Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:55:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
991 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > 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.
That's what I thought.
> 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).
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.
> 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.
I'm still not sure why they should be owned. I've of the opinion that
nature exists for it's own sake, which makes ownership a dumb, yet
somehow necessary (in our society) idea. If something has to be 'owned'
why can't if be owned by everyone? Of course, our public lands are
supposed to be ours, whether that's true or not....
> 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
I thought the answer was that it is uncalculatable.
> 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.
I don't think so... that's why I'm still here.
> 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
I wish we could set up some microcosms were we can try these
polictical/economic ideas...
-chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Uh! It is appropriate for organizations to lobby for the government to do the things that that organization thinks are good. It is inappropriate for the government to do bad things with our mutual resources. I think all the blame for anything (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) I'm not sure I was. :-) Put it this way, if you have a system in which government influence can have more economic impact than competing in the market, and in which large companies can effectively change what it is that government influences (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
