Pollution

The American Heritage Dictionary of 2005 defined pollution as

The contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms. Pollution can occur naturally, for example through volcanic eruptions, or as the result of human activities, such as the spilling of oil or disposal of industrial waste. Light from cities and towns at night that interferes with astronomical observations is known as light pollution. It can also disturb natural rhythms of growth in plants and other organisms. Continuous noise that is loud enough to be annoying or physically harmful is known as noise pollution. Heat from hot water that is discharged from a factory into a river or lake, where it can kill or endanger aquatic life, is known as thermal pollution.¹

The definition of pollution includes any man-made or natural substance harmful to living organisms. A substance may be a value to one organism while at the same time harmful to another. The definition of pollution involves perspective. As human beings, we are concerned with man-made and natural substances that harm humans and organisms, such as farm animals and plants that we value. In the context of individual rights and a capitalist society, only man-made substances that harm a person or a person’s property may be regulated by law. A person’s property may include other organisms.

Many pollutants can and do harm people’s lives directly and indirectly, resulting in a violation of individual rights.   There is an obvious need to control pollution. Why is it so controversial?  Because it is a complex and emotional topic tied to two intertwined requirements of human life.

1) The need to be free in order to think, act and produce life sustaining values from nature.

2) The need to have those values, such as property, protected in order to benefit from them.

The topic of pollution is the ideal topic to demonstrate the nuance involved with a proper understanding of individual rights. The production of Tom’s value may result in the creation of pollution that harms Jane’s life and or property. At first glance there appears to be a contradiction.  If  Tom is free to create pollution, Jane’s rights are violated. If Jane’s rights are protected, Tom’s rights appear violated.  In fact, Tom’s pollution violates Jane’s rights. Jane was just minding her own dam business. The government must use force to protect Jane because Tom initiated the action that harmed Jane’s property. Tom may get mad because he thinks he should be free to provide for his family, but the government was right to retaliate on Jane’s behalf. Tom is mistaken in his anger, his freedom to act is limited to acts that do not harm Jane’s person or property.

Given the freedom to choose personal and business relationships, people associate with those who benefit rather than destroy their lives. Successful industries and private individuals may control their waste to maintain mutually beneficial relationships with employees, customers and neighbors.

However, the rosy picture above may not always occur. Criminals may create pollution in an attempt to reduce production costs or disposal fees. Pollution may be created accidentally or out of ignorance.   In either case, the pollution may result in the harm of little Jane. The government must protect Jane no matter how much it costs industry, society or individuals. If the government took such a stand, business would make pollution control a primary focus in order to minimize the risk of future law suits. Just as businesses hire janitors to handle common trash pollution and plumbers to handle sewage pollution, they may also hire technical personnel to handle more complex pollution.

The drive for profit and the need to control waste are inseparable, so it is in an entrepreneur’s long term interest to control his waste.  In many instances waste management requires expert and technical competency.  In these cases, industries need to hire waste management specialists to design and implement the proper technology.  A proper approach to pollution control allows people and businesses to trade value for value in order to control pollution. Environmental Engineering firms, such as Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM), provide such services. The free market solution to pollution control is demonstrated by the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) cleanup project in Massena, New York.

As site remediation projects go, this one presented major challenges from all perspectives…including 37 acres of landfill area and 110 acres of lagoons—and 90 years of waste generation, all seemed to forecast an endless series of regimented cleanups…

“It’s a matter of trust—trusting Alcoa that we can work a little closer to their goals…at the same time, Alcoa has given us latitude to try new things.  We know the risks are fairly shared, and Alcoa knows they’re going to get a good product from us.  This is the key to Alcoa’s overall proactive approach and our collective success as partners.”²

If and when a company or individual fails to voluntarily control its own waste by whatever means possible, they must be forced to compensate the victims of their pollution and cease polluting; or shut down production.  According to Ron Paul,

…that’s how American law used to treat pollution.  But a series of nineteenth-century nuisance cases changed that: the courts suddenly decided that certain levels of pollution could be allowed for the sake of the greater good.  The implication was that if, for example, a few farmers had their property destroyed by passing trains, that was just the price of progress.  These cases allowed private industry to invade the property rights of others and deprived those others of legal recourse.³

The nineteenth-century’s attempt to assist the growth of industry by giving them a free pass to destroy or confiscate the property of others should be re-investigated and rejected.  There is no short cut.  The fastest way to prosperity is through the diligent protection of individual rights.

The protection of individual rights is undoubtedly complex and difficult.  Many mistakes can happen, but as long as an honest effort is made to administer justice with individual rights in mind, there is at least a chance of hitting the target.  It is counterproductive to impose rights violating regulations in an attempt to fight pollution. Without rights, there is no benefit to living in society.

Pollution is just one of many threats to individual rights.  Government funds and human resources should be directed away from economic planning and recource distribution, towards justice and law enforcement.   Our lives and property must be protected from unsolicited pollution and our freedom to produce and consume energy must be protected by removing all non-rights protecting regulations and all subsidies.

References

¹The American Heritage Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

² “Toward a Seamless Partnership: Alcoa Cleanup Just Past Halfway Mark” CDMnews, June, 1996.

³ Ron Paul, “The Revolution” Grand Central Publishing, 2008 p.105