Subject:
|
Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:11:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
797 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> To me, it's an interesting debate, and one where I feel
> my opinions have room to change.
Me too.
> I agree with your feeling that it's hard/impossible to separate portable
> goods from land since they do come from land (or an extension of land in
> the case of a meteorite falling). It may be better to abstract things a
> step and talk about resources, of which land and energy are the two most
> crucial (and of course they really aren't separate).
I agree with this assertion too, all goods are created from resources, all
resources come from this planet (ignoring meteorites as they are clearly ar
a practically infinitesimal resource). Can we all agree on this?
I think that it is theoretically possible for the Earth to sustainably
support a finite number of humans with a civilization at a given level of
technology. (For ease here I assert that no other animals have rights and
that they are part of the resource package available to humans. I accept
this a contentious issue itself but I hope we can leave that for another
day. I also maintain that this assertion is not ideal as those animals,
given time and resources, could evolve sentience and therefore acquire
rights, if we remove the reources necessary to do so are we violating the
right to exist of the sentient beings to come?)
Earth's Sustainability Quotient is not known by us at the moment but I think
a large number of experts suspect we've exceeded either the population or
the technology level. (Clearly we do have a situation on Earth where we are
operating at many different technology levels at once, that's not
necessarily a bad thing as technology must be appropriate to the area it is
used in and newer technology is not necessarily less sustainable than old
(On average though I think it is, though we may be making headway in
reversing this trend)).
Some resources, mainly metals, are finite, therefore a sustainable
civilization is one that uses them at a rate that ensures they do not run
out before the civilization dies (or perhaps develops the technology to find
another uninhabited planet with them)
Some resources, like energy, plants, oil (over a very long timescale) etc.
are replenished, a sustainable civilization uses them at a rate at which
they can be replenished.
Therefore to claim more resources than your 'fair share' or that you can
replenish is theft from the future civilization.
Capitalism enables a value to be applied to anything so you can buy more
than your 'fair' share and therefore make having it fair. This is a
simplification because the resources have not been paid for at a rate which
reflects their true value to life on Earth.
Communism asserts that *all* property is theft, this is a simplification
because it is possible to be entitled to some share of property.
Which is the least simplistic? Capitalism, because it at least offers the
opportunity to identify the value of the future good and put in place a
system to capture that value.
That system is what we need, it would encourage good husbandry, more
sustainable use of resources and development of alternative technologies.
The problems with it are: agreeing the SQ, capturing the value of the damage
we've done up to now and having a mechanism/organisation to collect, hold
and disburse the funds. Is it possible?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
