Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 May 2001 15:07:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1231 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher, I found this text which goes over most of your points. It is
rather long (I have not read it all yet). The key passage for me is this one:
== ++ ==
"The libertarian's error resides in their proposal that privatization, which
is clearly the correct solution for some commons problems, is to be
prescribed for all commons problems. Like Maslow's carpenter, libertarians
believe that all commons problems can be fixed with the "hammer" of
privatization. Accordingly, they propose the abolition of all national
parks, and the privatization of all public lands and utilities, including
roads and airports -- everything, that is, except the military, the police
and the courts. Presumably, this means that such universal "commonses" as
the atmosphere and the oceans are to be carved up and sold to the highest
bidder. Not even wildlife is to be allowed to remain free and unowned. Is
this an unfair caricature of the libertarian position? Consider the argument
of Robert J. Smith who suggests that the absence of privatization explains
"why the buffalo nearly vanished, but not the Hereford; ... why the common
salmon fisheries of the United States are overfished, but not the private
salmon streams of Europe." His solution? "We should explore the
possibilities of extending ownership of native game animals and wildlife to
property owners.".
Critics of libertarianism find no end of amusement pointing out the
inadequacies of the libertarians' "hammer." How, for example, are we to
"privatize" the whaling industry? Are we to "brand" the whales, to validate
the ownership of each? And what if "my whale" feeds on "your" krill, which
you purchased (from whom?) to feed "your" whales? What courts must we set up
to assess damages? What agency will be set up to collect the facts germane
to the case, and how is it to be financed? Furthermore, the privatization of
oceanic resources suggests that "territories" of ocean will have to be
established, which means the end of the centuries-old convention of
non-sovereignty of the seas. What country will be the first to claim the
North Atlantic, along with the Gulf Stream? If the United States, will Great
Britain and Scandinavia then have to pay the US for the use of the Gulf
Stream's climatic services? Will the nations of the world accede to this
"sea grab" without protest? The military implications are awesome."
== ++ ==
Read the whole thing here:
http://www.igc.org/gadfly/papers/liberty.htm
Scott A
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > But before you do, take a look at how one of your fellow libertarians messed
> > > up her state's Environment:
> > > http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0105/ridgeway.shtml
> >
> > Thanks for the cite. I take everything that the Village Voice asserts with a
> > grain (or more) of salt. In this case, a dump truck load.
>
> I know you are trying to stay on a narrowly focused topic here, but this
> is something I started to think about (again) as I was reading the end
> of the article and it may have bearing on this discussion. Can the
> market foster an ethical relationship with the land? If so, how long
> will that relationship last? Is it sustainable?
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm fairly confident that ownership cannot and should not apply to
> migratory animals. Of course, ownership is a strange term to use, at
> least to me. For example, I work with a threatened plant, which means
> that that I need permits to collect seed from it. Does this mean the
> management agency owns the plants that are located on their land?
> Probably yes- at least in the legal sense. What if the population
> expands onto a neighboring piece of property owned by someone else--
> Whose plants are those? Again probably that landowner owns them. Is
> this how nature works? No- that population functions as an unit, just
> because some individuals move next door doesn't affect what the
> ecosystem owns.
>
> If natural systems rarely follow man-made borders (1). How would does
> this fact affect ownership- that is if ownership is possible?
>
> Furthermore, migratory animals that are protected by the Endangered
> Species Act or other measure of species/ecosystem protection are 'owned'
> in a sense of the word, for they are controlled by someone.
>
> I'm sure we can bring in some information from the use of
> genetically-modified organisms into this but I'll save it for the next
> round.
>
> -chris
>
>
> 1- except for the downpours of rain today, that covered everyplace we
> have a field site today :/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| There is some merit in the arguments your cite makes. I would ask this, however.... (and I snipped away the rest) (...) Overfishing is a worldwide problem, and a growing one. Whatever nation builds the largest fleet of boats wins the race to catch (...) (24 years ago, 22-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) I know you are trying to stay on a narrowly focused topic here, but this is something I started to think about (again) as I was reading the end of the article and it may have bearing on this discussion. Can the market foster an ethical (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
