Environmentalism is a prevalent form of activism in today’s society. Among people whose objective is seemingly to better the world by such means, the topic of plastic and its toxicity for the environment is a popular talking point. Many environmentalists push for the use of paper products as an alternative to their plastic counterparts because plastic is said to be harmful to the environment due to its lack of biodegradability. It is said to cause damage to the soil on which it is disposed of.

What if private property rights were the needed solution to this alleged environmental crisis? Those who support environmental activism are often the same who support socialism and government control–the same government whose systems, if privatized, would resolve the plastic problem entirely. Allow me to explain.

Currently, government departments generally control waste management and disposal, and these services are offered free of charge in many cases. Suppose instead for a moment the waste disposal industry were completely privatized. If plastic is in fact so hazardous for the environment and for the land where it is disposed, it would be in the best interest of private owners of such facilities that the price charged to consumers to dispose these materials reflect the subsequent damage caused to the land. In turn, consumers, aware of the much higher cost of disposing plastic, would be much more likely to select paper when given the choice. Whereas today people simply choose whatever is convenient or preferable and pay the same cost for either, an economy based on private property rights would prompt consumers to make the best decisions–for it would be not only in their best financial interest, but subsequently in the best interest of the environment.

Over the last half century, the illegal drug epidemic has become an ever-worsening problem–greatly affecting the lives and livelihoods of millions around the world. Yet one would think that after fifty years of active government involvement in drug prohibition and the war on drugs, that we would have seen an improvement in these conditions. Quite the opposite is true; drug usage among high school students has remained steady, and we have in fact witnessed a dramatic rise in deaths by drug overdose in the last decade. Evidently, government drug prohibition has proven wholly ineffective at best–perhaps causing more harm than good. Why?

One fundamental issue with government enforcement of anti-drug laws is that drug usage in itself is often a victimless crime–one that is thus unlikely to be reported to authorities because it does not directly harm another individual or entity. This means that in order to track down those committing these crimes, law enforcement often resort to illegitimate property searches, asset forfeiture based on probable cause–often that of people who are not ultimately convicted–and even blatant corruption. Moreover, government resources dedicated to prohibition efforts are subsequently taken away from other criminal activity, contributing to increased property crime rates.

Despite the ineffectiveness and negative consequences of the government prohibition efforts of the last five decades, they still continue in full force. Why is this? Many people and government entities have a vested interest in continuing the war on drugs simply because of the employment and funding they receive because of it. Thus, lobbyists will continue to promote the cause in order that government prohibition efforts may continue for the foreseeable future.🔹