Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 May 2001 11:26:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
977 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
Explain please.
>
> > > 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.
Explain please.
> 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?
Did I say that? No. Anyhow, what is your altermative.
> Please elaborate on what exactly you mean by "enforced more". How do
> you propose that be accomplished?
By "enforced more", I mean the law should be enforced more. The
freemarketeers should be trusted less.
>
> If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
I do not agree that is always the case.
> > 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...
I'm not sure I agree.
> 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.
You are sqirming again Larry. Go back. Read your posts and explain yourself.
Show us how the market can be trusted to look after the environment. Show us
how the market would take on the big environmental issues... not just the
usual window dressing.
I shall give you another example of where it does not work. Think back to
the introduction of lead free pertol. Did the oil companies want it - no.
Did anti-regulation types want it - no. Read more:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/10/isaacs-s.html
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Explain the tragedy of the commons? Your cite referenced it, I assumed you are familiar with it. (...) Explain the notion that a person engaged in stealing is not a free marketeer? Seems obvious to me. Maybe you're not as familiar with (...) (23 years ago, 26-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) 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. (...) If they are breaking laws they are not (...) (23 years ago, 24-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
|
|
|
|
