Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 May 2001 11:40:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
918 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> 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.
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 Nigeria
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1310000/1310224.stm
Leaking Nigerian oil well capped
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1316000/1316694.stm
Oil wealth: An unequal bounty
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_198000/198245.stm
Shell posts record profits
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1310000/1310388.stm
>
> 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
I think your latter point, generally, is a very good one. However, your
former is a little weaker. A "reward for those who work towards the common
goals of society" where I live is simple respect. I am aware that in the US
that success and "property" go very much hand-in-hand. However, in the UK
what is left of our class system means that this is not quite as true here.
More generally, property is merely a sign of implied status. We have all
been bored with individuals telling us about their new car, new home and
even their vast Lego collections. However, one must remember that
increasingly these things are financed with debt.
>
> 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.
The flip side of this may be that the valley is exhibiting an impressive
natural phenomena, and should be left free from developments! :-)
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) 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. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
