Assume, that we live in an anarcho-capitalist society and assume that I own a sufficiently large plot of land to build an atomic plant. Even if I am a responsible businessman and take all possible precautions, the risk of a meltdown cannot be eliminated completely. Should this unfortunate event happen, then indeed I would be held liable for all damages and loss of life caused. Does building of such a high-risk device constitute an agression against properties of my neighbors? Or more generally, is threat (or external risk condition) considered an agression? If yes, then how would hypotetical libertarian society deal with prevention or punishment of such actions?
I don’t see why it would be aggression. A person could easily kill someone else with a car as well. Should the ownership of or the manufacture of a car be outlawed? What about steak knives?
i don’t think cars are good analogy, when you enter a private highway, you express your consent with the rules of the road and as such accept the risk of being injured by other drivers. Nor manufacture of cars or knives for that matter. I did not question the right of owners to build a dangerous device, rather than their right to use it (within the boundaries of their property) in a way that constitutes risk to other people’s property without their consent.
Is the plant not being built to offer consumers a cheaper form of energy? I can’t imagine it even attracting investors or getting started without without first bringing in private safety organizations to establish the reliability of it.
the owner could be a wealthy Paris Hilton descendant with no shareholders and can export the energy to distant regions, where customer would not care about how the plants is run (as long as they get the product)
They are, but simply building a power plant is not a threat. A threat would be if the builder told everyone he was going to build it to cause a meltdown. Just doing something that could possibly cause an accident is not a threat.
Right its not a threat in the same way but if the plant owner is building the plant intentionally (and he is), he is intentionally putting others in harms way even if it is not his main purpose.
I mean we don’t support carpet bombing right? Because even though the targets are bad guys, 90%+ of people who die in carpet bombings are innocent. Its not the intention that counts its what actually happens.
And there is a chance that if I drive around in my golf cart, that I might crash it into my neighbor’s garden.
But , nevertheless, that is your assumption.
The owner of the car manufacturing plant could be a wealthy Paris Hilton descendant with no shareholders and can export the cars to distant regions, where customer would not care about how the cars are driven (as long as they get the cars).
not that they could not be offered a premium for not being too nosy, but i think we should return to the original question. Can one consider an introduction of permanent threat (whatever small) against his property as an agression
I think the power plant example differs from this because you could actually pay reparations for any golf cart accidents… but if someone died or there were a ton of nuclear fallout, restitution would be difficult if not impossible.
I’m not taking the statist position on this, I just don’t think that we can discount the interests of people and property that might be placed in irreparable danger.
i wouldn’t be able to sell this to my statist friends, as I am pretty sure I’d be asked on how the free market and private law would solve this real life situation. I can’t reply that oh, come on, who would build that thing next to your house?
Even if their conclusion is that we need to initiate force against power plant builders to stop them from building plants recklessly, we don’t need a monopolist aggressor to do that.