Whats the trade off between individual rights and the common good related to the environment?

Question

^Question^

Answer 1

The same as any question relating to the "Common Good vs. Individual Rights."  I have the right to speech, but I do not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  I have the right to private property, but if I use that property to establish a meth lab then my property and liberty can be taken away.

One of the issues related to the environment is perceived harm vs. actual harm.  I can prove that creating a waste dump on my property will affect the common good of the community as the toxins from my property would leach out to contaminate others.  This is actual harm, and my right to use my property is curtailed by the needs of the common good.

When we get to an area that is perceived harm, then the lines get blurred.  There are many instances of the local governments using Emenent Domain, which is reserved for the "common good," to actually empower and enrich their political supporters.  There is no harm, but the common good is perceived to be better off by the property grab.  In many cases these governments have had their hands slapped by the Federal court process.

So the trade off is really how much liberty do you want to lose?  I am willing to restrain from dumping trash in my back yard for the common good, but I am not willing to give up my house so that the local government can have a tax generating Wal-Mart put on my property.

Proof is what is important.  All the people in the world claiming that the "debate is over" does not make it so.  If I, or anyone else can prove harm, then there is a legal system that is supposed to look out for the common good, and those people harming the environment can be sued and made to pay for their harm.

Litigation from the Congress is just as harmful to our liberties as legistation from the Judicial Bench.  Always be mindfull of the law of unintended consequences and the reminder that the cure is often worse than the disease.