Re: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.
- From: Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Apr 2005 21:28:19 EDT
In article <Xns9644B3B1CB055WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:mjones-
> 5BC309.16465626042005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> > ***{I repeat: those who burn fossil fuels are not the problem. The
> > problem is nomadism, in its various forms, all of which rest ultimately
> > on the denial of property rights in the affected areas. If you want to
> > do something constructive to actually deal with these problems, you
> > should advocate the protection of property rights in these areas of the
> > world, rather than advocate the placing of restrictions on those who
> > burn fossil fuels. They are not the problem. What they are doing
> > facilitates the greening of the Earth, and is a good thing. --MJ}***
> >
>
> The "commons" problem is a problem for ALL humans.
***{The fallacy of the commons is simply the notion that property can be
commonly held without being destroyed. In England back in the medieval
period it became popular for each village to set aside a portion of land
for joint use by the villagers. That piece of land was called the
village commons, and each villager had the right to graze his livestock
there. Result: the same thing happened to the village commons as happens
to the area around a nomadic encampment. It was overgrazed, denuded of
vegetation, the winds blew the finer particles of topsoil away, and only
sand and rock remained. Thus the commons became a little desert, and, of
course, it was hotter than its surroundings and had a little thermal
rising above it. Wherein lay the fallacy? Simple: when land is commonly
held, there is no owner. That means no one controls the use of the land.
No one has the power to say "Enough!" No one has the power to stop the
overgrazing. Result: each villager has a simple choice. He can let his
stock keep grazing until there is no vegetation left, or he can pull
them out early, leaving those last mouthfulls for the livestock of other
villagers, who leave their stock in the commons a bit longer. Either
way, the commons is destroyed. Since no one has the power to save the
commons, everyone has an incentive to participate in the overgrazing,
and they do. Result: the property is destroyed.
The solution to the problem of the commons is simple: no property should
be commonly held. That means all property should be privately owned.
That includes fishing rights, hunting rights, grazing rights,
broadcasting rights, mining rights, water rights, and so on. Anything
else leads inevitably to the destruction of the resources involved.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> Private property does not solve the problem, though it might if people
> cared about long term consequences rather than short term gain.
***{Private property does in fact solve the problem. Weyerhauser does
not clear cut its privately owned forests. It follows careful,
scientific land management practices, cutting in carefully selected
patterns designed to prevent erosion, and it plants seedlings to replace
the mature trees that it harvests. If it did not do that, it would go
broke, and its land would wind up in the hands of someone who had enough
sense to not piss away the value of his property. And that's the key to
understanding why private property works: those who do not carefully
husband the resources they control earn losses, go broke, and are forced
to sell out to persons who have better sense. And the same process would
work in other areas, including fishing rights, hunting rights, shipping
lanes, and so on, if property rights were in place in those areas as
well. --MJ}***
> It doesn't much matter who is responsible, we all partake of the
> consquences.
***{If you don't know who is responsible for a bad effect, you don't
understand the cause of the effect. And if you don't understand the
cause, you can't fix the problem. --MJ}***
> It is better to fix problems than fix blame.
***{You can't fix problems unless you first fix blame--i.e., identify
the cause of the problem. --MJ}***
> Past injustice does not justify future injustice.
***{That's right: the past injustice of blaming those who burned fossil
fuels does not justify continuing to blame them. --MJ}***
> The goal needs to be to minimize future injustice.
***{Yup, and to do that, we need to end the insanity of common
ownership. --MJ}***
> Saving the human race is a worthwhile goal.
***{Nah. Maybe one human in ten thousand is worth a damn. It just so
happens that the only system--i.e., capitalism--which can save the one
in ten thousand will also save the others. When you pull a drowning dog
out of the water, you save his fleas as well. But that doesn't mean the
fleas are worth saving. If you had the option of saving the dog and
letting the fleas drown, it would be the way to go, and the same applies
to any attempt to save the few worthwhile members of the human race: if
you could do it without saving the others, you should. Unfortunately,
there doesn't seem to be any way to do that. The capitalistic system
that will save the best of us will also, unfortunately, save the worst
as well. --MJ}***
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Total angular momentum operators
- Next by Date: Re: electron as point particle.
- Previous by thread: Re: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.
- Next by thread: Re: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
