pull down to refresh

The moral philosopher and anarchist Stefan Molyneux writes about this specific problem in his book Everyday Anarchy. I've asked his AI engine to summarise his position, here's the output:
In a free society, the approach to dealing with environmental pollution would be rooted in the principles of property rights and voluntary exchange. Pollution can be seen as a violation of property rights, where one party's actions negatively impact another's property without consent. In such a society, there would be a strong legal framework that allows for the protection of property rights, including recourse for those harmed by pollution.
For instance, if a factory pollutes a river and the pollution negatively affects the property or health of individuals downstream, those individuals would have the right to seek damages and restitution through a court system that respects and enforces property rights. This would create a financial disincentive for polluters, as they would be held accountable for the costs of their actions.
Moreover, a free society would likely encourage the development of private solutions to environmental challenges. Entrepreneurs and businesses would have the incentive to innovate and create products or services that reduce pollution, as there would be a market demand for cleaner alternatives. This could include technological advancements that minimize emissions or more efficient waste management systems.
In addition, voluntary associations and non-profit organizations could play a role in monitoring environmental conditions and advocating for responsible practices. These organizations could be supported by individuals who are concerned about the environment and wish to contribute to its preservation.
Overall, the key to addressing environmental pollution in a free society is to ensure that property rights are upheld and that the costs of pollution are internalized by those who cause it, rather than externalized onto society or the environment.
In an ideal world I would agree 💯, but in the real world things don't work like that. The incentives just don't line up
But I think we can at least agree we should be moving towards a better world in this respect
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @398ja 28 Jan
No, neither in an ideal world (doesn't exist) nor in the real world, but in a free society, i.e. a society free of the coercive State.
reply
It wouldn't be free of other, and likely worse, monopolies on violence.
I've been to too many places without effective government to have any trust in what you call a "free society" to be able to exist for any significant length of time without being corrupted. It only works if everyone behaves, but not everyone does (fact), hence you require violence (or at least the threat thereof) and because of the extremely strong network effect of violence you're back at square one: a monopoly on violence. It's the reason this "free society" does not exist and never has existed.
Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely want to live in such a free society, I just think there's a zero percent chance of it happening, at least with humans 😅
reply