So, as the title says, I am about to debate George Klosko, professor of political theory at University of Virginia. He is a great guy. He is a smart guy. But, alas, he is wrong.
The topic is a tired one: Are states necessary? But, Klosko brings a rhetorically fresh, if not philosophically original, take on the question. He is also much more humble when it comes to answering this question; he does not believe he can provide a total knockout case for the state, just a good one after a preponderance of the evidence.
The main text to be debated is located in his book Political Obligations: Chapter Two - Bringing the State Back In.
You can find the full text of the chapter here at my 4 shared account (thanks to John James)
But before you read, here is my question: can any of you either answer or provide materials that can answer the following question:
I know this question (or one similar to it) will get brought up. Should someone pollute the water supply/the air/ etc. and this pollution moves onto your property/the air you breathe, how will you figure out who the pollution/contamination came from/How will you prosecute the polluter.
Now, I know one defense is to point out the Nirvana fallacy in the belief that somehow the state has figured out how to do this either. But is there a more substantive answer than “you cant do it, so I don’t have to provide a better solution.”
It’s essentially a knockout case. It shows that private environmental lawsuits were the Modus Operandi in the early 19th century, but the government decided to further the “common good” by enabling polluters to be shielded from such lawsuits.
There is also that big tract by Rothbard, which JJ likely linked above.
I think the biggest case is the fact their are direct victims when someone pollutes without a state. If we look at history some of the most heavily polluted areas are public/government owned property. Without a state all property will be owned by individuals who have incredible incentive to stop/figure out who is doing the the pollution/contamination of their property. The state doesnt have any incentive outside of stopping the nuisance of a few complaints.
I haven’t read enough to be able to discuss CO2 pollution (as there are no immediate and easily-measurable effects), but it seems like CO2 pollution is coupled with other, visible pollution, so ending the co-occurring pollution would end CO2 emissions.
im booing the notion that CO2 is pollution. Everyone should know that CO2 isnt a pollution. Its part of our life blood! Animals breathe it out and plants ‘breathe’ it in. Calling carbon dioxide a pollution is like calling water a pollutant. That terminology is just environmentalist propaganda.
Personally I dont believe that nonsense, but like you im not an expert though i have read significant amount on it some years ago. (Dont want to hijack the thread so thats all i’ll say)
Not sure what that means. Looking at the guys cv he’s pretty legit. By my count he has half a dozen Oxford Press books, four APSR’s (the top journal in political science and phenominal for a theorist) and plenty of publications in top subfield journals.
I hope this is a joke of some kind. If it is, good one. if not, who gives a shit?
As for Klosko, he is legit. I respect him for his humility (at least in rhetoric) and his down to Earth nature. I do not attend UVA, nor do I live in virginia.
I don’t know if this will help you, but Roderick Long has a speech/essay called Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections. It’s worth the read even if it’s not directly helpful. Maybe it will give you some ideas.