Economics Questions

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

BWF89 — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:19:57 GMT

Deist:
Overall check out the book Free Market Environmentalism by Terry Anderson.

I've heard of that one before. Unfortunately I have a half dozen books already on my shelf that I haven't yet started reading, two books coming in the mail next week about the Civil War (War for Southern Independence) I need for a school research paper I'm doing, and a couple other libertarian books I want to read first. The Machinery of Freedom being the first on that list.

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

Deist — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:38:41 GMT

I am sorry I forgot to explain something. We can get sued for simply walking onto someones property without permission even if we did not cause harm or property damage. Now the reason when you get to the microscopic level that this law of trespass starts to include the issue of harm and damage is because it is nearly impossible to control things at that level. But also companies have been sued in court for not using proper care and installing equipment that would stop or minimize the microscopic trespass and harm.

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

Deist — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:28:21 GMT

Private property is a pretty flexible legal system. I am not so sure about things like ownership of the atmosphere but ownership of certain parts of the ocean has been instituted before. For instance certain areas of the ocean have been claimed by fishermen or others in the past and their rights to that area were respected. This usually leads to a concentration of ocean ownership that allows the fishing companies to not have a tragedy of the commons in fish stock by preventing the creation of too many fishermen with easy access to the ocean. On top of this there are easment rights for travel in these ocean lots. Now if I dumped some pollution into my little ocean lot it will most certainly harm the abutting lots who would then sue me. Also some countries have instituted stock ownership in certain species of fish that is on it's way to being publically traded. Only those who own the fish stock can fish a certain ratio fixed by the stock contract agreement. If they go over on the fishing they can be sued by other stock owners. Both of these actions have lead to good stewardship of the water and the amount of fish species owned this way have caused their supply to boom. Unfortunately the Fish stock is still heavily regulated by the state.

Now as for atmosphere, in the common law people have been able to create torts for trespass in relation to their general property and the air surrounding it. For instance there have been cases when people have used state of the art technology to prove that someone polluted on their property. Now dont worry this cannot get you in trouble if the small super microscopic pollution does not cause serious harm, so if you drop some paint in your yard and then tiny microscopic particles somehow get into the abutting property it has to be proven that it honestly caused harm for them to be able collect damages for negligence. Where this can go for possible global warming I don't know but I am just shooting it out there.

Overall check out the book Free Market Environmentalism by Terry Anderson.

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

BWF89 — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:42:22 GMT

Fred Furash:
Lucky. Our school is somewhat biased, and showed us only "An inconvenient Truth", after which a geography teacher went on stage and started trying to ridicule the people who cast doubts on the global warming theory, saying that it's fact and not theory, and that they're irresponsible. Well I suppose it could be worse.

At least he wasn't saying that global warming deiers are the same as holocaust deniers.

I don't know how Belgium is but from what I've heard America is the only (or one of the only) modern countries where the majority of the population doesn't believe in man made global warming and statist enviromentalism.

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

Bostwick — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:39:26 GMT

libertarian:
If the government did not fund space, it would be dangerous. If an asteroid is going to hit us, it would be too late for private investment.

We need a state to save us from space debris? I'll take my chances, thanks.

This is a perfect example of making up your mind first (that we need a state) then searching for justifications later (any will do).

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

Inquisitor — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:15:51 GMT

If the government did not fund space, it would be dangerous. If an asteroid is going to hit us, it would be too late for private investment.

I did not say that the government should _currently_ fund these things.

But ultimately it should, right?

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

Solredime — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:44 GMT

BWF89:
Watched it in school. Along with An Inconvenient Truth.

Lucky. Our school is somewhat biased, and showed us only "An inconvenient Truth", after which a geography teacher went on stage and started trying to ridicule the people who cast doubts on the global warming theory, saying that it's fact and not theory, and that they're irresponsible. Well I suppose it could be worse.

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

libertarian — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:28:59 GMT

Inquisitor:
Again, why should anyone be forced to consume a good they do not want?

If the government did not fund space, it would be dangerous. If an asteroid is going to hit us, it would be too late for private investment.

I did not say that the government should _currently_ fund these things.

Asteroids cause a greater impact on us than global warming. I don't know why our people are fearing the global warming pseudoscience but have no hint of asteroids.

Same as patents. Although patents are useful in the 1800s, it is currently obsolete.

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

Inquisitor — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:29:53 GMT

Again, why should anyone be forced to consume a good they do not want?

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

libertarian — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:20:13 GMT

Inquisitor:
If private enterprise is unwilling to do any of this it is because no one is willing to give it the funds to do so. In which case, it makes absolutely no sense to devote massive funds to an activity next to no one is willing to finance.

If we knew an asteroid is coming, it would be too late. Government built satellites that detected asteroids.

Would it make sense for the government to coercively fund libertarian education, when no one wants to promote libertarianism? The general population, and even famous scientists, are apathetic.

Would it make sense for the rich to fund environtamentalism propaganda or socialist education?

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

Inquisitor — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:40:14 GMT

If private enterprise is unwilling to do any of this it is because no one is willing to give it the funds to do so. In which case, it makes absolutely no sense to devote massive funds to an activity next to no one is willing to finance.

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

BWF89 — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:42:19 GMT

libertarian:
A voluntary state would perfectly protect groups of individuals from global warming.

Voluntary state, Isn't that an oxymoron?

libertarian:
If an asteroid is going to hit us, then what should we do? Voluntary associations would prevent such disaster.

How should I respond if I'm around a statist who makes the claim that something as expensive as space exploration requires a certain amount of coersion (taxes) to pay for it, or atleast to get it jump started? The Soviet Union was a communist country and their government was the first to get into this groundbreaking technology by launching Sputnik. And that private enterprise will be the future of space exploration but it wouldn't have happened without the state to jump start it.

Or if they said that private enterprise probably isn't going to spend billions to put a giant telescope into space just to get back some pretty pictures so even if private enterprise did get into space first the wouldn't have invested in the technology to see if a giant asteroid was headed towards Earth.

Fred Furash:
As to global warming, I agree regarding the pseudo-scientific nature of it all. Have a look at "The great global warming swindel".

Watched it in school. Along with An Inconvenient Truth.

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

Solredime — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:40:24 GMT

BWF89:
Fred Furash:
Is that supposed to be sarcasm?

I don't know how that could have been taken as sarcasm. You said that states are just as bad if not worse than individuals in protecting the oceans or atmosphere from pollution. I responded in agreement and stated with an example the garbage vortex in the Pacific Ocean as proof that with all the power the state (or states) currently has it hasn't solved current problems, the garbage vortex being one.

Sorry about that then, it's very hard to perceive someone's tone through a text message, and the inclusion of the word "vortex" made me think you were being sarcastic, so I mis-interpreted you.

Eitherway, it's all good since all of that information I posted is good to know anyway

As to global warming, I agree regarding the pseudo-scientific nature of it all. Have a look at "The great global warming swindel". We can't say for sure if global warming is a result of human action, or if human action is negligible, but to treat the global warming (as a result of human action) theory as fact, and destroy the basis of our industrialised society, as well as killing any future for many developing economies in the name of a theory relying on highly dubious claims and data is madness.

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

libertarian — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:59:42 GMT

The whole global warming thing is pseudoscience. Who is crazy enough to predict our climate, or even anything 100 years from now? It's like India predicting that its GDP per capita would reach the U.S. by 2045. It's like Hugo Chaves predicting that Venezuela would catch up with us in 2045. Like John McCain's 100 year war.

The whole global warming theory is empirical science. Nothing can be extrapolated precisely for such long time, even a few months is very hard.

A voluntary state would perfectly protect groups of individuals from global warming.

If an asteroid is going to hit us, then what should we do? Voluntary associations would prevent such disaster.

Re: Property rights and environmentalism in the atmosphere and ocean

BWF89 — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:32:43 GMT

Fred Furash:
Is that supposed to be sarcasm?

I don't know how that could have been taken as sarcasm. You said that states are just as bad if not worse than individuals in protecting the oceans or atmosphere from pollution. I responded in agreement and stated with an example the garbage vortex in the Pacific Ocean as proof that with all the power the state (or states) currently has it hasn't solved current problems, the garbage vortex being one.