[Rainbow Crow]

Can anyone explain the non-aggression principle to me? I have been unable to understand it in the context of some of my disagreements with the more anarchist-leaning Libertarians on here.

Basically, why is making a regulation against (for example) polluting a waterway a violation of the non-aggression principle, even though suing someone for polluting the waterway is not? The difference between the two approaches seems like splitting hairs to me, particularly since the first form of regulation is proven to be more effective in terms of preventing injuries.

[SecretSquirrel]

Most libertarians are not very good at thinking about commons conceptually. Most of them will either cling to some kind of Georgism, or instead avoid even thinking about the correct concerns that George raised, but neither is coming to the correct conclusion.

[mikema63]

The person givin the lawsuit was stressed against by the company, whereas the regulation preempt aggression by the company and does not provide the company the opportunity to buy the right to pollute from the property owner.

[Eran]

The Non Aggression Principle states that it is wrong to initiate force against another person or his ongoing projects. If you are the first person to make use of a natural resource, the NAP doesn't limit your freedom to use that natural resource as you wish.

If somebody else has already incorporated the natural resource into their project, your ability to use that same resource without violating the NAP is limited. You can do so only to the extent that such use doesn't constitute initiation of force against the prior project. In some cases that is a minimal limitation (as when two people use the same river for navigation). In other cases, that restriction effectively prohibits you from using that resource altogether (as when the resource is a field that the first person cleared and cultivated). In the latter case, the prior user's right under the NAP is effectively a property right in the resource.



You can sue somebody for polluting a waterway if that pollution invades the physical space of one of your projects, thereby entailing an initiation of force against that project.

Put simply, you can sue if you were using the waterway first, and the pollution disrupts your use of it.

A regulation of pollution normally proceeds regardless of whether the state has already established a peaceful project making use of the waterway.

The clearest difference between the two scenarios is when nobody has been using the waterway before the polluter initiated polluting. In that case, nobody is in a position to sue based on NAP (as the pollution doesn't constitute initiation of force). The state, by enforcing an anti-pollution regulation, is the initiator of force against the polluter.

[libertarian_4_life]

Can anyone explain the non-aggression principle to me? I have been unable to understand it in the context of some of my disagreements with the more anarchist-leaning Libertarians on here.

Basically, why is making a regulation against (for example) polluting a waterway a violation of the non-aggression principle, even though suing someone for polluting the waterway is not?

To regulate pollution means to allow pollution within limits.
The non-aggression principle states that aggression is wrong.
Regulated aggression is still aggression and is still wrong.

What if no one objects to polluting the waterway?
Why should government regulate waterway pollution if no persons are significantly harmed and no significant damage occurs?

Government may use force (such as fines,imprisonment) only to remedy aggression.
There must be victims (or potential victims). And that victim (or his/her representatives) must consent to government involvement on his/her behalf.

Here is an example of the disastrous results of government regulation of pollution.
2010 Ajka alumina plant accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajka_alumi ... t_accident

In a libertarian society, this is what could have happened:
1. Dangerous waste could have been slowly released into local rivers, every week, which could possibly cause minor, long-term harm to some people.
AND/OR
2. Water users who live downstream could sue the alumina plant for injuries from drinking/swimming/using polluted water.

Pollution should either be prohibited (because it is aggression) or be tolerated (if it is insignificant aggression). Compromise solutions (including regulations) may lead to nasty, unintended results.

The Non Aggression Principle states that it is wrong to initiate force against another person ....

Essentially, this is all libertarianism is. Everything else is interpretation and application of the non-aggression principle.

[Eran]

Pollution should either be prohibited (because it is aggression) or be tolerated (if it is insignificant aggression).

There is a third option, in which the polluter pays the owner of the polluted resources a mutually-agreed compensation for the effect of the pollution. This option, typically unavailable under government regulatory regime, often results in the most economically-efficient outcomes.

To give a specific example, we have a controversy here in England over building a third runway for Heathrow airport. Such runway would clearly add (noise) pollution to nearby residents.

Since those residents have nothing to gain from that runway, and something to lose, they have every incentive to resist (using political means) to its construction, regardless of the economic benefit to the country as a whole.

A mechanism whereby those affected are compensated (either as a one-off payment, or in the form of a regular compensation schedule as a function of actual noise levels) would align the incentives of the airport and its neighbours.

[Nunt]

There is a third option, in which the polluter pays the owner of the polluted resources a mutually-agreed compensation for the effect of the pollution. This option, typically unavailable under government regulatory regime, often results in the most economically-efficient outcomes.

To give a specific example, we have a controversy here in England over building a third runway for Heathrow airport. Such runway would clearly add (noise) pollution to nearby residents.

Since those residents have nothing to gain from that runway, and something to lose, they have every incentive to resist (using political means) to its construction, regardless of the economic benefit to the country as a whole.

A mechanism whereby those affected are compensated (either as a one-off payment, or in the form of a regular compensation schedule as a function of actual noise levels) would align the incentives of the airport and its neighbours.

Unfortunatly, some empirical studies have found that compensating people for NIMBY projects has adverse effects. See: http://www.unifr.ch/finwiss/assets/file ... ckyard.pdf
Theoretical explanations for this are: bribe effect and public spirit.

Although it may be argued that
these auctions are questionable for reasons of fairness (Young 1993),
they remain ingenious because the trade is voluntary. All participants
are made better off and the outcome is Pareto superior to the proj-
ect's not being executed at all.
In reality, however, siting procedures based on price incentives are
rarely successful. The search for hazardous waste landfills and nu-
clear waste repositories in the United States provides a good example:
Despite the use of hefty compensation, only one small radioactive
waste disposal facility and a single hazardous waste landfill (located
in-nomen est omen-Last Chance, Colo.) have been sited since the
mid-1970s (Gerrard 1994). States that rely on compensation-based
siting have experienced no greater success than those using other
methods (Portney 1991, pp. 28-29).
In this paper, we analyze why compensation schemes frequently
fail. The traditional economic theory of compensation is incomplete
in important respects because it neglects the influence of moral prin-
cipl

Of course no guarantee that the same effects would dominate in a libertarian world, but I still find the results puzzling. For a quick overview of the underlying economic/psychologic theory (in case you dont feel like reading the paper) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_crowding_theory

[libertarian_4_life]

There is a third option, in which the polluter pays the owner of the polluted resources a mutually-agreed compensation for the effect of the pollution. This option, typically unavailable under government regulatory regime, often results in the most economically-efficient outcomes.

Good idea. Let me further add ....

I am sure the clean-up cost is much, much higher than the cost of allowing daily/weekly waste dumpings into local rivers and compensating local people for adverse health effects. The people who died or suffered chemical burns would, I presume, be much happier drinking delicious bottled water (instead of river water) and *living* with a little dangerous waste in their rivers, while receiving a small monthly or yearly compensation payment.

[stsoc]

"I didn't touch him, or his property, therefore- I've done nothing wrong".

Yes, it validates starving babies to death.

[mikema63]

Yes I remember the part where he said you could keep someone in a building and withold food from them doesn't constitute coercion.

Your avatar is illegal by the way.

[stsoc]

Didn't see that rule, sory, admins, I'm changing it.

[mikema63]

Siberian Fox rules with an iron hand I'm afraid, what was that thing you had anyway?

[stsoc]

Representation of the pythagorean theorem, I usually use that as avatar, couse I think Pythagoras was not right just about math, but basically about everything.

[mikema63]

Even about math being god?

(he had political views? )

[stsoc]

Lol, he didn't think math was god, he was a monist (monotheist panentheist). Animal rights, (ascetic) conservatism and communal living are political views

[Eran]

"I didn't touch him, or his property, therefore- I've done nothing wrong".

Yes, it validates starving babies to death.

Indeed, an implication is that nobody (not even parents) can be forced to take care of a baby.

That may sound harsh, but in practice it isn't. The simple reason is that in our society, we have both the means and the broad motivation to take care of babies. Thus the risk that babies will starve because there isn't anybody with both the means and motivation to take care of them is small.

[stsoc]

Indeed, an implication is that nobody (not even parents) can be forced to take care of a baby.

They can, and they should be.

Causing someone's death, if not defensive or accidental, is murder. People who voluntarily make offspring must take care of it.

[Eran]

Causing someone's death, if not defensive or accidental, is murder.

That depends on how you define "causing". Refraining from preventing death isn't the same as causing it.

People who voluntarily make offspring must take care of it.

Why? Why is their duty greater than that of any other person?

[stsoc]

Why? Why is their duty greater than that of any other person?

Because they did not bring into life any other person. A child would not come into existence without action of it's parents, so if parents make a child and then let it die, they are the cause of it's death.

[Decky]

I have a different idea. Rather than glorifying people who starve babies to death we could instead send them to camps in Siberia where they belong.