I'm going to begin this thread with a quote from the great John Stuart Mill in his book, On Liberty. "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient forebear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. " I don't know of any political position that would disagree with curbing behavior that harms others, e.g. murder. However, it becomes obvious upon reflection that pollution would very easily fall under this criteria proposed by Mill. Polluting other people's air and water is a specific harm to them. Therefore, anyone who thinks this principle a good one also must be in favor of government regulation on polluters.
