In a libertarian society, I can sue if a factories pollutants make me sick, correct?

[thequietkid10]

Since they violated my property rights and all.

But could companies be required to keep some documentation because it could be much easier to hide something if they could destroy all the documents.

 

[WilliamC]

The easiest thing to do would be to own land adjacent to the property and monitor for pollution there.

As soon as you detect their pollution encroaching on your property you have a legal basis on which to sue them to stop polluting and clean up your property.

 

[noxagol]

Yes. A person used to be able to get an injunction against factories and shut them down because they would produce too much soot and stuff on that person's property. Judges started to stop doing that saying the factories are too important to society to be shut down because some common folk were concerned about dirt. This was around the start of the industrial revolution.

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

Since they violated my property rights and all.

But could companies be required to keep some documentation because it could be much easier to hide something if they could destroy all the documents.

it would be in their best interest to keep as much documentation as possible showing they aren't doing anything wrong. if someone has a strong case against them, the factory's documentation about how it keeps things clean, tries to avoid pollution, etc may be the only way to prove that it wasn't them polluting, but possibly someone else.

 

[Zippyjuan]

You are going to have to prove that their pollution actually harmed you. They will try to claim that any injury could have been caused by something else- your own bad health practices or maybe genetics. (if things are completely free, the act of creating pollution itself will not be illegal).

 

[tod evans]

In a libertarian society, I can sue if a factories pollutants make me sick, correct?
Since they violated my property rights and all.

You can do that now......You just can't sue the government without their permission.

 

[febo]

One idea is you take out insurance. The insurance company then has a natural incentive to work with factories to stay clean and within the law.

 

[TheGrinch]

It may seem counter-intuitive, but in a libertarian society, I'd think you'd need to make it much easier and effective to sue if your land or self is being infringed upon, or polluted in particular. Afterall, if the goal is to ensure protection of life, liberty and property, then we need to make it tougher for those who can afford high-priced lawyers....

Of course, just removing all the loopholes they have in current regulations would be a good start, but I think you necessarily have to make it easier for the common man to have recourse, though in this case I suppose it could actually be done privately, not necessarily through government.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Of course. In our early history these were called nuisance laws. They weren't actually legislative edicts, but common law injunctions and torts. Noxagol is right in his post, and this is why having an entity such as the State creates a moral hazard for monied interests to use it to their advantage as Bastiat would say, legalizing their criminality. This is why I sort of scoff at the notion of the State and Capitalism being compatible when they're mutually exclusive systems.

In any event, to answer your question unequivocally, yes.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The insurance company actually does not have to do anything to help you. The policy is a bet- they are betting that you will pay them more in premiums then they will pay you in benefits. If they are worried that you have a reasonable probablity of getting a payout due to pollution damages, they won't be willing to write you a policy in the first place. If they think the risk is low they won't worry about the polluter (and what could they do in the first place?)

 

[Pericles]

Since they violated my property rights and all.

But could companies be required to keep some documentation because it could be much easier to hide something if they could destroy all the documents.

It depends on what type of libertarian you are.

If you have only a mild case, you can sue based on the actual harm caused to you, which you would expect to have the economic damage done to you to be made good. You would have to show damage and reduced economic value to your property and the cost of any medical expenses cause by the pollution.

If you have a more severe case, you would need to agree with the other entity to enter into an arbitration, to determine if your claim has any merit. If it is a meritorious claim, the arbiter will recommend an award, which either the other party pays, or risks being seen as a bad actor. You may have the option of going to a loser pays court system, or not, depending on the severity of your libertarian infection.

If you have the most rabid form, then when you think that someone has done you harm, you hire the Mr. Guido protection agency, except that it is not really an agency because it is not really an incorporated business, because there is no central agency to grant corporate charters, while another private agency may grant charters, which really isn't an agency at all, unless some other private agency granted the agency the ability to issue charters, but I digress ... The idea being that who sign a contract with someone to enforce your rights, unless the other party fails to perform the contract, in which case you start over. Meanwhile, the other party has retained the services of the Whitefire security entity, which has subcontracted with some mercenaries, to ensure that the factory is not subject to inconvenience in conducting its operations. Now, the Mr. Guido agency and Whitefire, meet to discuss the matter, or decide to fight a proxy war on behalf of their clients, or decide that somebody's money is not worth the risk to their business. If you are not satisfied by the services provided by the Mr. Guido agency, then you can hire Bad Ass Special Forces Inc. (except that they are not a real corporation either) to redress your complaint against the Mr. Guido agency. I seem to have forgotten the original question.

 

[Revolution9]

One idea is you take out insurance. The insurance company then has a natural incentive to work with factories to stay clean and within the law.

Which monolithic insurance company would that be that handles such diverse insurance needs as a home and the factory next to it? And of course they won't balk at under the table payments from the factory owners to forestall their home owning neighbors to the factory from shutting down their money making enterprise. Smells just like gubmnt corruption.



Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

I seem to have forgotten the original question.

That's OK.. they never remember the original premise of why things came to be and how they are.

Rev9

 

[Elwar]

As was stated earlier, as the industrial revolution began to take hold people started suing factories for polluting their air and their properties.

This created a small but growing industry of pollution detectives which would track the source of the pollution on one's property so that they could build up a good enough case to take on the factory.

Then these factories started getting tired of being sued for polluting so they turned to the government. The government stepped in and said "we will protect you from pollution with our regulations". They created an Environmental Protection Agency which would set standards on how much pollution a factory could create and fine them if they were not in compliance with those standards. They could still pollute but only within the legal guidelines, and if they went beyond those guidelines, the government got some money. Needless to say, this created a single location for the corporations' lobbyists to go to and gain favor and thus they were basically legally allowed to pollute from then on.

So thanks to the EPA, it is very difficult to sue a company for polluting and an industry of pollution detectives was squashed early before it could become economically feasible for most people.

 

[FindLiberty]

Why sue if you're already sick?

WARNING: Do not use this for competitive advantage or any other purpose - that would be immoral.
The following imaginary devil's advocate scenario only applies to imaginary pollution damages. ;-)

Hire private (ex military) mercenaries and "take 'em all out"... Try to give the mean smelly ones a fair shot
at the bidding process. Be cautious with proposals from heavily drugged troops just retuning home after BO
closes all foreign bases, they are better suited in TSA, Police and Homeland Security positions. Get at least
three bids, but DON'T SELECT THE LOWEST BIDDER. If RP is elected, there may be better dressed former
FBI and CIA personnel seeking part time wet work! ;D A call to you local Police will also get quick attention,
just tell them what you are planning and they will send help out to you, right away!

After the source of pollution is wiped out (in your imagination), sell confiscated physical corporate assets
and read through their ISO-9000 files ...to gain their knowledge. Sell that tainted IP on Ebay. Transfer all
funds into PayPal and then to an Obamacare medical coverage upgrade that covers the cost of treatment
for that alleged pollution. If you think I'm serious here, be sure to ask about mental health coverage for
yourself!

Might want to check with a lawyer 1st. They might have a better idea how to deal with the issue in the OP.

Here is how it's done:



Watch how they use the corporate intern pawn for the win!

 

[febo]

Which monolithic insurance company would that be that handles such diverse insurance needs as a home and the factory next to it? And of course they won't balk at under the table payments from the factory owners to forestall their home owning neighbors to the factory from shutting down their money making enterprise. Smells just like gubmnt corruption.

Rev9

Take it up with Stefan Molyneaux
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

 

[ProIndividual]

It depends on what type of libertarian you are.

If you have only a mild case, you can sue based on the actual harm caused to you, which you would expect to have the economic damage done to you to be made good. You would have to show damage and reduced economic value to your property and the cost of any medical expenses cause by the pollution.

If you have a more severe case, you would need to agree with the other entity to enter into an arbitration, to determine if your claim has any merit. If it is a meritorious claim, the arbiter will recommend an award, which either the other party pays, or risks being seen as a bad actor. You may have the option of going to a loser pays court system, or not, depending on the severity of your libertarian infection.

If you have the most rabid form, then when you think that someone has done you harm, you hire the Mr. Guido protection agency, except that it is not really an agency because it is not really an incorporated business, because there is no central agency to grant corporate charters, while another private agency may grant charters, which really isn't an agency at all, unless some other private agency granted the agency the ability to issue charters, but I digress ... The idea being that who sign a contract with someone to enforce your rights, unless the other party fails to perform the contract, in which case you start over. Meanwhile, the other party has retained the services of the Whitefire security entity, which has subcontracted with some mercenaries, to ensure that the factory is not subject to inconvenience in conducting its operations. Now, the Mr. Guido agency and Whitefire, meet to discuss the matter, or decide to fight a proxy war on behalf of their clients, or decide that somebody's money is not worth the risk to their business. If you are not satisfied by the services provided by the Mr. Guido agency, then you can hire Bad Ass Special Forces Inc. (except that they are not a real corporation either) to redress your complaint against the Mr. Guido agency. I seem to have forgotten the original question.

In actuality the arbitration between you and anyone in your area is already established from the moment you sign the contract...in your most extreme example.

Company A and Company B already have an established third party arbitar when they cannot come to an agreement. Because this costs money (not as much as war though), it's advantageous to come to an agreement without that arbitar. So, when you sign up with Company A you already know they have set agreements with Company B,,,it's all disclosed in your agreement. When your property is polluted by Company B's client, Dirty Business Manufacturing, no one needs to sue anyone per se. You are paid out by your Company A in an insurance payment. You're part in this is now finished completely. You have no further part in the dispute resolution AT ALL. You are paid. It's now up to Company A to review why their preventative measures in keeping risk minimal to you failed and fix them so they don't lose more money to others. They must also try to negotiate with Company B for their losses since they represent DBM, the offender. If they come to anagreement, B pays A what is owed plus something for the trouble (if not, they go to their pre-arranged contractual third party arbitar for final say in the case). With or w/o third party arbitration, B then raises DBM's rates and reports their dealings publically so other insurers won't give them too low of a competing rate to allow an easy out for them. B will get their money and correct the behavior of DBM, or DBM will go out of business and (here is where corporate personhood not existing is important) those responsible will have their shared profits clawed back (even if they must sell their little mansions) to pay for the harm they recklessly caused to others. If DBM stays in business, it will be because they have corrected their behavior and paid the higher premiums until they have paid back the losses B suffered, and have shown they can be trusted with their new better behaviors.

There is no Guido. There is no proxy war. There is no reason to make it sound so bad because you do not understand/agree with it. If you were joking, I apologize...but it came across like you were being ridiculous in a sarcastic attempt to criticize an easily workable free market system of justice.

Sorry to interrupt the statist circle jerk of back-patting.

 

[fisharmor]

That's OK.. they never remember the original premise of why things came to be and how they are.

A premise is a proposition.
I am always mindful of the undeniable fact that things got to be the way they are because some people decided they were in total control, and did unpleasant and evil things to the population, and promised more unpleasant and evil things to them if they didn't go along with it.
And the evil they do to their subjects is nothing compared to the evil they do to other people's subjects... and neither compares to what they do to those who reject the idea that anyone ought to be in total control.

 

[LibertasPraesidium]

From my understanding it seems that if we lived in a libertarian society pollution on a privately owned piece of land would be provable without significant costs. (proving that you have been harmed by that pollution is something different) but you could sue for the pollution being on your land at all. However, in the libertarian society you would have the ability to go speak with and make an agreement with the company. They would pay for regular testing as long as it was within levels you agreed with. Now that is just your property, they would also have to make that deal with all of your neighbors as well. This I am assuming is how insurance and government got involved. The company makes a deal with your government and you cannot sue if the tests are below certain levels. (its the same thing but taken out of the hands of the private land owner. River pollution would be the same. Now say you have a house near an industrial area and the business wants to pay you to have higher levels of pollution (still not necessarily harmful) but say they offer to pay medical as well. Would you go through with it? Some people would and that would benefit the business due to the ability to control where the pollution comes out at.

All the while other areas make agreements with industrial facilities and the pollution is reduced with few problems. Interactions between individuals will generally mutually benefit both parties if there is no fraud involved. Fraud is illegal. Contracts can be sound and upheld (if the loop holes for power plays by businesses are closed) And the people that you offend for whatever reason take their complaints to you instead of your government.

 

[LibForestPaul]

You are going to have to prove that their pollution actually harmed you. They will try to claim that any injury could have been caused by something else- your own bad health practices or maybe genetics. (if things are completely free, the act of creating pollution itself will not be illegal).

You are going to have to prove, to a jury of your peers that your evidence showing their pollution actually harmed you is more convincing than their evidence refuting your claims and facts. Civil court is only a preponderance of evidence.