Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

i n her en t I Y f r a u d u 1en t, as the lib e r tar ian rno r ali s t
claims? What if banks frankly told their customers
'8 b 0 u t the i r fr act iona I - res e r ve p r act ice, inc 1 uding its
advantages -- such as no fee for deposits -- and its
disadvantages -- such as a remote possibility that one
might not be able to redeem one's deposit in an economicc
r i sis? Solong a s a ban k f rank I Y a dm itte d its
practice, I do not see how it can be accused of fraudulent
behavior. And if consumers desired such a policy,
I do not see how libertarians could prevent the market
from supplying it. But this is a minor point. The
libertarian proposal for the deregulation of money is
convincing.
5. EOOLOGY
Libertarians believe that an adequate solution to
the problems of pollution and conservation can be found
only in a system of universal private property.
a. Pollution.
Pollut ion may be defined as "the transfer of harmful
matter or energy to the person or property of another
without the latter's consent."(66)
Government has considered certain types of property
as too important to be privately owned. It ha,s designated
these areas as "public property" and assumed
control over them. Lake Erie as well as Lake Baikal In
the S 0 vie tUn ion are "pubi i c I y own e d . " R i ve r s, too,
are owned by the "public" as is air space. And it is
pre cis ely i nth e sea rea s t ha t we s u f fer from rna s s i ve
and harmful poll ut ion. Conversely, one does not find
i n d i v i d u a I s po I I uti ng e i the r the i r own 0 r the i r ne ighbor's
property. This is so, libertarians contend, because"
in the normal course of events, an individual
finds it much easier and more rational to protect
things which he owns, rather than things he does not
own."(67) Libertarians therefore seek the solution to
the pollution problem in the extension of individual
pro per t y rig h t sintot h 0 seareasin wh i c h they are now
denied.
Government spawns pollution, they argue, because
the entIre concept of "public property" is a myth. "The
publIC" is merely a hypostatized construct that has no
counterpart in real ity. If the "publ ic" does not
ex i s t, I t can not ow nan y t h i n g . " Pub 1 i c good s II are
actually owned by the offIcials running the government
300