---
title: "A friend of a friend asks: "So what is the libertarian reasoning for…"
date: 2017-02-07
source: facebook
type: Archer T. Ships shared a link.
---

# A friend of a friend asks: "So what is the libertarian reasoning for…

*February 7, 2017 · Facebook*

::::: {}
::: {}
[http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarketEnvironmentalism.html](http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarketEnvironmentalism.html){target="_blank"}
:::

::: {}
A friend of a friend asks:\
\
\"So what is the libertarian reasoning for abolishing the EPA, exactly?\"\
\
The libertarian rationale is basically three-fold.\
\
First, agencies like the EPA are subject to regulatory capture, whereby dominant industry players write the regulations and staff the agency. They then proceed to write regulations and enforce them in such a way so their primary effect is to stifle would-be competition, not to actually solve the problem the EPA is intended to solve.\
\
Second, most environmental problem result from lack of property rights, or poor enforcement of existing property rights. For example, wild fish stocks are overfished because no one owns them, and therefore fisherman have little incentive to preserve them. Similarly, coal plants are \_allowed\_ by the government to spew pollution onto their neighbors. Both these problems can be better solved via the creation of property rights, and/or improved property rights protection enforcement via tort/nuisance law.\
\
Third, the EPA is staffed by bureaucrats who are not incentivized to make good cost/benefit tradeoffs. Humans must necessarily have an impact on the environment, due to our need to eat, clothe, and shelter ourselves. A coal plant emits pollution, yes, but it also lights our rooms, heats our homes, and powers our industry. What is the right tradeoff of pollution vs these other benefits? EPA bureaucrats don\'t suffer much cost if they make the wrong decision, nor enjoy much benefit if they make the right decision. So they frequently make mandates that cost much more than the benefits realized.\
\
Rather than a centralized bureaucracy that can\'t possibly have enough information or incentives to make these tradeoffs well, many libertarians believe it would be better to allow the market (and courts, if necessary) to determine via prices what the proper tradeoffs should be.\
\
If you\'d like to read more on the theory, this is a good starting point:\
\
[http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarketEnvironmentalism.html](http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarketEnvironmentalism.html){target="_blank"}\
\
For more on how property rights can help preserve wild fish:\
\
[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/property-rights-and-fishery-conservation/257604/](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/property-rights-and-fishery-conservation/257604/){target="_blank"}\
\
\"They have now been confirmed through extensive empirical research. A recent study in Science that looked at over 11,000 fisheries over a fifty year period found clear evidence that the adoption of property-based management regimes, often called \"catch shares\" or ITQs, prevents fishery collapse. (More here.) This is only the latest piece of evidence supporting the use of property institutions for fishery conservation. As Hardin predicted, the institution of property rights averts the tragedy of the commons. \"
:::
:::::