I should mention that when I say, "people's capital," I mean the capital owned by private individuals, not some collective amount that has been extorted from them.

Nice find. Thanks. +1

What you say is true enough regarding EPA. Except, I wish they took the stance of the county building inspectors. Building inspectors don't stop projects, they red tag them until the builder achieves the minimum acceptable building standards. Most of us would want our homes built to at least the minimum standard.

Currently, EPA does not act in that way. They have a politically motivated agenda and the regulatory power to stop, litigate, or bankrupt people and corporations out of step with the agenda. That's not regulation, that's force.

These courts would be paid for by such things as, the people to want the service, part of the fines objectivity determined and any voluntary contributions.
Nuisance suits primarily exist because of the insanity of the system today.

Well if it can be proven objectivity that the "waste" is violating the rights of individuals in the area, then those individuals should be compensated by that business. The key word is "objectively."

which is like a snake eating its tail; the inefficiency
of digestion means that this perpetual-feeding-machine
will falter quickly. why do people (not you, Herb!)
keep thinking that you can make national wealth with theft? -- j

The capital comes from the same place as it does for any non-crony business. The private sector.

How popular would lobbying be if the government wasn't violating individual rights, and individuals would be punished for trying?

Who said anything about government regulations. That would be up to the private sector.

This is a non-real-world solution. I have found no track record for this in history. I think that 'responsibility' is the key: if the company pollutes, then it is responsible for the sequela, including deterioration of buildings, emphysema, cancer...

We have let businesses be immune from the known repercussions of their works, and this encourages heedlessness. The problem here is putting real parameters on 'repercussions'. I would not want those repercussions to include the impact on free living cockroaches in North Dakota, or even having to assess that level of affect, but I would want 'repercussions' to include rendering a stream unsafe to drink or causing emphysema in a population.

Jan

Yes.
I had a recent opportunity to discuss the inefficient engine question in a manufacturing facility here in the US.
This factory makes custom vehicles and the exhaust system required to meet EPA standards is so massive and expensive hat it inhibits the manufacturing process.
The engine manufacturer came up with the appropriate solution by designing a highly efficient engine which when tested equaled or exceeded EPA standards with normal stock exhaust components.
The EPA refused to budge. The expensive and bulky exhaust is still being installed.
The efficient engine isn't being manufactured.

Why are so many people moving into D.C.? Could it be the high per capita income of those sucking on the government teat? The real cure is to not treat the symptom but the cause; our overstuffed, bloated, whale sized government. Very soon, most Americans will either be dependent on government largesse or employed by it.

The vehicles they drive are produced by the same manufactures as those in the US.

The companies just don't bother to apply the same standard for emissions in those country even though the technology is available.

It's a clear case of irresponsible behavior by businesses when operating in a loosely regulated area.

The country I was in was Peru, which I wouldn't consider a third world country or even a second world country.

South America is just now coming on line. It will take time BUT they will eventually improve their technology and pollution will decrease with industrial efficiency.
Until then, do your best with our modern technology to keep yourself healthy when traveling there.

The problem is real, the solution proposed however is questionable.

One issue I see is trying to treat those countries like a fully-developed first-world nation. None of them qualify as that. Some are second-world and some are third-world. Environmental concerns are way up the scale on Maslow's hierarchy of needs compared to the daily needs for food and shelter. Until those countries have sufficiently developed in terms of economy and governmental structure, environment doesn't rank high on the priority list. Thus to me, the point is moot - especially when most of those countries face severe problems with organized crime and drug cartels.

I seem to remember having heard (i.e. "I have zero references.") that in the latter part of the 19th Century there was a court case in which private property rights were poised against polluting smoke from a factory. The case was decided for the factory, as "the price of progress."

From a different point of view, Ayn Rand once said, "Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent 'Thank you' to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find." (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ecolog...)

For-profit lawyers can already sue companies for violations of individual rights, among other things. And even businesses that "act responsibly" according to Objectivist standards can face costly nuisance suits. I don't see how this situation would change under your proposal. And who would pay court costs?

Why I love living in Texas!!!

Where is the capital coming from? How are the awards by the courts set? Who creates the law?

If I give a business money, I expect a return, so after the court fees and attorney fees, I still need to make enough money back on my investment to make this work.

Again, this goes down the dark hole of lobbying.

I don't want government regulations, but I'm also not naive enough to think all businesses will act responsibly and make good decisions.

When enough businesses are blatantly violating individual rights people's capital could be used to invest to stop this, and more of these watchdog businesses would appear. They profit by wining court cases and collecting part of the compensation as agreed upon by the victims.
When enough businesses have stopped their violations, these watchdog business would start disappearing.
Free-market capitalism.

That's a great idea, but I need help understanding the business model.

How would a business profit from watching for individual right violations? What's the business model?

Taxpayers? Lobbying?
Imagine for profit businesses that watched for individual right violations like these and brought the cases to court. No EPA, no lobbying.
Businesses that were guilty of these violations would be fined, based on their violations, and the victims compensated. Businesses that were constantly blatant, would not be in business long.
These business would quickly learn they "need to operate responsibly even if it costs them profits."

You're still costing tax payers money.

Courts don't operate for free, and when you throw legal lobbying into the equation, you go down the path that feels very much like Atlas Shrugged. You create a situation for the creation of looters.

The most effective solution is for the business to operate responsibly even if it costs them profits. This is starting to pay dividends now as the need for unions is diminishing.

How so? A court system is one of the few proper roles of a government which respects individual rights.

That's substituting one looter for another.

If individual rights have been violated, then the victims should be compensated. That's up to the courts. If this system is not active and working well then more individual rights violations from the same sources tend to just get bigger and bigger. No national EPA needed.