Pollution and Environmental Regulation

Question: Would an Objectivist be in favor of uniform environmental regulations enforced by law as a compromise between profitability and environmental protections, at least for those resources which nobody owns? Is there any coherent alternative?

Answer: The only laws and regulations that are justifiable under a system of laissez-faire capitalism are those that protect individual rights. The goal is to maximize the freedom of each individual to act as he wants, without harming anyone else.

Environmental laws as they exist today usually do not protect individual rights, but there can still be reason behind the existence of some of them. If the pollution caused by an individual or corporation physically harms the health of others, then it comprises a violation of the victims' rights. In such a case, if there is evidence to show that pollution above a certain level leads to an established danger level, then the government could legitimately impose restrictions. These laws are only justified when aimed at protecting individual rights. Their motivation should not be reaching a compromise between profitability and the environment. The specifics would be tricky to work out, and would probably lead to some amount of litigation in areas (or cases) in which laws cannot be applied.

In a rational society, it is also well possible that legal recourse would not always be necessary. Individual initiative would often be enough to take care of environmental problems. Rational individuals would realize in due course that pollution is not in their self-interest, and an awareness campaign backed by scientific evidence (rather than politics) could make a difference. It is very rare that no one could make a difference, even with un-owned resources like air and water. It is true that some people would end up making more of an effort than others and they would take more responsibility, but in the end, rational people only act in their own self-interest.

Another alternative could be the institution of property rights, so that there exist no resources that are not owned. This is more feasible for a lake than for a common natural resource like air. It is conceivable that the lake could be owned by an individual or corporation, by some means such as auction, and the owners could then be responsible for their property.

spiderID=964

‍