Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, "countries whose property rights are best are those who pollute the least." That's the 'conclusion in reverse' one is invited to draw from this cross-country pollution survey, which finds of the all the dirtiest countries in the world, those with weak or non-existent property rights are the very dirtiest. [Hat tip Commons Blog]
Of the Dirty Thirty, not one western industrial economy even makes the list.
Capitalism pollutes the environment, you say? What nonsense. Time to check your premises.
UPDATE: Oops, forgot to give you the link. Fixed now.
10 comments:
Singapore is a notable exception.
Once again you have hit the nail on the head, Peter!
Ok Mr Anonymous I give up. Why is Singapore a notable exception?
I actually agree with this, at least in concept, despite being a filthy pinko. It's such a pity this website still advocates the wanton disregard for basic property rights by allowing industry and individuals to pollute without consequence.
David S
It's a pity you are ignorant about Libertarianz politics you filthy wet pink fool! You need to learn to read some.
Libertarianz support Individual Rights. Are you with me so far?
One of those Rights is a Right to Private Property. Fancy that!
If someone pollutes your property, or damages it in some way, then they have violated one of your Individual Rights. They have done that by damaging your property.
In a Libertarian economy you would have redress against such acts. You would be able to demand the polluters (those who damaged your property) cease & desist from damaging your property in future. Further, that they repair the damage they already caused or, at the least, compensate you for it.
Should they refuse, then they are committing an IOF against you. At that point the government, properly a protector of Individual Rights, is entitled to apply retributative force to stop the polluters and extract the damages you are owed from them. The consequence is that they get stopped and punished.
Simple enough. Even for you.
It is baffling that little pinko turd-heads such as you attend this website and submit contributions that demonstrate an utter ignorance of even the most basic elements of Libertarian thought. One would think you'd have the decency to check things out prior to making such elementary errors as the one you have just demonstrated. In the end all you filth do is demonstrate your own terrible ignorance and stupidity. That, and your base dishonesty.
Yup, you really are filth.
LGM
"It's such a pity this website still advocates the wanton disregard for basic property rights by allowing industry and individuals to pollute without consequence."
The common law doesn't so why should anyone else? Torts of trespass and nuisance do quite a good job at that.
Property rights are incredibly important, whether individual or commons based (ie trust) as well argued by Ronald Coase but whether this goes hand in hand with capitalism is a moot point.
Sure capitalism struggles without property rights but vice versa?
I'd like to hear more on that relationship.
LGM! Surely you go too far sir. I happen to really appreciate David S's comments and this blog needs more comments like his. Your words are such a bad advertisement for Libertarianism. I guess it's just your style but it's not very appealing - it just comes across as mental.
Angloamerican
Two things to note about David S
1/. HE identifies himself as being a filthy pinko. I am agreeing. Filth indeed.
2/. This website and its host, a prominent Libertarian, does not advocate the wanton disregard for basic property rights by allowing industry and individuals to pollute without consequence as Davis S asserted. David's been around long enough to have known that.
Hence, either he is dishonest or ignorant or both.
I've corrected his falsehood and agreed with his self-characterisation.
LGM
Actually, I got confused between David S and Brian S but published before I realized that.
Post a Comment