Pamela J. Brown wrote:
PB) Negative externalities are theft, a violation of property rights, and require one be protected (PB
Right on. And I agree with all that you've said against people using force initiation for income or wealth redistribution (with the caveat that I think appropriating ground rent is itself force initiation, and returning it to the community is correcting an injustice).
PB) and made whole via the courts. (PB
Suppose today I get a sunburn due to ozone destruction by chlorofluorocarbons, or I get diarrhea due to hiking across a creek with upstream intrusions of fecal coliform bacteria, or I get itchy eyes from all the tailpipe emissions from the couple million commuters here in Silicon Valley. Can you please tell me what plaintiffs I should name in my lawsuit(s), and estimate for me how my collected damages will compare to my legal costs? :-)
In other words, I'm curious if you agree with the anarchist view that torts can adequately police all negative externalities. I don't. I think that policing aggression, including pollution, is a legitimate and indeed necessary role for the state. Not all libertarians agree, as noted in the draft St. Louis Accord.