Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 May 2001 10:52:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1001 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > This is a classic tragedy of the commons problem. Whoever most insanely
> > exploits the commons "wins",
> Welcome to the planet earth Larry.
What is that supposed to mean, exactly? I've been here all along and have
been quite aware of this class of problem inasmuch as it points out a major
failing in the concept of public ownership.
> > but the commons (in this case, fish stocks) is
> > destroyed.
>
> >
> > What exactly WOULD you do about overfishing? What is your concrete proposal
> > to address it? Owning the fish isn't practical, is it? What is?
>
> I think you are cherry picking points from my post rather than jutifying your
> past "arguments" and claims. I shall humour you.
> The eu operates a quota system were fishing is concerned. There are strict
> limits on both the number of fishing licenses a country can have (although
> fishermen can, and do, sell them overseas) and the amount of fish it can land.
> The problem with the system is that the freemarketers (fishermen) have no
> respect for the law or the resource they are exploiting.
If they are breaking laws they are not freemarketeers, unless the laws are
unjust. In the absence of property rights (which haven't been demonstrated
to work) these particular laws appear to be the best we have got. So do be
careful who you call a freemarketeer in an unfree market.
> This ultimately
> results in ever reducing licences and quotas:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1049000/1049859.stm
>
> The fishermen then complain that they are being over regulated. They are too
> selfish to see that they are ultimately to blame as they cannot be trusted. In
> short, I think the eu system would work better if it was enforced more
In short, the system isn't working, then, but doing more of the same will
work? Please elaborate on what exactly you mean by "enforced more". How do
you propose that be accomplished?
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
> See. I have humoured you. Now, I suggest you go back and justify all the >claims you have made in this thread.
OK. Haven't made any claims at all in this thread, have just been asking
questions, so we're done... And not questions that I necessarily expect
*you* to answer. (excepting the above, of course)
> Let's start with where you shrugged of the work
> of a Nobel laureate which summarised views voiced by 5 Nobel laureates and >2500 other economists with "That is not a view I share."
Let's be precise here. I didn't shrug off the fact that many economists are
concerned. I'm concerned too. But I don't believe that all 2500 economists
share the precise prescription for solution, just the concern that there is
a problem. You'd never get 2500 economists to agree to one particular solution.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Explain please. (...) Explain please. (...) Did I say that? No. Anyhow, what is your altermative. (...) By "enforced more", I mean the law should be enforced more. The freemarketeers should be trusted less. (...) I do not agree that is always (...) (23 years ago, 24-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Welcome to the planet earth Larry. (...) I think you are cherry picking points from my post rather than jutifying your past "arguments" and claims. I shall humour you. The eu operates a quota system were fishing is concerned. There are strict (...) (23 years ago, 23-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
|
|
|
|
