Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 26 May 2001 14:06:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1048 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
