Freedomain Radio

I'm interested in reading about how people think issues like the destruction of the rainforest would be dealt with in an anarchist society.  It probably goes without saying that the state is probably a huge cause of, or at least contributor to the problem. Thus, I am not implying that the state would do a better job, because obviously it isn't.  However,  it obvious that the benefits of destroying the rainforest for the people who doing so are percieved to be in tipped in their favour even though it has harmful effects to everyone as a whole.  It seems to me the benefits would be there with or without a state.  Unless, of course, there are government interventions making it profitable for these individuals that I am unaware of.

On a more general level, I am curious how an anarchist society could deal with other types of economic externalities (that is, nonparticipants of a transaction bearing some of the transaction's cost) in general.

Would love to hear any comments on this issue, and perhaps corrections of any presumptions I have made as well.

Good questions:

Since everyone asks this question, we know most people care deeply about this, so, therefore environmental protection is in high demand and would be supplied in a free market.

By what means?

I would say: DRO/Community incentives, private charities buying up land, private businesses encouraged with private licencing, social pressure (public lists, bumper stickers), social encouragement, free private education programs.

Just off the top of my head.

It is more productive int he long term just to gather fruits and nuts from the rain forrest than the clear cut it for a couple years of cropping.

We can preserve the resource by making valuable as-is. Allowing the sale of some of the woods from the region would also encourage conservation.