Rothbard Air Pollution Question

From: Walter Block
To: ‘Harry
Subject: RE: Rothbard Air Pollution Question

Dear Harry:

I just exhaled. I’m in New Orleans. Where are you? Let’s say, Seattle. That 2000 miles away. One million billionth trillionth of my carbon dioxide will visit you in about a week, let us suppose. You don’t really like me. The idea of you breathing in what I exhale makes you sick. You have a clear psychic income loss.

All Murray is saying is that insofar as the law is concerned, you are plain out of luck. My CO2 is “invisible or undetectable” to you. Yes, you suffer psychically, I posit that. But you have no remedy in law in the view of Murray. I think he is absolutely correct.

I think the reasonable expectation is that the restaurant puts good milk in their coffee. If not, they would be legally liable. Poison the coffee? Then, they are criminals. Ditto for the private road owner.

In my view, this essay by Murray on air pollution is the single best thing ever written on that subject.

Thanks for these important questions. I hope my responses have been helpful to you.

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

From: Harry
To: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Subject: Rothbard Air Pollution Question

Hey Walter,

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1982/5/cj2n1-2.pdf Page 29

“Air pollution, however, of gases or particles that are invisible or undetectable by the senses should not constitute aggression per se because being insensible they do not interfere with the owner’s possession or use. They take on the status of invisible radio waves or radiation, unless they are proven to be harmful, and until this proof and the causal connection from aggressor to victim can be established beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“Unless they are proven to be harmful”

Why does Rothbard ignore “psychic harm” when talking about trespassing by the invisible and insensible? What if a property owner had a deep hatred for radio waves travelling through his building, why must he have to be physically sick instead of mentally enraged for that to constitute harm in Rothbard’s eyes?
It most certainly would “interfere” with the enjoyment of his property to have radio waves (the thing he hates most in the world) to travel right through his property, shouldn’t he have a right to enjoin against it if his property was there first?

If my account above holds false, what can this radio wave hater do to create a “no radio waves here” easement over his property, without blasting every single frequency (and thus ruining the whole point)? Is there anything he can do to create that kind of easement?

Let me know if you can come up with some examples to clearly illustrate Rothbard’s point here, he didn’t quite hit it home for me.

I thought of another, unrelated, question:

If you are a road owner, and yoru roads are so unkempt that I get a flat tyre or incur damage to my vehicle, who is liable? If I knew the road was damaged and I went anyway, surely I would be liable, but if I didn’t know, then does that make it your fault? Is it comparable to buying a coffee at a coffee shop and they’ve used off milk, or simply poisoned the coffee?

Thanks Walter. Regards, Harry

Share

3:43 am on March 17, 2024