[197] in libertarians
submission
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mjacknis@MIT.EDU)
Mon Sep 12 21:32:34 1994
From: mjacknis@MIT.EDU
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 21:31:05 -0400
To: letters@the-tech.MIT.EDU
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
I submitted the following statement to the U.S. Department of Energy's
Public Meeting on Monday, September 12, 1994:
A Free-Market Approach to Environmental and Energy Problems
Michael L. Jacknis
Hello. My name is Michael Jacknis and I am a sophomore here at M.I.T.,
majoring in Electrical Engineering. I am here today because I am very
concerned about our nation's energy and environmental problems. I am
concerned that our nation is backing itself into a corner that will be
difficult to escape from without an immediate change of course. To
correct our difficulties, I advocate a {\it free-market} approach to
solving these impending problems.
History shows us that Capitalism, when implemented correctly, is very
effective at marshalling efficiency in satisfying human needs.
Capitalism encourages people to work hard because it will pay off for
them individually, and the collective effect of all these people working
very hard is an increase in the general standard of living. Capitalism
kills two birds with one stone, because the individual, as well as the
greater good of society, are both improved.
The United States of America was founded as a great experiment in
Capitalism and the philosophy of Classical Liberalism. Unfortunately,
we have betrayed the Founders --- today we don't have a free market any
more, and the current environmental crisis is the result.
Imagine that you are a student at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, right here on this campus. You are working on a more
efficient way to obtain solar energy, and you want to start a new
company to sell your product. You think, {\it ``I don't need that much
money to build these new solar panels; I could start selling them right
now!''}
Even if this student has a good idea, in today's society, Uncle Sam
says, {\it ``NO!''} Starting a new company in the United States has been
complicated by a labyrinth of laws, regulations, taxes, and mandates
that prevent the honest businessman from competing fairly. As a result,
the large corporations with the overhead to hire many lawyers trample
the small businesses with the innovative ideas for saving energy.
In the process of attempting to be helpful, the United States govermnent
is actually ruining society. For example, the Federal Highway Program,
which presumably builds roads that are supposedly necessary, is actually
a subsidy for inefficient vehicular travel. This is combined with the
heavy taxation the railroads must endure, causing an artificial
distortion in the transportation market in favor of {\it in}efficiency.
If the government had kept its hands off the economy during the rise of
modern transportation, things would be much different, and better,
today.
Now, I do acknowledge that there are certain problems with pollution
that might remain under a {\it laizzez-faire} system. Therefore, I
propose that a small number of simple, fundamental laws be used to cause
polluters to pay for their pollution. This money would be used to hire
a private firm to clean up the pollution. When unfavorable results are
discouraged economically, the market will switch to the more favorable
ones.
I also advocate an extension to the concept of private property. Why is
this M.I.T. campus so clean while many public parks and schools are
polluted? This campus is owned by private, honorable individuals who
are proud of M.I.T. and want to maintain it so that it will increase in
value. As you leave here today, I want you to glance at the Charles
River (separating Cambridge and Boston). Since nobody owns it, nobody
cares about it. That's why it is so polluted. If M.I.T. were allowed
to own a section, and Boston University another section, and Polaroid
another, the river would be much cleaner, because it would be an
investment worth protecting. Furthermore, if someone should pollute
anyway, the other owners could sue for damages --- a simple deterrant
that costs the taxpayers nothing and is much more successful than trying
to enforce flimsy and ineffective pollution laws.
We need to significantly reduce the size and complexity of the United
States Government. I was told that the largest polluter in the United
States is the United States Government itself --- and I have no trouble
believing this figure. Every new law and regulation, although
well-meaning, has an untold number of hidden and generally undesirable
side effects. The simplest and most effective method is to allow the
market to decide as much as possible, under a straightforward set of
rules to assure fairness.
Before I conclude, I have a message for all those people who are
employed by the Federal Government: If you are sincerely concerned about
our energy and environmental problems, and are willing to make a
personal sacrifice to uphold your principles, I urge you to show your
support to our Nation by switching to a job in the private sector.
There, you will be of greater value and significant service to our
country.
But before you resign --- make sure to fire all of your subordinates.
Thank you.
Further Reading:
Anderson, Terry L. and Donald R. Leal. {\it Free-Market
Environmentalism}. San Fransisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public
Policy, 1991.
Michael L. Jacknis
Burton-Conner 451A
x5-8401
mjacknis@mit.edu
