To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 10568
10567  |  10569
Subject: 
Re: Rolling Blackouts
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sat, 26 May 2001 14:06:24 GMT
Viewed: 
1235 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
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.

Explain the tragedy of the commons? Your cite referenced it, I assumed you
are familiar with it.



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.

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 property
rights???

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.

No, you didn't say that. That's just my sound bite on what it seems you are
saying. Feel free to explain. What ARE you saying? What IS your alternative?
I am not saying I have one at this point (that's the point of this thread,
to put up alternatives), it's your turn to explain your proposal rather than
taking pot shots. I know that's a bit harder but I want to play your role
for a while.

What IS your alternative? Current exactly as it is? Some expansion or change?

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.

Better enforcement? How does that work exactly? What exactly would you do?
Put an enforcement officer on each boat? Count catches? Confiscate boats
that didn't have permits? Elaborate.


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.

In this thread I have not said it could. I'm even suspending my disbelief in
government regulation, at least long enough for you or others to explain how
it would work. Asserting that it works isn't an explanation. You have my
attention. Convince me.

I shall give you another example of where it does not work

Let's stick to one exaple till you finish it, shall we?

++Lar



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Rolling Blackouts
 
(...) Not my point - but never mind. (...) A good start Larry, but I do doubt your notion free marketeers do not break laws. Further, what gives them the right to decide laws are "unjust"? (...) You should make yourself clear then Larry. Deliberate (...) (24 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Rolling Blackouts
 
(...) I'm more amazed 2500 economists agreed on something. :) (...) I'm having trouble coming up with an example that shows how government regulation can protect something, at least one that is not mired with economics and other ideas. It's also (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  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 (...) (24 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR