I will likely have a longer response to gabby's post dealing with hiseconomic issues when I have a bit more time, but I want to respond to the environmental side in just a moment:

> Environmental quality is the most difficult area to explain
> simply, because it is the one major thing which is naturally
> community-owned. One can't have my air and your air. But
> it is also true that government has the worst record of
> environmental abuse of all institutions, much worse than
> private groups and business.

I was not aware of this. Could you please provide some references?

> Here's a typical libertarian
> solution: let consumer groups do the reporting. If a
> reputable environmental watchdog group said Business A is
> spewing harmful materials into the environment, then a
> whole lot of environment-conscious people would choose
> Business B until A was up to snuff.

You have to be joking. I'm not trying to flame you, but this is absurd. Such a proposal assumes that enough of the public would care enough to choose an environmentally friendly product even if it meant paying more for it. I don't think so.

Let me give you a real easy example of a situation in which this wouldn't happen: the automobile industry. Trust me, no sports car in the world would come with a catalytic converter if it wasn't strictly regulated. For those who don't know, a catalytic converter sits towards the end of an exhaust system and neutralizes quite a deal of the pollution that comes from car exhuast. They are very mandatory in any car since I believe the mid-to-late 70s, and they significantally reduce pollution. However, they also hinder performance as they slow down the exhaust.

Because of that loss in performance, the people who buy sports cars would rather they not be on there. It is not unheard of for "performance enthusiasts" to remove them illegally, though this is made hard due to stiff fines for getting caught (and is very difficult in any state that requires routine smog checks).

I have trouble believing that the entire Smog Check system, which has done wonders for the air here in California, would work if it was voluntary. It's expensive, it's annoying and it is not well liked. It is also a necessary evil, as it keeps gross polluters off the streets. But do you honestly think the public, which grumbles quite a bit about the system, would honestly go in for this if it was voluntary? I find it a bit difficult to swallow.

The obvious come-back is, "Well, if the public doesn't like the system, it should be scrapped." To which I say: No, sorry. The majority doesn't have the right to run slipshod over the rights of the minority. I will maintain that it is a *right* to breathe clean air, and if you can't operate a business without infringing on that right, tough.

> Another solution is to
> attach pollution rights to the contract/deed for a parcel of
> land, and, if the company or individual pollutes too much,
> they violate the contract and lose the property.

But who would set the initial standards and who would determine when they were violated? I fail to see the purpose of this at all. It still seems like it requires governmental oversight; anything which involves resolution of contract dispute falls square into the realm of "settling disputes" which is one of the fundamental purposes of government.

Stephen