Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 May 2001 13:49:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1014 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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 expect this would only work well is the co-op owned
> > the common.
>
> Absolutely. Coops are wonderful for lots of things. But then there isn't
> really a common, since the resource that might have otherwise been common is
> now owned by the coop. So you're basically solving the ToC issue the same way
> that the libertarians would.
No. Libertarians would sell usage to the highest bidder.
>
> > It is greed which causes overuse - not common ownership.
>
> Yes, but it seems to be a natural function of people interacting with common
> resources.
Perhaps we should all be a little unnatural? If you came from a different
culture you may well think the opposite was true? I understand that some
culture have little understanding of ownership.
> Branding it as "greed" and making it seem icky doesn't actually
> solve anything.
I think greed should be recognised were is exists. I do not think greed is a
good thing.
> Since we know that greed is there, and we know that common
> resources are abused, let's find a way of productively working within those
> bounds.
You mean give in to greed?
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Indeed it does.
>
> Actually, I'm not convinced. It's just a technological problem that the
> economic engineers can solve.
This is one of the biggest problems with modern life. It is all too easy to
break nature down in to systems of equations, and then try to solve them. I
think nature should be left as it is.
> If we auction stuff off to the world, then
> doesn't that determine economic value of these things?
It would give some idea of it was at that point in time. We probably will
never know the true ultimate of value what surrounds us.
> People can coalesce any
> way they want to bid on any thing they want. If more dollars want to freeze
> rainforest exploitation, then that's what happens. Where does this go wrong?
Who do we buy the oceans from? Do we just plant a flag and claim it as our
own? Buying rainforests puts them in the hands of the person with the most
$$. That person may not have the best end in mind for them?
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Absolutely. Coops are wonderful for lots of things. But then there isn't really a common, since the resource that might have otherwise been common is now owned by the coop. So you're basically solving the ToC issue the same way that the (...) (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
|
|
|
|
