Hiya folks, I wish some advice, since I am at a bit of a crux here:
At the writing of this post, there is this fight going on in the government regarding the status of a lagoon called "Laguna del Tigre".
The spot is a "Natural Reserve" and henceforth it is government property. However, the government has a contract with the Oil Company from France called Perenco, which during the 1980´s, it allowed them to establish its installations to extract oil from the Reserve. Their presence in effect blew apart the forests and waters that surround the region. And just to top it off, many people move in there, poach in the area, and idiot narcs trash the place by leaving abandoned aircraft in there. The Lagoon is still there, but becoming less healthy each day.
This year, the contract with Perenco expires, and thus, there is a huge movement calling for it not to renew the contract, of course, using the old tripe and garbage of "its our homeland, it is a national icon, natures must be protected" blah blah blah, that be the line.
Despite my leanings on Free Market, I am truly afraid of even privatizing the entire lagoon, because as far as I am concerned, the only clients interested in purchasing the entire forest is Perenco, and I know all too damn well what they will do. The one thing that their incentive will drive them, is to finnally clear away the sections of forest where much oil is still untouched, which not only will clear away the forested areas, but end up contaminating the water that is vital to the survival of the communities that are in the border of the reserve.
The lagoon is a source of water filtering that goes towards subterreanean water deposits, and in effect, those water deposits stretch across kilometers, allowing the surrounding towns to have cool clean water to drink and use. If Perenco purchases all that land, their sulfur deposits will enter those water sources, effectively poisoning the pools, and spread towards every subterreanean channel in contact with the lagoon, and effectively killing the well being of the surrounding communities that are in the area.
As if that werent enough, I would have hoped that some sort of market incentive would exist that would allow the preservation of that land, and particularly its water (I was hoping perhaps the water companies here in Guatemala ). Unfortunately, it does not exist, there are no clients interested in investing and selling the water in that area. My primary concern lies not in the protection of that area for the sake of something as idiotic as "Nature", it lies with safeguarding and protecting the well being of my fellow countrymen, who for over 200 years, have depended on this water source for their survival in that area. I am neither pleased that the Government decided to be stupid and take over that piece of land in the name of "Preserving Nature" (a job they have failed miserably to accomplish in the first place) in the 1980s, but it does me no good lamenting actions of the past, I have to be at the present, at the right now, so for all of you people who cannot resist the urge of saying GOVERNMENT WAS STOOOOPIIIDD for what it did many years ago, shut it. I am all too awares that was a stupid mistake, no need to bring up a dead horse in this thread.
With this in mind, what would be the "Misesian" thing to do in this condition. I seek to privatize the land again, but I will not give it to a bunch of idiots who will administer the land in such a way, that it will threaten the well being of its surrounding neighbors, since the water affects hundreds of families, thousands of individuals. (Except for them, they got the moneys to purchase their water elsewhere,as they have done so in the past 20 years).
What say you Misesians? I am a real crux here.
Open it up for homesteading.
Andius:I seek to privatize the land again, but I will not give it to a bunch of idiots who will administer the land in such a way, that it will threaten the well being of its surrounding neighbors, since the water affects hundreds of families, thousands of individuals. (Except for them, they got the moneys to purchase their water elsewhere,as they have done so in the past 20 years).
As should be suspected, the problem with this "privatization" is that it doesn't go far enough.
The government must not only sell the land, it must refuse to grant privileges to the purchaser afterwards. Its clear that neighbors have a prior legal claim to the water table than either the government or whoever the government allows to occupy the area.
Of course the government can sell(or rent) the land for more if they include with it an extra-legal privilege to pollute.
Peace
Mmhhh, you both have offered excellent points (And how interesting the homesteading principle you brought about, I should have thought of that)
And yes, I remembered that those lands were once properties of a couple land owners in that area in the 70's and before. And under their administration, the lagoon was perfectly fine.
You all have helped very very much, gracias.
Andius:end up contaminating the water that is vital to the survival of the communities that are in the border of the reserve.
Andius:As if that werent enough, I would have hoped that some sort of market incentive would exist that would allow the preservation of that land, and particularly its water
Andius:My primary concern lies not in the protection of that area for the sake of something as idiotic as "Nature",
OH well. Good thing I'm a utilitarian :)
Snowflake: People have homesteaded that water supply. Its a violation of everyone's property rights if they contaminate it. The crux of the problem is that the state is enforcing its own corrupt version of property rights.
Agreed, and enforcement I intend to terminate.
Snowflake: If someone regularly dumped toxic waste in your backyard, you would be able to stop them with force. The right to self defense is the market incentive that is missing here.
Mmhhh, quite true, and fortunately, that be a concept not foreign in Guatemala. =)
Snowflake: It might not be applicable in this case but you *might* be able to argue that people can homestead the right to beautiful scenery. Consider if I build my home near a waterfall, intentionally so that I can look at it every morning and then someone comes and builds a dam. Seems like they're destroying my labor = violation of homesteading provision of ownership. I haven't really explored this, and imo is a slippery slope because it means anyone could object to anything on aesthetic homesteading grounds.
Well, to actually homestead the waterfall, you would need to lay claim on that waterfall first (assuming no one else had it first and it is up for grabs) and then actually use the waterfall (How you would beautify a waterfall, heheh, be my guest. Dealing with downward raging streams of cold water for the sake of prettying it up is not exactly the most thrilling of experiences. Haha).
I would definitely consider it a slippery slope, because as far as I am concerned, looking/viewing/enjoying scenery does not equal to homesteading. You would need a prior claim that the water fall belongs to you.
Could it be that the oil is more valuable to people than the Lagoon? The market calculates. A lot of energy businesses want an eco- conscious image these days, sounds like these guys don't and thats unfortunate.
Spontaneous Disorder: Could it be that the oil is more valuable to people than the Lagoon? The market calculates. A lot of energy businesses want an eco- conscious image these days, sounds like these guys don't and thats unfortunate.
True that oil is much more profitable than the Lagoon, but that be irrelevant to the one who is owns the lagoon, or a portion of it. If the owner values it more for it's water (Water company or inviduals living there) or its beauty (eco-tourism and hotels), they will send you home. It is not profitable to give up your source of income just because some oil company is offering to buy your land for who knows how many quetzales, at least I wouldn't. But theres always the possibility of bamboozling them into selling that land as well, whole suitcases of money, or checks with many zeros on them can wow a person, stumping out right their reasoning capabilities.
It is a shame that Perenco continues to engage very contaminating practices. WIth the sloppiness they spread around their area, they don't exactly make the most pleasant of neighbors, all the more reason I want them OUT of Guatemala. They have no respect for the property of others, dumping their sulfur and garbage wherever they please.