This is my fourth follow-up post to "Grist and the tragedy of the panicked enviro",
where I try to clarify the institutional frameworks for understanding
and addressing resource problems, in response to confusion in comments
by others.
Here is my most recent comment:
Cyberfarer, thank you for your response [here], which is well-intentioned, but both perceptive and blind.
First,
I see you`ve adopted a page from the climate "skeptics" playbook, by
applying the sefl-deceptive ad hominem device of labelling those you
disagree with as "true believers" in something. This is a partisan
tactic that lets you treat others as enemies, and spares you from the
trouble of listening to them, trying to figure out what they`re saying
and responding the them, as opposed to a black and white strawman that you`ve conjured
up. Congratulations on mirroring those whom you dislike most.
Second,
with all of your clear thinking, like Mr. Sacks, you offer us no
practical advice, just reasons for despair. Lezlie, who follows you,
at least provides an agenda.
Third, of course, you`ve got me all
wrong; I`m not an ideologue, a "true believer" or even an apologist of
any kind the status quo; I`m a concerned human being, a fellow
traveller on Plante Earth and a pragmatist. You`ve been misreading me,
and certainly have not troubled yourself to consider the very pragmatic
analytical tools that I`ve offered to help you figure how to diagnose
and attack the problems that you perceive.
And what have I
offered? Nothing more or less than the rather obvious observations that
resources that are not owned and managed - whether privately or by
groups (including, obviously, by communities and native peoples) tend
to be trashed, and that similar problems are experienced where
resources are formally "owned" by governments but essentially used by
elites for their own benefit. I have NOT argued that private property
is the cure-all, nor have I condoned theft nor the manipulation of
governments by elites. In fact, I have rather clearly pointed out that
both theft and misuse of governemtn have been and remain very much a
part of the problem.
Fourth, you continue to misunderstand the
nature of our problems, and want to lay everything at the foot of
"capitalism" and "markets", when the real problem is either the lack of
ownership of resources or government fiat/theft. Western capitalism is
not responsible for extinctions and environmental devastation that
preceded capitalism and markets, or that has taken place under
state-directed economies. This gets old, but look at the prior
extinctions, messes of the former USSR (and at the Aral Sea today),
Hanford and Rocky Flats, Haiti, and China.
Sure, the consumer and
industrial supply demands of markets (not merely in the West) continue
to pull chains of destruction elsewhere in the world, but destruction
only occurs with respect to resources that are not owned and protected
(or where theft by those more pwerful occurs). Tofu and meat eaters
alike are indirectly responsible for rainforest destruction, mainly
because governments "own" most the rain forests and don`t prefer to
protect native title wher it is recognized, so the conversion of such
land into soybeans (or palm oil to feed government-mandated demands for
biofuels) continues.
In any case, is it more effective to wail
about the evilness of corporations that compete to provide us ever more
cheaply things that we choose to buy, or to demand better property
rights protection abroad, pay closer attention to where our food comes
from and end domestic mandates that drive destruction? You`re welcome
to your rants against true believers like me, but I`m personally more
disposed towards trying to be practically effective.
Fifth, you
are very right to criticize corporations; Mr. Sacks has had a history
of doing that. Not only do I agree with much of his analysis (which he has not provided here), but I`ve devoted a fair amount of time to examining the
entanglement of corporations and government:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=limited
Our
state governments were wrong to get into competition with each other to
grant corprate status to investor-owned enterprises, in exchange for
fees and later taxes. Corporate status freed investors from down-side
risk, by limiting liaibility to the amount of capital contributed. This
incentivized: investors to encourage corproations to embark on risky
activities that shifted costs to innocent third parties; the
concentration of wealth in corporations; the corruption of the court
system that once protected third parties from damages caused by others
(by replacing strict liaibility with balancing tests); and the ensuing
battle - that you noted - over legislatures to regulate corporations
(and courts to enforce regulations). Is there a takeaway on this. other
than continuing to fight political battles to block legislative sweet
deals and theft, including working to revise our corporate order?
Anyway, I wish you well in your tirades.