Michael Phillips

Phill 230

The papers by Bruce Yandle and Doug Harbrecht can present coherent arguments only if they are based on certain assumptions. The authors assume that a person can really own property, that the government has certain rights to restrict usage of property, and that western society is correct in many of it’s underlying assumptions. These points in common make their arguments justifiable and allow a person to choose either one stand or another. These two arguments can be looked at as short sighted, petty, or just down right cynical but at least they have certain assumptions in common. It is through these assumptions that rational discourse is possible.

Now I will present the issue summary’s from the book:

"Bruce Yandle, a professor of economics and legal studies, argues that technological development is transforming the world into a Garden of Eden. He maintains that environmental regulation is an unnecessary, misguided effort that threatens private property rights."

"Business Week’s Washington correspondent Doug Harbrecht contends that it is absurd to have to pay owners of private property for obeying environmental regulations."

Let us look now at what was said in the Pocahontas clip. In this clip, it is said that people never really own the land, or much of anything else. Also that no person or persons have the right to regulate and dictate how the land can be exploited as it is community property and thus should never be used in a way that could be detrimental. And that, perhaps, the west doesn’t hold a monopoly on the truth of how people should live their lives.

Based off of these assumptions, the arguments that are presented in the two papers seem to become baseless. If you accept what is presented in Pocahontas, then there is no real ground on which to make those arguments. Before any useful discussion can be made, you have to find out which assumptions that you have in common, and then work from there. Unfortunately, I have seldom seen debates that arose with that in mind. Most people seem to want to argue the tip of their pyramid of beliefs, ignoring the fact that their conclusions are meaningless in the light of their opponent’s assumptions.

Unless you are willing to go to the very beginning and validate your assumptions, all you are really doing is throwing information back and forth, hoping to fit that square peg in the triangular hole. My assumptions are closer to those of Mr. Yandle and Mr. Harbrecht, then to those presented in the Pocahontas film. I believe very strongly in the right to own property, but I find it ridiculous to think that just because I own something it is alright for me to destroy it. In that light I find it easier to agree with what Mr. Harbrecht says.

Mr. Yandle seems to be rather short sighted. He says that humanity can not prosper under strong regulations, and that they need to expand in order to survive. While I agree that freedom and expansion are important to the human spirit, I do not believe that environmental regulation overly limits these things. He doesn’t seem to realize that humanity also needs a stable environment, one that won’t kill it in order to survive. It seems to me that personal property rights are protected by environmental regulation, that in forcing a person to be careful in how they use their land, our laws also make sure that this land will be there in the future. Unless you believe that humanity will soon be capable of recreating the conditions on Asimov’s Torantor, it is necessary that the environment be protected.

Mr. Harbrecht makes a good point in saying that environmental regulation tends to protect the small private landowner. The regulations that keep you from dumping your garbage in the middle of your farm keep the chemical plant up the stream from dumping their garbage in your ground water. The laws that keep you from clearing out a thicket because it contains a family of Spreckled Grackles keeps a rancher from overgrazing a grassland and forcing it to become a desert. It is also quite funny that a company or an individual could sue the government in hopes of restitution for potential capital lost due to laws that stop them from abusing the land. That feels like me suing the government for money I have not received for black market organs because of the laws against murder.

The views of Mr. Harbrecht, although not entirely the same as my own, are not too far from mine. I can not see following Mr. Yandle’s self-destructive policies, nor could I see the Hand’s off policies that are espoused in Pocahontas.

Back to Index