powers of the government is one
of the ways of diminishing the harm to third parties (as in people getting
poisoned by exhaust), there are IMO better options, such as a well-regulated
liability insurance market. Imagine that all participants in the economy
would be required to obtain a general liability insurance of certain
quality, in a market with many independent providers, and with a free-market
court system.
The upshot would be a very flexible system where harming somebody with your
exhaust would entail an increase in your insurance premium. You would be
still free to burn and pollute as you want to, except when you actually harm
another person. This would be different from the current system, where you
are forced to obey laws with only a very tenuous link the welfare of others,
laws which in the case of federal fuel efficiency standards were enacted for
pure political calculation, as a knee-jerk response to the 1970's oil
crisis.
The Big Bad Government is frequently the first solution that comes to mind,
but the last solution that should be used.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 08:28:52 MST