Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 May 2001 16:24:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
905 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Now, let's try to stay on topic. I have an open mind about this. I am not
> sure that the conventional prescription of ownership works for migratory
> animals. Hence my interest in exploring this. If you don't want to bring an
> open mind and work through examples, your time would be better spent elsewhere.
While ownership of many things seems problematical, I think free market
forces do work in environmental protections. I feel pretty confident
that in a general sense, those nations with more market freedom have
more concern for the environment. While we can list specific counter
examples (like energy consumption in the US, or the "first world" in
general), I think looking at the whole picture shows a higher degree of
environmental concern.
Also, while much of the environmental concern is driven by regulation, I
would point out that while current US politics are not pure Libertarian
or free market, they are driven in part by free market forces. Thus, the
protective legislation we have is there because "consumer and corporate
greed" DON'T win out completely in our fairly free market such as it is.
I'm wondering if there is an avenue towards understanding how wildlife
and other "natural resources" fit into the free market by exploring why
we need property. I see two major reasons to have property:
- it provides a reward for those who work towards the common goals of
society
- it provides a way to assign responsibility for proper maintenance of
the property
An important element of the 2nd reason is that it allows for efficient
management because you know who is responsible so they can make the
decision, and if they don't, you can hold them responsible for the
consequences.
Let's construct an example. Let's say we have a valley in California
where we have heavy seasonal rains which tend to cause the hills around
the valley to try and fill in the valley. If no one has ownership of
either the valley or the hills, yet civilized people are trying to live
there, chaos will ensue when their homes in the valley get covered by
mud from the hillside, or the hillside homes slide into the valley. If
we have ownership, then the valley dwellers can seek compensation from
the hillside dwellers if they hillside dwellers have done something to
destabilize the hillside (probably building houses and putting lawns
with shallow rooted grasses will make the hillside more unstable than
the native brush which used to be there, also, the roads and houses will
reduce the amount of hillside soil which can abosorb the water). We can
also place blame on the valley dwellers. They chose to live in a valley
which really isn't very condusive to modern styles of habitation (it
might work perfectly well for older styles of habitation where you build
simple houses which can be put up in a day or two, and as such, are
easily replaced, perhaps these people are living there because the
annual renewal of the soil provides a very fertile valley to grow in).
I know the above isn't a perfect example, but let's try and explore the
example rather than just immediately discarding it as proof that such
and such a way doesn't work.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) I can't find the exact cite right now, but an extension of Maslow's 'Hierarchy of needs' implies that environmental awareness(1) and the desire to protect it typically does not arrise in a society until that society reaches some level of (...) (23 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) I am not sure if I agree. If you are correct, look at which companies are wrecking the planet in the developing world... it is multinational companies from the developed world. The true cost of life in the west is very high: Oil 'time-bomb' in (...) (23 years ago, 21-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Yes. Let us review the difference between "states" and "asserts". Had you said "As the text I quoted asserts", you would be acknowledging that the author believed it to be true but not saying you felt it was fact yourself. However, you said (...) (23 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
