Anarcho-capitalist: Newbie needs a question answered.

Miscellaneous Newbies
,
1

Hi,

I am kinda news to anarchism. I was wondering if there is anyone here who could give me a good text book answer to the following question.

Corporations would be responsible for disposing of toxic waste dumped on their private property in an anarchistic society. However who would be responsible for clearing up toxic waste dumped in the sea? or would that be free dumping ground?

This is genuine question and I am genuinly interested in this subject and would like to expand my knowledge.

All replies more than welcome.

2

They would either

  1. Control that portion of the sea, and so have an interest in using it for its most economical purpose

or

  1. Negotiate with the person who controls the water, to dump there.

Dr. Walter Block wrote a book while he was at the Fraser Institute that covered this sort of thing, but the title of the book eludes me.

I can point you to some related YT videos though.

3

In an ideal world all property would be owned so they’d have to pay to dump, or own and dump only in their area without affecting other’s properties. In the sea that would be difficult of course, so they’d likely have to pay or find another way to deal with their waste by placing it elsewhere that’s more economical or treating it so it doesn’t affect other people’s property. If you want to claim damages from some use of your property not previously agreed to it would be up to you to prove damages.

Now in the real world it’s possible some property would go unused/unowned. In which case nothing would be done until a problem developed that did affect other people/property. Or some interested party would take an interest, try to stake a claim of property in the affected area/resource and make a case for damages. Lots of people have a problem with this because they are going from the idea that things have intrinsic value or value in themselves, that is value other than what a person assigns to it. I don’t know how you feel about that argument, but my response is always along the lines of making them realize, through questioning, that their intrinsic value is really a specific subjective value they have assigned to these things without realizing it. That is the forrest doesn’t have value in and of itself, you want it there specifically because you like hiking, think the animals are cool/cute, and want your kids to be able to see a wild place. Which is all find and dandy. At which point the argument of You want it, you pay for it, goes over better.

4

Perhaps the sea could be considered owned in partnership by all mankind, so anyone could claim damages and force the oil company to clean up.

5

That’s common ownership. It is the same as no ownership. If everyone owns the water, then anyone can pollute the water.