Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We now understand in a way we did not when the common law was developed that the destruction of wetlands harms us. That is why I'm drawing a comparison between wetlands regulation and smoking out your neighbor. The principle is the same.
You can pull a Pombo on me and try to pretend the science is otherwise, but that's a different story.
|
I have no argument with the fact that the world is interconnected. But when you declare someones property is a wetland you are infringing on their property rights to benefit society at large. That is fine. That is what governments do. I am just saying that the property owner should be compensated. Just like if you condemned his property to create a nature preserve. You would compensate him. But if you tell him to turn his property into a nature preserve you don't. Not fair.
Funny you should bring up Pombo because we are trying to recruit someone to run against him in the primary (thanks to the Gerrymander you love so much he has a safe seat). The guy we had recruited just backed out yesterday but I think we may have a replacement. If we don't find anyone McCloskey is going to run against him. I just had lunch with McCloskey today to discuss the situation.
Pombo is one of those idiots that thinks that property rights mean you don't have to respect public property rights. You can spew any crap of your property into the public domain and not have to pay for it. Pombo does not understand that whan you have property rights you are also responsbile for your property, and what exits it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And this is why the government rarely dictates price or requires certain levels of consumption. Most regulation takes a different form. An obvious counterexample is the situation of a regulated monopoly, where any college freshman who's taken Ec 101 can explain why the market will not yield optimum results. But that's usually not what government regulation entails.
|
Yes, but then again efficient markets is what you are shooting for. Free markets is usually the best way to get there. Monopolies never produce efficient markets, so contrary to what Friedman, Rand, Buckley and Schafley thing, all monoplies have to be regulated to produce a more efficient market.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My point is that a so-called "free" market relies on quite a bit of government regulation. Property law, contract law and tort law are all ways in which the government regulates the market.
Perhaps you have something else in mind when you refer to "free" markets, but it seems to me that you are referring to the process by which the market is regulated -- i.e., by private actions brought in common law rather than other forms of government action -- rather than the substance. If we want to protect wetlands, judges (a government actor) can construe the tort of nuisance to prevent you from doing all sorts of things with your wetlands that will have an effect on your neighbors by ruling that they have a property right to be free of the effects of your actions.
|
The problem is that a distinction is not drawn. If you own wetlands, and dump sewage into them and the sewage leaves your wetland and goes into someone elses portion of the wetland, you need to either stop it or cough up some dough. You should not be compensated for that. What you are doing is not just a nuisance but an infringement on either the public or some private owners land. These "nuisance" laws are really a watering down of the victims property rights. A "nuisance" law is usually a way for a landowner not to take full responsiblity for their property. You should have no right to dump stuff in a stream that will go down river of your property. There is the common law concept that has developed that if nature takes something of your property and puts it somewhere else that somehow you are only partially responsible. In the old days that may have been practical, but into todays modern society there is not need to let people to use the excuse to say "well the wind blew it off my property on to yours so I am only a little responbile".
However, that should not be confused with someone being prevented from doing something on their property that effects no one else. If I build a wall around my wetland and drain it, and what I do does not effect anyone around me then I can do it. If the government decides that my property needs to stay a wet land for bird migration, fine, the government can either compensate me for the restricted use of my property, or buy the property.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I get the principle, but I'm not sure how you can say that I'm infringing someone's property rights (under present law) if I light a fire in my fireplace. And yet burning wood creates some pollution. If those costs are internalized, the wood should cost more.
|
Home fires cause all sorts of problems in the LA Valley. Home fires produce a lot more pollution, especially in winter, than all the cars put together. There are Chimneys one can buy that filter out the smoke, or most of the smoke. But people seem to think, as you do, that they have a God given right to blow smoke into the public airways. The same goes for burning leaves - which is illegal. In our modern society there is no reason that people should not be held accountable for their externalities.
