🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1030@pb2esac.UUCP> jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand) writes:
>Fine.  I also have this odd notion that people should be held
>accountable for behaviour if it has an adverse effect on society.  
>If someone wants to commute in a way that pollutes the environment
>X amount they should be totally free to do so.  They should simply
>be held monetarily accountable for someone to clean up after them,
>in proportion to X amount.  The more pollution your personal choice
>generates for the rest of us the more it costs to clean up after you,
>and the more you pay.  If I dumped my garbage on my neighbor's lawn
>I would be held accountable; it is past time to quit considering the
>atmosphere somehow off-limits for same.  Surely Libertarians are not 
>opposed to being held accountable for their actions ;-) ( the smiley 
>because I would predict that in fact they would be horrified by the 
>above-mentioned scheme because it would involve someone like the 
>Evil Government administering it.)
>
>All of the wonderful economic and libertarian "reasons" for people
>keeping the status quo regarding transportation and the environment
>are fascinating.  I hope that when we are explaining to our
>grandchildren exactly why it was again that we trashed the atmosphere
>for them, those reasons will be convincing.
>
>Fill 'er up.
>
>Jack Brand
>Pacific Bell Electronic Systems Administration Center (ESAC)


Well put, Jack.

This seems to me like the perfect argument for high gasoline taxes in
California, or at least Southern California Counties.  Drivers (including
myself) are polluting our atmosphere by an amount proportional to the
amount of gasoline they burn, and so it seems should be charged a
similarly proportional amount (i.e. tax) on that gasoline to help pay for
costs of cleaning up their mess in everyone's air and/or for providing
alternative public transports which pollute less per passenger.

- Thomas Kiefer