CDR: Re: Insurance (was: why should it be trusted?) cpunk

[Trei, Peter]

Anonymous wrote:
> > > I believe that the standard argument is "Eliminate the commons." (by
> > > auctioning off to the highest bidder perhaps)
> > >
> >
> > So who gets the bid on the environment ? There are some commons 
> > that can not be eliminated so easily.
> 
> Generally, this would be water and air. If someone pollutes the air 
> over their land, that's ok. As soon as the pollution crosses into 
> your land, you sue for damages. People are concerned about the 
> long term value of their property, so they will have a disincentive
> to pollute. 
> 
[...]

While by default I hold libertarian positions, doing so sometimes
requires uncomfortable contortions.

Who, for example, should the inhabitants of Tuvalu sue for rising
sea levels? Neighbouring territories for failing to prevent excess
seawater from crossing their mid-ocean border? Arctic nations 
for sloppy handling of the runoff from their melting icecaps? The 
rest of the human race for burning too much stuff? Me for driving a 
Suburban?

Sometimes ownership is so distant and diluted that
individual responsibility is impossible to establish, yet the
problems are real, and significant.

[This is just an example, ok? Lets NOT fork into a debate over
the reality (or lack thereof) of global warming.]

Peter Trei