Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 May 2001 11:11:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
982 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > overfishing is a worldwide problem, and a growing one. Whatever nation
> > builds the largest fleet of boats wins the race to catch the remaining few
> > free roaming large schools of species x, then there is a crash, and we move
> > on to the next species. Or so it seems.
>
> so sad...
>
> > This is a classic tragedy of the commons problem. Whoever most insanely
> > exploits the commons "wins", but the commons (in this case, fish stocks) is
> > destroyed.
>
> what does the Libertarian think of the tradegy of the commons? Is it
> addressed?
Yes and no.
The standard Libertarian answer applies well to the standard example...
sheep overgrazing a commons can be remediated by having someone (or a group
of someones) own the formerly common area and controlling how many sheep
graze there.
Works fine for resources that are fixed (Grazing lands, timber stands,
etc... as an aside I think a lot of the overgrazing, overlogging and
overirrigating in the US (which is shameful!) is directly caused by the fact
that the land being grazed or logged or the water being used to irrigate is
government owned, and thus the true costs aren't being passed through to the
users. 10 cents a head a day to graze a cow??? I don't think that sounds
like a true cost).
But this scenario deals with resources that are mobile. Fish schools just
don't seem all that ownable to me. How are you going to tag them??? And
owning the oceans themselves means that if some owner that the school passes
through lets overfishing happen, it hurts all owners.
And that's where there's a clear economic value! What is the economic value
of biodiversity? Who "owns" the fact that there are a lot of undiscovered
species still in the amazon? There IS value to that but how do you measure,
assign, track, hold title, etc? Seems silly to even contemplate it.
So no, this area isn't as well addressed as other tragedies by Libertarian
orthodoxy, hence my posing the question to others in search of concrete
solutions or suggestions. We got some suggestions which was good, plus the
usual obfuscation by the usual suspect, which is unfortunate, but the
off-topic.debate resource *is* a resource held in common with no clear
direct cost to the poster if the poster posts something inane, so what do
you expect? :-)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Alternatively the users of the common could determine what the maximum usage level is. Rather that competing against each other, they could invest in sheep together, via some sort of co-op, and take advantage of the common that way. However, I (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) That's what I thought. (...) Aren't there corporate lobbies that want grazing (continuing with your example) prices that low? I'm not sure you can place all the blame on the goverment. (...) I'm still not sure why they should be owned. I've of (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) so sad... (...) what does the Libertarian think of the tradegy of the commons? Is it addressed? (...) Go Vegetarian! Just kidding ;) I'm pretty sure fishing regulations don't extend into nternational waters. There are some species that are (...) (23 years ago, 30-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
|
|
|
|
