A solution to pollution
What is the solution to pollution? Something that is introduced to an area that has harmful or poisonous effects…
Capitalism is the solution.
If a person’s private property is polluted, one has had their rights violated. It is not often that pollution is seen to affect private owners – for this would incur direct economic consequences for the property owner – private property owners insure that their property is secure from harmful pollutants and intruders alike.
Where are the commonest areas for pollution to occur? Public property. The government is meant to protect the people from pollution, but does a far from satisfactory job. The government often has no or little consequence for its actions – a blame game can be played and often the blame will do no good. Even if the government itself pollutes (public buses, sewerage works, government vehicles, the list could go on) there lies no consequences for its actions.
The government supports companies through various mechanisms including subsidies and corporate welfare – these interests are protected so that even private corporations are protected by the government when these companies pollute. (Government subsidy also creates no incentive to buy, for example, energy from a renewable resource company – as government makes coal cheap. If a completely private system were in place – conscious consumerism along with demand for green energy in general – could take place. A higher demand for green energy will result in lower prices on the supply side, unfortunately the government will not allow the energy market to operate in this way today).
The solution is to privatize everything – under the guise that individuals and groups have the ability to sue for damages or seek injunction (for the pollution of their private property).
In regards to pollution in public parks – which is an issue rarely thought about in regards to liberty – a similar approach can be taken if the area is privately owned. Private ownership of national parks etc. could be achieved through fund raising (similar to how people raise funds to build nation land marks) and as parks located in isolated places — as many of them are —would create little demand for the land, it would be relatively cheap to purchase these areas (areas such as mountains for example have little use to those who wish to graze animals).
The activity of conservation parkland could be morally and successfully carried out by a public subscription fund operated by a body similar to the National Trust.
For more information regarding libertarian views on pollution and conservation see
www.la.org.au/opinion/260212/singo-and-howard-explain-pure-capitalism-solves-pollution
http://www.la.org.au/opinion/260212/singo-and-howard-propose-privatising-bondi-beach