Ethics, Place and Environment 12 (2):149 – 156 (2009)
Most people presume that government is always responsible for providing solutions to pollution problems, including transportation pollution. This paper examines the validity of this argument from a minarchist libertarian, property rights principles perspective, and concludes that government cannot solve these problems using command-and-control legislation. The primary policy suggested for government to adopt is the strict adherence to property rights protection and enforcement regarding polluters, including themselves. Further encouragement of market forces could be accomplished by stopping interference within the market at critical points, namely the production of roads, production and sales of automobiles, and the subsidization of alternative fuels
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Progressive Era and the Political Economy of Big Government∗.Richard Sylla - 1991 - Critical Review 5 (4):531-557.
Locke, Stock, and Peril: Natural Property Rights, Pollution, and Risk.Peter Railton - 1985 - In . Rowman & Littlefield.
Free‐Market Versus Libertarian Environmentalism.Mark Sagoff - 1992 - Critical Review 6 (2-3):211-230.
Transboundary Pollution, Trade Liberalization, and Environmental Taxes.Soham Baksi & Amrita Ray Chaudhuri - unknown
Property Rights Protection and Corporate R&D: Evidence From China.Chen Lin, Ping Lin & Frank M. Song - unknown
The Public Goods Rationale for Government and the Circularity Problem.Tyler Cowen & Gregory Kavka - 2003 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 2 (2):265-277.
The Case Against Free Market Environmentalism.Tony Smith - 1995 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 8 (2):126-144.
Added to index2010-05-07
Total downloads14 ( #334,553 of 2,171,802 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #326,702 of 2,171,802 )
How can I increase my downloads?