John Singleton with Bob HowardRip Van Australia (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1977), pp. 194-97, under the heading “Pollution”.

We define pollution as the transfer of matter or energy to the person or property of another without that persons consent.1 Because it is done with consent, pollution violates the rights of the person whose person or property is polluted. It is important to note that the very fact that such transfer takes place is sufficient for it to be pollution. It need not cause danger, nor need it be beyond a certain arbitrary, specified amount. Any such transfer is pollution.

Unthinking people might be tempted to throw their hands in the air in horror at such a statement and the difficulties it would seem to present, but further consideration and careful analysis will show that most, if not all, such difficulties are capable of easy and consistent solution.

The situation, as it exists today, is far from satisfactory. The government is supposed to protect us from pollution, but observation shows that it is one of the worst polluters, for example, public buses and sewerage works. In the United States, prior to the mid and late nineteenth century, air pollution, for example, was considered a tort — a nuisance against which private individuals affected by it could sue for damages or seek an injunction. Furthermore, mass action suits could be taken — that is, one person could sue on behalf of a whole group of people similarly affected, rather than each individual have to sue separately. In the name of “the public interest” the U.S. Government removed these two possibilities from the law, claiming that even though industry did pollute, it was necessary for the “public good” that they be allowed to do so. Any action taken to prevent pollution could result in drops in production, and that the government didn’t want.

It is also interesting to note that the two main areas affected by pollution — the air and the waterways (rivers, lakes, harbours) are the two main areas not privately owned. That these should be badly polluted is no accident, because it is a common observation that people treat their own property with more respect than they do “public” property. Perhaps more important, however, is the fact that normal economic forces don’t operate on government property. Public servants have little incentive to preserve the capital value of a river, for example, by keeping pollution to a minimum. Private owners, on the other hand, would have such an incentive because they would sell fishing rights, commercial development rights, and drinking water supplies. Private owners would not allow sewerage to discharge into their water for these reasons, nor would they allow industrial pollution. They would suffer direct economic consequences as a result.

One final point to be made about our present situation is that arbitrary limits cannot satisfactorily be set to limit pollution. A neighbour’s dripping tap can be just as annoying as very loud music, or late night parties. The noise of a tap, however, would not be over the arbitrary decibel level normally used to measure pollution. Arbitrary cut off points always suffer from the same problems: Who sets them? What criteria do they use? and, How are they justified ahead of some other equally arbitrary criteria? It’s the numbers game again.

The proper solution to the problem of pollution is to be found in recognition and protection of property rights. Pollution violates property rights, and therefore the victims of pollution should be able to gain reparation for damages and/or injunctions against it.

By saying that any transfer of matter or energy to a person’s property without their consent is pollution, we do not open the Pandora’s Box that might be imagined. It is true that this means that all noise and all light for example, are pollution: noise pollution and visual pollution respectively. It does not mean that everyone would be rushing about seeking injunctions and reparations for damages. For a start, most noise and visual pollution causes no damage, so no reparation (or virtually none) would be awarded (a likely verdict would be: guilty of pollution, damages of one cent awarded to the victim.) If the verdict was “not guilty”, the person bringing the would have to pay the costs, so most trivial cases would never reach the courts. Who’d risk paying $100 in costs to get one cent in damages?

Injunctions could be sought, but if one was intolerant or bloody minded about trivial matters, the important thing is that one would be equally subject to counter-suits. If you can hear your neighbour, it’s very likely that he/she can hear you. If you seek an injunction for a trivial matter, so, too, could they. Thus, a stand-off would result, and common sense would, in a majority of cases, prevail. The attitude would be such as now exists in, for example, home units. Neighbours only complain when noise gets “unreasonable”.

This should not be seen as a trivial exercise, however. The fact that no arbitrary limits are set means that in the odd case where a small noise, for example, is very disturbing (such as the dripping tap) the victim does have a means of protecting his rights. This proposed solution is a clean one, involving the derivation and consistent application of a basic principle, rather than the unsatisfactory enforcement of an arbitrary limit.

We do have the technology to have a pollution free society. The only limit is cost, but the cost can’t be avoided anyway. We either pay with extra prices as businesses pass on the cost of their anti-pollution measures, or we pay through a polluted environment. Of these two, the former is by far the most just, and also the cheapest. As was the case in our discussion of conservation, private ownership of what is now public property would also go a long way towards solving pollution problems. This would not be simple to implement, but there is no reason why rivers, lakes and even oceans, shouldn’t ultimately be privately owned.

The case of uranium mining should also hinge around pollution. If mining uranium can be accomplished without pollution then there is no moral way it can be prevented. It can’t be prevented because the uranium might be used to make nuclear weapons. That would make it a victimless “crime”, and would be operating on the legal premise of “guilty until proven innocent”. The arguments against this have been presented elsewhere. Pollution is the weak point of uranium mining and its subsequent use, and because the possible damages are so catastrophic and enormous, the person or company using the uranium would have to be exceptionally careful. To avoid massive reparation payouts, and massive insurance premiums, they would need to have foolproof safety precautions. Or, alternatively, not mine or use uranium.

The problem of pollution has, to date, been sloppily defined and badly misunderstood. It is only by the consistent application of principles that moral and just solutions can be found.


  1. This definition was formulated by Robert Poole Jr. “Reason and Ecology,” in D. James (ed.), Outside Looking In. Harper and Row, New York, N.Y., 1972, p. 245.
(in order of appearance on
  1. Governments Consume Wealth — They Don't Create It
  2. Singo and Howard Propose Privatising Bondi Beach
  4. Singo and Howard on Compromise
  5. Singo and Howard on Monopolies
  6. Singo and Howard Support Sydney Harbour Bridge Restructure
  9. Singo and Howard Call Democracy Tyrannical
  10. Singo and Howard on Drugs!
  11. Simpleton sells his poll philosophy
  12. Singo and Howard Decry Australia Day
  13. Singo and Howard Endorse the Workers Party
  14. Singo and Howard Oppose the Liberal Party
  15. Singo and Howard Admit that Liberals Advocate and Commit Crime
  17. John Whiting's Inaugural Workers Party Presidential Address
  19. Singo and Howard on Aborigines
  20. Singo and Howard on Conservatism
  21. Singo and Howard on the Labor Party
  22. Singo, Howard and Hancock Want to Secede
  23. John Singleton changes his name
  24. Lang Hancock's Foreword to Rip Van Australia
  26. Singo and Howard introduce Rip Van Australia
  27. Singo and Howard on Knee-Jerks
  28. Singo and Howard on Tax Hunts (Lobbying)
  29. Singo and Howard on Rights
  30. Singo and Howard on Crime
  31. Singo and Howard on Justice
  32. Singo and Howard on Unemployment
  33. John Singleton on 1972 cigarette legislation
  35. Holed up, hold-up and holdout
  36. The libertarian alternative vs the socialist status quo
  37. Workers Party Platform
  38. Singo and Howard Join Forces to Dismantle Welfare State
  39. Singo and Howard on Business
  40. Singo and Howard on Discrimination
  41. Singo and Howard on the Greens
  42. Singo and Howard on Xenophobia
  43. Singo and Howard on Murdoch, Packer and Monopolistic Media
  44. Singo and Howard Explain that Pure Capitalism Solves Pollution
  45. Singo and Howard Defend Miners Against Government
  46. Singo and Howard on Bureaucracy
  47. Singo and Howard on Corporate Capitalism
  48. The last words of Charles Russell
  49. Ted Noffs' Preface to Rip Van Australia
  50. Right-wing anarchists revamping libertarian ideology
  51. Giving a chukka to the Workers Party
  52. Govt "villain" in eyes of new party
  54. Introducing the new Workers' Party
  55. Paul Rackemann 1980 Progress Party Election Speech
  56. Lang Hancock 1978 George Negus Interview
  57. Voices of frustration
  58. Policies of Workers Party
  59. Party Promises to Abolish Tax
  60. AAA Tow Truck Co.
  61. Singo and Howard on Context
  62. Singo and Howard Blame Roosevelt for Pearl Harbour
  63. Singo and Howard on Apathy
  65. Singo and Howard on Decency
  66. John Singleton in 1971 on the 2010 Federal Election
  68. Viv Forbes Wins 1986 Adam Smith Award
  70. Who's Who in the Workers Party
  71. Bob Howard interviewed by Merilyn Giesekam on the Workers Party
  72. A Farewell to Armchair Critics
  73. Sukrit Sabhlok interviews Mark Tier
  74. David Russell Leads 1975 Workers Party Queensland Senate Team
  75. David Russell Workers Party Policy Speech on Brisbane TV
  76. Bludgers need not apply
  77. New party formed "to slash controls"
  78. The Workers Party
  80. The great consumer protection trick
  81. The "Workers" speak out
  82. How the whores pretend to be nuns
  83. The Workers Party is a Political Party
  84. Shit State Subsidised Socialist Schooling Should Cease Says Singo
  85. My Journey to Anarchy:
    From political and economic agnostic to anarchocapitalist
  86. Workers Party Reunion Intro
  87. Singo and Howard on Freedom from Government and Other Criminals
  88. Singo and Howard on Young People
  90. Singo and Howard Engage with Homosexuality
  91. Singo and Howard Demand Repeal of Libel and Slander Laws
  92. Singo and Howard on Consumer Protection
  93. Singo and Howard on Consistency
  94. Workers Party is born as foe of government
  95. Political branch formed
  96. Government seen by new party as evil
  97. Singo and Howard on Non-Interference
  98. Singo and Howard on Women's Lib
  99. Singo and Howard on Licences
  100. Singo and Howard on Gun Control
  101. Singo and Howard on Human Nature
  102. Singo and Howard on Voting
  103. Singo and Howard on
    Inherited Wealth
  104. Singo and Howard on Education
  105. Singo and Howard on Qualifications
  106. Ron Manners on the Workers Party
  107. Singo and Howard Hate Politicians
  108. Undeserved handouts make Australia the lucky country
  109. A happy story about Aborigines
  110. John Singleton on Political Advertising
  112. Singo Incites Civil Disobedience
  113. How John Singleton Would Make Tony Abbott Prime Minister
  114. The Discipline of Necessity
  115. John Singleton on the first election the Workers Party contested
  116. Libertarians: Radicals on the right
  119. Singo and Howard Like Foreign Investment
  120. Mark Tier corrects Nation Review on the Workers Party
  121. The impossible dream
  122. Why can't I get away with it?
  123. The bold and boring Lib/Lab shuffle
  124. Time for progress
  125. The loonie right implodes
  126. Max Newton: Maverick in Exile
  128. Censorship should be banned
  130. John Singleton on Advertising
  132. Sinclair Hill calls for dropping a neutron bomb on Canberra
  133. Bob Howard in Reason 1974-77
  134. John Singleton defends ockerism
  135. Singo and Howard talk Civil Disobedience
  136. The Census Con
  137. Singo and Howard Oppose Australian Participation in the Vietnam War
  139. Bob Carr in 1981 on John Singleton's political bent
  140. John Singleton-Ita Buttrose interview (1977)
  142. John Hyde's Progress Party praise
  145. Singleton: the White Knight of Ockerdom
  146. John Singleton bites into Sinclair Hill's beef
  147. Save Parramatta Road
  149. Smoking, Health and Freedom
  150. Singo and Howard on Unions
  151. Singo and Howard Smash the State
  152. Singo and Howard on the big issue of Daylight Saving
  153. Come back Bob - It was all in fun!
  155. Country Rejuvenation - Towards a Better Future
  158. Thoughts on Land Ownership
  162. The politics of marketing - laugh now, pay later
  163. Singo and Howard call Australia fascist and worse
  164. The mouse will roar
  165. Viv Forbes and Jim Fryar vs Malcolm Fraser in 1979
  168. Hancock's playing very hard to get
  169. Harry M. Miller and The Australian disgrace themselves
  170. Ocker ad genius takes punt on art
  171. John Singleton 1976 ocker Monday Conference Max Harris debate
  174. John Singleton profile in 1977 Australian MEN Vogue
  176. Ralph Nader vs John Singleton on Consumer Protection
  178. Singo and Howard on Ballet
  179. Product innovation comes first
  180. Protect who from a 'mindless' wife?
  181. A party is born
  182. Tiny Workers' Party gives us a hint
  183. John Singleton on the ad industry, consumerism and innovation
  184. Workers Party Economic Policy Statement, December 1975
  186. John Singleton and Howard on Government Largesse
  187. Counterculture must exclude government handouts
  188. John Singleton's 1974 Federal Liberal Election Campaign Ads
  189. John Singleton believes in the Workers Party
  193. Singo and Howard on Totalitarian Socialism and Voluntary Socialism
  194. Rip Van Australia on Ripoff Vandals Taxing Australia
  195. Singo and Howard beg for tolerance
  196. John Singleton's 1985 advertising comeback
  197. Singo and Howard Demand End to Public Transport
  199. Capitalism: Survival of the Fittest
  200. Return Australia Post to Sender
  201. Singo and Howard on Public Utilities
  203. John Singleton on cigarette advertising
  204. Singo in 1972 on newspapers' demise
  205. John Singleton farewells Bryce Courtenay
  206. John Singleton on Australian political advertising in 1972
  207. Gortlam rides again
  209. John Singleton on trading stamps, idiot housewives and government
  210. 1975 John Singleton-Sir Robert Askin Quadrant Interview
  211. Singo asks two prickly questions
  213. Why John Singleton can't keep a straight face
  214. Why John Singleton Defends Smokers Rights
  216. An Ode to Busybodies
  217. Progress Party and Workers Party lead The Australian
  218. How many tits in a tangle?
  221. A speech from the Titanic
  222. A crime must have a victim
  223. John Singleton vs Australia Post
  224. Minimum wages the killer
  225. Has Fraser got his priorities all wrong?
  227. John Singleton vs Don Chipp and the Australian Democrats
  228. John Singleton vs Don Lane
  229. John Singleton. Horseracing. Why?
  230. John Singleton's 1986 reflection on the Workers Party
  231. Bob Howard in 1978 on libertarianism in Australia
  232. John Singleton on the stupidity of anti-discrimination laws
  234. Charity: An Aesop Fable
  235. Bob Howard announces the Workers Party in freeEnterprise
  236. New improved moon
  237. Announcing people ... YES, people!
  238. Creativity in advertising must be pointed dead on target
  240. Wayne Garland on John Singleton on Advertising
  241. John Singleton schools ad course
  242. John Singleton: advertising awards
  243. Mr Singleton Goes to Canberra for Australian Playboy
  244. John Singleton on his TV career for Australian Playboy
  245. John Singleton sacked for telling the truth about Medicare
Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5