Libertarians and property rights vs environmental laws

[AKR]

Ok, I've asked this in other threads and I have not received an answer. Maybe if I make my own thread, people will be more likely to notice the question. What exactly do you think is accomplished by abolishing the EPA and other environmental agencies, along with all of the laws and using property rights instead? For those that claim this will allow equal or great protection of the environment, what is the purpose of transferring these duties to those that handle property issues? I really don't see how this makes smaller government, makes anything more efficient, or does anything to improve life in any way. Please explain, because I don't think this has actually been thought out.

[Resonator]

I'm pretty sure removing a government agency reduces government.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by Resonator

I'm pretty sure removing a government agency reduces government.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't when you simply transfer all of those punishments/cases over to the branch that handles property rights issues. If it is really going to allow for the same level of protection, that means the same level of enforcement, simply under a different branch. Will people stop filing civil suits against companies for being poisoned on their land? Will they stop filing suits against companies that poison animals on their land? If so, then this does not mean equal protection. You're simply removing an agency by name and expanding another one to fill in for what that other did. Fail.

[KiloNewton]

With regard to the environment it will be protected to the extent that property is protected. e.g. If you dump heavy metals in the stream that runs through my land this violates my property rights.

Smaller government is more efficient because the free market will automatically allocate resources to where they are most wanted as opposed to goverment intervention where the government allocates resources based on what they think is mot wanted, or sometimes they will allocate resources based on what they think is good for people even if they don't want it, as is sometimes the case with environmental laws.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by KiloNewton

With regard to the environment it will be protected to the extent that property is protected. e.g. If you dump heavy metals in the stream that runs through my land this violates my property rights.

Smaller government is more efficient because the free market will automatically allocate resources to where they are most wanted as opposed to goverment intervention where the government allocates resources based on what they think is mot wanted, or sometimes they will allocate resources based on what they think is good for people even if they don't want it, as is sometimes the case with environmental laws.

Again, how is the government smaller when, if the environment is being protected to the same extent under property rights, it's doing just as much work? Did you read what I said? You simply transfer the power to another agency which is going to be just as busy punishing companies and individuals who do damage to the environment. Either their is smaller government because less is being done to protect the environment, in which case, the argument fails for equal/greater protection, or the size of government is just as large or larger because it is actually doing work to protect it.

[Resonator]

Originally Posted by AKR

I'm pretty sure it doesn't when you simply transfer all of those punishments/cases over to the branch that handles property rights issues. If it is really going to allow for the same level of protection, that means the same level of enforcement, simply under a different branch. Will people stop filing civil suits against companies for being poisoned on their land? Will they stop filing suits against companies that poison animals on their land? If so, then this does not mean equal protection. You're simply removing an agency by name and expanding another one to fill in for what that other did.

Depends on how you look at it.

In the sense that there would be less regulations which you would have to abide by, yes, there would be less government.

As for spending, it depends. You would have to factor in how much it costs to enforce the regulations, as well as the money put into research vs the costs of increased flow into the court system. I don't know which would be more costly.

As for efficiency, you would probably have the same regulatory effect as the government banning things (for certain pollutants), since you couldn't use them without violating someone else's property rights. However, you might figure out a way to use said banned item while also containing it. If there's only so much a company can do without violating someone else's property rights, obviously there would be a demand for products that can be used without contaminating someone else's property and more money would be pumped into research cleaner methods.

Fail.

Why do I have a feeling that this thread isn't so much you wanting to gather information as it is you looking for a quick ego boost?

[KiloNewton]

Take the current example in my city, Brisbane. There is a quarry in Brisbane which is at the end of it's proffitable life. By law the land must be reclaimed. For signifiacantly less than the cost of the reclamation the quarry could be turned into a course for water sports, something which there is a demand for.

Reclamation is demanded by environmental protection legislation, but in this case reclamation is neither necesary, desirable, or cost effective.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by Resonator

Depends on how you look at it.

In the sense that there would be less regulations which you would have to abide by, yes, there would be less government.

How can there be less regulations while offering the same protection? If there is not equal punishment for doing the same things, then that is not equal protection.

As for spending, it depends. You would have to factor in how much it costs to enforce the regulations, as well as the money put into research vs the costs of increased flow into the court system. I don't know which would be more costly.

In other words, you haven't really thought it out. You don't even know which is going to cost the tax payers more money, and isn't that a big part of the argument and libertarian philosophy - smaller government/less taxes/

As for efficiency, you would probably have the same regulatory effect as the government banning things (for certain pollutants), since you couldn't use them without violating someone else's property rights.

Exactly. So far, no greater efficiency and no cost savings.

However, you might figure out a way to use said banned item while also containing it.

Yeah, and the EPA might find secret UFO technology to make oil extraction unnecessary. Let's deal with reality instead of building an argument upon non-existent technology that is irrelevant to the currents state of things.

If there's only so much a company can do without violating someone else's property rights, obviously there would be a demand for products that can be used without contaminating someone else's property and more money would be pumped into research cleaner methods.

Not sure how that is any different of a situation than now, since there is only so much companies can do without violating EPA standards. What's the difference?

Originally Posted by KiloNewton

Take the current example in my city, Brisbane. There is a quarry in Brisbane which is at the end of it's proffitable life. By law the land must be reclaimed. For signifiacantly less than the cost of the reclamation the quarry could be turned into a course for water sports, something which there is a demand for.

Reclamation is demanded by environmental protection legislation, but in this case reclamation is neither necesary, desirable, or cost effective.

I don't know what this "reclaimation" process entails, so I really can't speak on that. You'll have to explain this process in order for me to understand what you're arguing.

[KiloNewton]

Reclamation is a process enforced by regulation (your EPA enforces this as well) by which any mines or quarries once ceasing operation have to return the land to the condition that they found it in, in other words they have to fill in the hole, plant vegitation and clean up any polluton.

[leafs43]

EPA protects polluters as much as they prosecute polluters.

False faith in government is false faith.

Quite ironic based on who the creator of the thread is.

[Resonator]

Originally Posted by AKR

How can there be less regulations while offering the same protection? If there is not equal punishment for doing the same things, then that is not equal protection.

It's not regulated in the sense that you can use it, but you have to be careful as to not contaminate someon else's property.

What does equal punishment have to do with it?

In other words, you haven't really thought it out. You don't even know which is going to cost the tax payers more money, and isn't that a big part of the argument and libertarian philosophy - smaller government/less taxes/

I've said before I wasn't well versed in property rights. I'm still trying to figure out how it all works. There are still some holes such as air pollution. I don't fully support property rights. I support it in terms of you should have the ability to sue if someone damages your property, but I don't know if it is able to fully to replace environmental regulations.

Exactly. So far, no greater efficiency and no cost savings.

You can't say that. You don't know which system is more cost saving.

Yeah, and the EPA might find secret UFO technology to make oil extraction unnecessary. Let's deal with reality instead of building an argument upon non-existent technology that is irrelevant to the currents state of things.

Apparently, you didn't understand what I said.

What incentive do corporations have on attempting to design a containment system if the thing they would have to contain is already banned?

They would now have a reason to look into it.

Whether or not the method to contain a pollutant is currently known is completely irrelevant.

If it isn't possible after looking into it, then it isn't used. If it is possible then they now have a way to use it. Your reality comment is ridiculous.

Not sure how that is any different of a situation than now, since there is only so much companies can do without violating EPA standards. What's the difference?

In terms of regulations, if it's as effective as the EPA then it shouldn't be very much different in terms of chemicals/processes used, unless a method of containment is used. I think the whole idea is that property rights can do what the EPA can do. If the EPA is more efficient at protecting the environment than property rights, then it is fine by me. Take, for example, DDT. If a company used it how could you prove that they were the reason it contaminated your property?

EDIT: You negged me telling me to stay on topic. How was I off topic?

[yoj]

I've said this before, but I think one of the problems with the libertarian movement is the complete failure to accept any sort of moderation and the strict adherence to the free market/individual freedom dogma. I think most people, given the chance, would agree with me in that individual freedoms, personal responsibility, and free market principles are a good foundation for political policies. But occasionally there can be some truly good policy that comes from another end of the spectrum, and the results are what matters most. I feel that this would be the case for environmental laws, they just won't be protected in a free market. Anyone who thinks environmental laws are for hippies can go live in china:



I would consider myself a moderate libertarian because I realize the importance of things like socialized healthcare, environmental regulations, and so on. The free market is great if you only view things in terms of dollars, but sometimes there are other things to take into account and these require some exceptions from the free-market is god mantra. Lots of people would say that I can't be a libertarian at all if I support UHC, but I am coming from the paradigm of Canadian politics. To me it falls into the same category as fire/police/roads as essential service, not this whole "guvment taking our freedom!" stuff.

[yoj]

Originally Posted by Resonator

It's not regulated in the sense that you can use it, but you have to be careful as to not contaminate someon else's property.

How can you stop air pollution, groundwater pollution (since every industry will be dumping waste onto "their property" with reckless abandon), ozone degradation by CFCs (believe it or not that IS real), etc? The front lawn is a very tiny factor when it comes to pollution.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by KiloNewton

Reclamation is a process enforced by regulation (your EPA enforces this as well) by which any mines or quarries once ceasing operation have to return the land to the condition that they found it in, in other words they have to fill in the hole, plant vegitation and clean up any polluton.

So, rather than making the company which polluted the land fix it...allow another company to come in, buy the land from the mining company and leave the mining company with no reason to limit pollution because they won't have to fix it? And then what, the place doesn't return to it's natural, but instead is over ran by noisy jet skis and boats? What if the new owner wants to allow dumping of old engine oil and computer parts filled with lead? What's stopping him if there is no protection of the environment directly, only protection of the person's right to that property?

I don't see how this is equal protection for the environment.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by leafs43

EPA protects polluters as much as they prosecute polluters.

False faith in government is false faith.

Quite ironic based on who the creator of the thread is.

Proof? You did nothing to further the libertarian stance.

Originally Posted by yoj

How can you stop air pollution, groundwater pollution (since every industry will be dumping waste onto "their property" with reckless abandon), ozone degradation by CFCs (believe it or not that IS real), etc? The front lawn is a very tiny factor when it comes to pollution.

Exactly. Everyone ignores the fact that you can't simple divide up water systems like oceans and skies and such.

Originally Posted by Resonator

It's not regulated in the sense that you can use it, but you have to be careful as to not contaminate someon else's property.

So that means there really isn't equal protection of the environment, which is what libertarians have tried to argue. They try to convince us that the environment is important to them and will not suffer under there plan, but this is obviously not true.

What does equal punishment have to do with it?

If you're not punishing a company or individual just as much as you would under the EPA and other agencies, then what is keeping them from polluting?

I've said before I wasn't well versed in property rights. I'm still trying to figure out how it all works. There are still some holes such as air pollution. I don't fully support property rights. I support it in terms of you should have the ability to sue if someone damages your property, but I don't know if it is able to fully to replace environmental regulations.

Then you're not qualified to answer my questions or even relevant to the thread. This thread is for people claiming that the environment will still be protected just as much under their plan.

You can't say that. You don't know which system is more cost saving.

How's this: So far, no signs of greater efficiency and cost savings as proclaimed by you and others.

Apparently, you didn't understand what I said.

What incentive do corporations have on attempting to design a containment system if the thing they would have to contain is already banned?

They would now have a reason to look into it.

Uh, no, that makes no sense. If something is banned because it damages the environment, they would have just as much incentive now to come up with the technology to contain it, or better yet, not need those chemicals at all, since they are banned. When something is banned or regulated, companies find a way to advance technology. This is a fact. Regular fuel efficiency and technology advances. Look at the difference in vehicles in Europe verses the ones here. Some of them are basically the same size, and yet, are more efficient. Look at the technology in certain countries. Advanced technology related to renewable resources. This is irrelevant to whether it is banned under the laws directly related to environmental protection or property rights. A ban is a ban. If they can't use it because it will destroy property and they can't use it because it destroys the environment, either way, it's banned unless they come up with better technology.

Whether or not the method to contain a pollutant is currently known is completely irrelevant

If it isn't possible after looking into it, then it isn't used. If it is possible then they now have a way to use it. Your reality comment is ridiculous.

No, it's not, because you're betting the efficiency of these laws on technology that does not currently exist. It's like the population issue: "Let's just not worry about it because maybe someone will pop out a kid that discovers free energy and a way to replicate other resources." It's ignoring a problem and saying it'll be ok based on something that you have no idea will actually happen.

In terms of regulations, if it's as effective as the EPA then it shouldn't be very much different in terms of chemicals/processes used, unless a method of containment is used. I think the whole idea is that property rights can do what the EPA can do. If the EPA is more efficient at protecting the environment than property rights, then it is fine by me. Take, for example, DDT. If a company used it how could you prove that they were the reason it contaminated your property?

The whole idea is that they can do what the EPA can do but no one has explained how they will do it with a smaller agency/less money/more or equally efficiently. I'm not sure how your question about DDT is relevant to this argument.

EDIT: You negged me telling me to stay on topic. How was I off topic?

Irrelevant flame at the end of your last post. I don't know why it's so hard for people to just debate and stay on topic.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by yoj

I've said this before, but I think one of the problems with the libertarian movement is the complete failure to accept any sort of moderation and the strict adherence to the free market/individual freedom dogma. I think most people, given the chance, would agree with me in that individual freedoms, personal responsibility, and free market principles are a good foundation for political policies. But occasionally there can be some truly good policy that comes from another end of the spectrum, and the results are what matters most. I feel that this would be the case for environmental laws, they just won't be protected in a free market. Anyone who thinks environmental laws are for hippies can go live in china:



I would consider myself a moderate libertarian because I realize the importance of things like socialized healthcare, environmental regulations, and so on. The free market is great if you only view things in terms of dollars, but sometimes there are other things to take into account and these require some exceptions from the free-market is god mantra. Lots of people would say that I can't be a libertarian at all if I support UHC, but I am coming from the paradigm of Canadian politics. To me it falls into the same category as fire/police/roads as essential service, not this whole "guvment taking our freedom!" stuff.

Thanks for that. Nice to see not all libertarians are pushing this poorly thought-out and often deceitful stance.

[neuralshock]

Originally Posted by AKR

Thanks for that. Nice to see not all libertarians are pushing this poorly thought-out and often deceitful stance.

What's your solution to Coercive Government ever expanding it's powers?

[AKR]

Originally Posted by neuralshock

What's your solution to Coercive Government ever expanding it's powers?

Irrelevant. Start a new thread. This thread is for libertarians to defend and explain their stance.

[drjjg]

OP is on the win







I consider myself quite libertarian, but know precisely what you are saying. That is why regulation isnt inherently bad.

Even under the libertarian ideal, policing is left to the courts(STILL THE GOVT), so what would be the difference?
The only 'real' alternative would be anarchy. I don't think humans can pull that off, any more then they can pull off a communist society.

[GirthyCawk]

I made the same thread a while back, I'll see if I can find it.

[GirthyCawk]

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...t=libertarians

See post number 6.

The basic argument is: you're free to do whatever you want on your property, as long is doesn't damage anyone else, their property, or the use of their property. Once it does, they are entitled to compensation.

With any kind of pollution, the problem is that it spreads to other people's property (ie via the atmosphere, bodies of water, runoff, etc.), so virtually any detectable pollution will at some point be grounds for legal action. Pollution has to be disposed of in some way other than releasing it into the environment.


Two problems I see:

Technically, if someone managed to acquire a large piece of property (ie a chunk of Yellowstone), they could destroy it if they wanted to, and many probably would if it were economically sound. I haven't seen an argument against that.

Actually, the main problem I see with the theoretical libertarian view is that it seems to be so strict that it would bring industrial civilization to a grinding halt (doesn't bother me, but I doubt the average citizen would be down for that).

[AKR]

Originally Posted by drjjg

OP is on the win

I consider myself quite libertarian, but know precisely what you are saying. That is why regulation isnt inherently bad.

Even under the libertarian ideal, policing is left to the courts(STILL THE GOVT), so what would be the difference?
The only 'real' alternative would be anarchy. I don't think humans can pull that off, any more then they can pull off a communist society.

Libertarianism almost seems like anarchy when preached by some people. They seem to be against any government regulation of anything harmful to the public. Like, they think people simply boycotting companies will keep them from secretly poisoning us with harmful products. It really seems like a bunch of objectivist, corporate lobbyists who just want companies to be able to run rampant.

Originally Posted by GirthyCawk

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...t=libertarians

See post number 6.

The basic argument is: you're free to do whatever you want on your property, as long is doesn't damage anyone else, their property, or the use of their property. Once it does, they are entitled to compensation.

With any kind of pollution, the problem is that it spreads to other people's property (ie via the atmosphere, bodies of water, runoff, etc.), so virtually any detectable pollution will at some point be grounds for legal action. Pollution has to be disposed of in some way other than releasing it into the environment.


Two problems I see:

Technically, if someone managed to acquire a large piece of property (ie a chunk of Yellowstone), they could destroy it if they wanted to, and many probably would if it were economically sound. I haven't seen an argument against that.

Actually, the main problem I see with the theoretical libertarian view is that it seems to be so strict that it would bring industrial civilization to a grinding halt (doesn't bother me, but I doubt the average citizen would be down for that).

Thanks for showing me that. wow, that thread really never went anywhere, just like this one. No actual plans. I'm really unconvinced that the people promoting these ideas actually care about the environment when there are such gaping holes in their philosophy.

[IraHays]

For some reasons many libertarians don't realize that corporations are not the same as individual people. The reason the EPA is around is because it's needed. I would love for everyone to be like John Gault/Hank Reardon, but it's just not reality.

The EPA itself is a corrupt organization, but that's besides the point, it doesn't means it's not needed.

It's 2009, how come I can't go swimming in the MIssissippi river without risking my life???

[AKR]

lol, 1 star thread. Yup, this thread has utterly failed to get any kind of real plan and defense from libertarians.



Edit: someone just had to make it a two star thread after I posted this.

[KiloNewton]

Originally Posted by AKR

So, rather than making the company which polluted the land fix it...allow another company to come in, buy the land from the mining company and leave the mining company with no reason to limit pollution because they won't have to fix it?

If you pollute the land you won't be able to sell it.

And then what, the place doesn't return to it's natural, but instead is over ran by noisy jet skis and boats?

The type of course there is a demand for is a rowing/kayaking course. These boats are not noisy. Like any lake it could be used for jet ski's but I don't see why a jet ski enthusiast would hire a lake when they could use the brisbane river for free. At any rate the noise pollution cause by a jet ski on a 2km lake wouldn't bother anyone.

What if the new owner wants to allow dumping of old engine oil and computer parts filled with lead? What's stopping him if there is no protection of the environment directly, only protection of the person's right to that property?

Protection of property protects your right to use that property, but it also protects my property from you. If you want to poison your lake with lead and then hire it out as a sports venue you are going to pay me a lot of money when I sue you.

I don't see how this is equal protection for the environment.

You asked why less restrictive government was more efficient and I provided a real life example. Whether this quarry reclaims the land or turns it into a lake is the net environmental impact any different? I highly doubt it. In fact once the land is reclaimed it would most likely be sold off for development anyway.

Because of environmental protection this quarry has to be reclaimed. It is cheeper to turn it into a lake, and there is a demand for such a venue (I believe the demand is to the turn of hundred of thousands per year, not to mention the fact that it would provide a venue for world championship events).

This is a real life example in which environmental regulations are inefficient.
You can keep arguing if you like...

[Stizzel]

Originally Posted by AKR

I'm pretty sure it doesn't when you simply transfer all of those punishments/cases over to the branch that handles property rights issues. If it is really going to allow for the same level of protection, that means the same level of enforcement, simply under a different branch. Will people stop filing civil suits against companies for being poisoned on their land? Will they stop filing suits against companies that poison animals on their land? If so, then this does not mean equal protection. You're simply removing an agency by name and expanding another one to fill in for what that other did. Fail.

Current environmental laws are abused constantly. If its changed to property rights, the judicial branch is only involved when there's an actual violation rather than when bureaucrats decide environmental laws can be used to push an agenda. Thus government is reduced.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by KiloNewton

If you pollute the land you won't be able to sell it.

Doesn't seem to matter for lots of different companies. The value of the land to them means nothing compared to the profit based on polluting practices.

The type of course there is a demand for is a rowing/kayaking course. These boats are not noisy. Like any lake it could be used for jet ski's but I don't see why a jet ski enthusiast would hire a lake when they could use the brisbane river for free. At any rate the noise pollution cause by a jet ski on a 2km lake wouldn't bother anyone.

Tell that to the animals in the area. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea to make this a lake for activities, but it doesn't do anything to stop people from polluting in the first place and doesn't change the fact that if they don't want to sell the land, they are free to destroy it and everything on it.

Protection of property protects your right to use that property, but it also protects my property from you. If you want to poison your lake with lead and then hire it out as a sports venue you are going to pay me a lot of money when I sue you.

And if you want to poison a lake and then abandon it because the price of doing something else with that pollution or not creating it at all costs much more than the price you can get for the land in good condition, you will go ahead and pollute. How can you not see a gaping hole in your plan? This also does nothing to explain how it will shrink government when people pollute on the land of others or pollute the air and oceans.

You asked why less restrictive government was more efficient and I provided a real life example.

No, I didn't ask that. I asked why transferring the protection of the environment over to an agency that handles property issues would mean less government but equal or better protection. You did nothing to answer the question.

Whether this quarry reclaims the land or turns it into a lake is the net environmental impact any different? I highly doubt it. In fact once the land is reclaimed it would most likely be sold off for development anyway.

Because of environmental protection this quarry has to be reclaimed. It is cheeper to turn it into a lake, and there is a demand for such a venue (I believe the demand is to the turn of hundred of thousands per year, not to mention the fact that it would provide a venue for world championship events).

This is a real life example in which environmental regulations are inefficient.
You can keep arguing if you like...

No thanks, I already showed you how it is flawed.

Originally Posted by Stizzel

Current environmental laws are abused constantly. If its changed to property rights, the judicial branch is only involved when there's an actual violation rather than when bureaucrats decide environmental laws can be used to push an agenda. Thus government is reduced.

What agenda? The protection of the environment? Why would there be any fewer violations if there is the same amount of protection? What is lessening these violations? Still no plan. Sure, the laws are abused, but without them, it would be a free for all. There would be NO laws stopping anyone from totally ruining any property they own or hurting the animals on it. It also wouldn't protect the ocean or air. Are the environmental laws perfect? Are they enforced perfectly? Of course not. No laws are, but they most certainly are doing SOME good, and make a world of difference compared to the idea of property rights. All laws will be abused, but your job is to show me how the environment will be protected just as much but with a smaller government. You haven't.

[Enso]

Originally Posted by KiloNewton

With regard to the environment it will be protected to the extent that property is protected. e.g. If you dump heavy metals in the stream that runs through my land this violates my property rights.

Which is why government regulation becomes necessary. You, as an individual, have very little power to change things in regards to this. It takes government influence to introduce legislation that makes sure this doesn't happen without consequence....which is why entities like the EPA were formed to begin with.

[voltio8836]

What most libertarians fail to see is that 99% of people and corporations only want short term gain rather than long term profit.

e.g. if you have this perfectly nice forest and you are a lumbering company, you have the choice of

A) Profit hugely by clear cutting the entire forest and turning a rich forest into an eroded wasteland (within a few years) but who cares, you will not live for 500 years so who cares what happens in 500 years

B) Do selective cutting to maintain the natural habitat of the forest so future generations are able to reap the rewards sown by you.

[Resonator]

Originally Posted by AKR

So that means there really isn't equal protection of the environment, which is what libertarians have tried to argue. They try to convince us that the environment is important to them and will not suffer under there plan, but this is obviously not true.

If it offered similar protection by not allowing companies to use certain pollutants that affect the environment because it contaminated neighboring land, then it is equal in protection. Why is this hard for you to understand?

Reason: You're not looking for an answer. You're just trying to make yourself feel better about your own views.

If you're not punishing a company or individual just as much as you would under the EPA and other agencies, then what is keeping them from polluting?

They would be punished based on the damage they caused. The amount you would be fined depends on the actual damage you cause. In the current system the amount you are fined may be less or more than how much damage you cause.

How's this: So far, no signs of greater efficiency and cost savings as proclaimed by you and others.

I didn't proclaim cost savings. I said it depends. You're the one making assumptions.

Uh, no, that makes no sense. If something is banned because it damages the environment, they would have just as much incentive now to come up with the technology to contain it, or better yet, not need those chemicals at all, since they are banned. When something is banned or regulated, companies find a way to advance technology. This is a fact. Regular fuel efficiency and technology advances. Look at the difference in vehicles in Europe verses the ones here. Some of them are basically the same size, and yet, are more efficient. Look at the technology in certain countries. Advanced technology related to renewable resources. This is irrelevant to whether it is banned under the laws directly related to environmental protection or property rights. A ban is a ban. If they can't use it because it will destroy property and they can't use it because it destroys the environment, either way, it's banned unless they come up with better technology.

There is no point in coming up for a containment system for the chemical if it is already banned. You wouldn't be able to use it anyway.

If it wasn't banned, a company might come up with a cheaper way of using that chemical while containing vs coming up with an entirely different chemical. It creates more options. Also, it could have an added advantage if the EPA has been tainted by corporatist elements

No, it's not, because you're betting the efficiency of these laws on technology that does not currently exist. It's like the population issue: "Let's just not worry about it because maybe someone will pop out a kid that discovers free energy and a way to replicate other resources." It's ignoring a problem and saying it'll be ok based on something that you have no idea will actually happen.

If it isn't capable of being used without contamination, then the same effect as a ban is in place.

When looking for an alternative, the option of containment is now available, and may be a cheaper alternative.

Like I said, more options.

The whole idea is that they can do what the EPA can do but no one has explained how they will do it with a smaller agency/less money/more or equally efficiently. I'm not sure how your question about DDT is relevant to this argument.

I pointed out a flaw I found in the property rights system.