The Revolutionary Socialist Network, Workers
Download 2.09 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- There is no “border crossing
| Block, 2021, [Walter, Endowed Chair in Economics at the School of Business at Loyola University, Free Enterprise Environmentalism, Private Property Rights and Environmentalism, 143-145, HHW]
“Private enterprise leads to pollution.” Before we can determine whether or not this statement is true, we have to define our terms. Pollution is relatively easy. This refers to a private property border crossing: waste matter is transported from one person’s holdings to that of another, either directly or indirectly. It is important that we interpret pollution in this manner; otherwise, it can easily be confused with something that superficially resembles it but is actually quite different, namely waste disposal. In the latter case, the byproducts of the processing of goods or services are retained by the firm which created them. It disposes of them without negatively impacting others ’ rights. In this case there is no “ spillover ” effect nor “ externalities ” affecting third parties. The definition we are considering here, then, is a legal definition, not a physical one. As far as chemical analysis is concerned, it is impossible to distinguish pollution from waste disposal. In both cases, the waste material may well consist of identical chemical compounds. The simplest example of pollution using this terminology is when Mr. Jones dumps his garbage on Mr. Smith ’ s front lawn. That would be a case of direct pollution. The indirect version occurs when there is an intermediary between Jones and Smith, such as air or water. Here, Jones first incinerates his refuse, and prevailing winds carry the same material over to Smith, his lawn, and his lungs. Alternatively, Jones could dump this material into a river, negatively impacting Smith who lives downstream and is forced to use the now polluted water for drinking, irrigation, and washing. Non-polluting waste disposal occurs when baseball fans leave the stadium littered with peanut shells and beer cans. There is no “border crossing” in this case, since ticket prices reflect the cleanup costs. The management voluntarily disposes of the detritus. Another example would be hiring a maid to clean one ’ s home. There may be garbage strewn all over the place, but this is not pollution; the maid has agreed to do the cleaning for the owners. What, then, is a private enterprise? This is not a system where government grants special privileges (subsidies, protection from competition) to business concerns. Far from it. On the contrary, free enterprise is a system based firmly on the premise of private property rights. Trespassing and theft are absolutely incompatible with the free market system. The market is the concatenation of all voluntary trades (employment, barter, purchase, rental, sale, etc.) between mutually consenting parties. Under pure and unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism, the only function of government is to protect person and property against physical attack from outsiders. We are now ready to put these two elements together. Pollution, we have seen, is in effect a bombardment, an infringement of one person ’ s rights by another. But the essence of private enterprise is precisely to prevent such goings-on. It can therefore be stated, without fear of contradiction that private enterprise does not lead to pollution. But this way of putting matters is far too understated. Actually, “ market pollution ” is a contradiction in terms. To the extent that there is private enterprise, there cannot be pollution; it is against the law. To the extent that pollution exists, this is prima facie evidence that the legal underpinnings of capitalism have been breached; that the law of trespass is not being upheld; that private property rights are not being defended. Pollution is a trespass or border crossing; the sole function of a free enterprise government is to prevent this (and other) violations of property rights. Therefore, the two are entirely incompatible. Now it is of course true that many countries, in many areas of the world, in many time periods, have been considered to be based on free enterprise principles, and yet suffered from pollution. This only attests to the inaccuracy of language. Let us consider one such example, the United States in the nineteenth century. Up until approximately 1830, the courts had based their decisions in “ nuisance cases ” (we would now call them environmental litigation) on a reasonably close approximation to a free enterprise legal system. If a farmer could show that the railroad engine was spewing forth sparks and setting his haystacks on fire, he could collect damages. If the housekeeper complained that factory fumes were dirtying the clean laundry she hung on her clothesline, she would typically be granted a cease-and-desist order. Injunctions were invariably granted to downstream users victimized by upstream waste dumping. Under these conditions, it was clear that manufacturers had to take into account third-party effects. There were strong incentives to use cleaner burning but more expensive anthracite coal instead of the dirtier but cheaper high sulfur variety; to install smoke prevention devices; to engage in research and development aimed at abating nuisances. There was even an “environmental forensics” industry in the making, dedicated to determining guilt for pollution. And when all else failed, the railroad, the factory owner, and the “upstreamer” could pay their victims to the latter’s satisfaction, thus converting pollution into waste disposal, and “internalizing” the externalities. But in the 1850s and thereafter, a new philosophy began to permeate the legal fraternity. It was determined that the “public good” required economic progress. In the view of an increasing preponderance of judges, this could only be attained by supporting manufacturing. So when the aggrieved victim of pollution next appeared before the bench, they said, in effect, “Our primary goal is to facilitate a rising GNP. In order to do so, we must give carte blanche to polluters. Your selfish private property rights are in the way of the greater good for the greater number, and must be swept aside.” Under this condition, all market-oriented environmental incentives came to an abrupt halt. Previously, environmentally sound acts resulted from both selfishness and benevolence. Now, only the latter could operate, the one that Adam Smith saw as far less reliable. After all, why should the profit-seeking firm use clean fuel, or worry about smoke prevention, when it was not legally responsible for damages? The few businessmen who did so in any case, perhaps on moral grounds, put themselves at a competitive disadvantage; they became more liable to bankruptcy. The resulting environmental crisis was due not to free enterprise, but to its very opposite. Criticisms of capitalist system are unfounded – the environment does best under capitalismDownload 2.09 Mb. Share with your friends:
|