The Glade 4.0

I'm not willing to advocate private infrastructure such as roads and government buildings, Elmo. Nor do I think governments should start selling bodies of water or parks.

We will always have public property.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

If it is a necessary evil then we should strive to have as little of it as possible.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Theoretically yes, but free trade eliminates this. Americans might be moved to care about some random endangered species in the Montana forests, but if it's good for eating or wearing, the people in say the UAE never will, because they never ever see a live one. And as long as there's free trade and no regulation, there's no mechanism to save it. If Americans refuse to hunt it to sell to the UAE, the UAE will come in and start its own company. There's no way around it. If you refuse to regulate, as long as the global demand for this type of resource exceeds the natural rate of replacement, that resource is doomed to extinction, period.

Sure there is a mechanism to save it. The people form a corporation that takes doantions that buys land that acts as a preserve.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

First of all, depending on what species you're talking about, this could cost an immense amount of money to purchase the required amount of land. Second, this is a huge market inefficiency that drags as much as any government regulation.

Next, what about the oceans? Short of a world government, you can't buy anything related to the oceans. The only way to cut demand is to pass a law saying that fishermen that kill species X can't sell in our country. If enough countries do it, it becomes unprofitable to kill X. But this is regulation, which is "bad."

I don't see how this is a market drag. The market is simply the sum total of decisions people make to pursue their future happiness. This interferes with no other's persuing their happiness contrary to their rights of contracts. It requires no submission to an authority to do what one will with what one owns so it is entirely unlike regulation.

The Oceans are already being protected by market means with organizations such as Greenpeace. There are coalitions of private fisherman in many areas that have banded together and set self-imposed limits to protect their future careers. There are privatly owned breeding pens for fish populations that there exists a market for thus releiving market pressure from outside waters. Thre are also private advertising campaigns to instill a consumer demand - for example Dolphin free tuna which was very succesful.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Wow, I hadn't read the details on the Love Canal. The company gets permission from the government to bury the chemicals. Then government essentially forced the chemical company to sell the land to them, and ignored the company's warnings about how dangerous the chemicals were and built a freaking school on top of it. And does other construction that ends up breaching the containment, spreading the toxins even further. Absolutely insane.

And of course the company is the one that gets the blame.

Of course they got blamed. They should have thought of this! Actually we should all have thought of that. We should all expect the government to act in increasingly idiotic and inane ways.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

1. Greenpeace is a borderline terrorist organization, they're pretty extremist by both socialist and libertarian standards.

2. Coalitions of private fishermen setting self-imposed limits does jack ****. Every time they cut "production," the price goes up and that encourages other fishermen to take their place.

3. Private breeding pens do work for species that can be raised this way. However, many cannot be raised in captivity.

4. The situation for dolphins isn't exactly good. The campaign definitely cut demand, but it didn't go away and many dolphin species are still rapidly going extinct. And before you mention save the whales, the whaling moratorium was an act of governments that was then enforced upon unwilling countries by what was essentially economic blackmail.

1. While I dislike the methods undertaken by Greenpeace they are not the only organization pursuing Oceanic stability which I did mention.

2. I don't see a glut of individuals moving great distances to take loans to purchase trawlers to do a job they are untrained in. Do you have evidence this occurs?

4. You admit it works you simply disagree with the pace of change?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Of this specifically? No. However, I have plenty of evidence that the oceans are being massively overfished and the population of several staple fish species is rapidly declining. So whatever these fishermen are doing, it's not working.



Well, it's clearly not working. The numbers are still falling and species are still going extinct.

The main problem is these are living things. It's not like oil. With things that are not alive, eventually the resource becomes so rare that it's unprofitable to go hunting for it, and if it's renewable that gives it time to replenish. With living things, however, once you hunt them down below the minimum viable population size extinction is virtually assured, even if all exploitation stops. If the supply/demand equilibrium point is above this point on the graph, extinction is certain.

2. The Oceans being overfished has much more to do with the directives and consequences of command economies than it does with those who respond to market needs of individual choice.

4. Do you have a problem with species going extinct or only when it is caused by their predators? Also once fishing of a species results in such lower returns it isn't profitable it will be stopped and its not likely for an oceanic population to be fished below its maintence point.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

This is incorrect and is documented to be occurring. One, because overfishing without a reciprocal reduction in demand merely increases the price per market forces, so even though the harvest drops substantially, the incentive to fish that species remains, and two, some species exhibit a maturity and breeding rates that extends beyond the realization of over fishing, and their life cycle isn't conducive to alternative harvest solutions such as fish corrals, etc.

That is going to depend a lot on the good itself. I don't see there going to be a market for 20 dollar an once tuna. Do you have any studies to link to this that I could read?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmarnieh:

You are aware that fresh Blue Fin Tuna tends to fetch exorbitant prices; sometimes in excess of $10,000 a pound for certain sashimi grade portions?

_________________

You're vastly overestimating the price at which a species is pushed over that threshold.

Lobster used to be a staple food for the poor and was cheap and plentiful. As a result, it was almost completely eradicated. Now, lobster is very expensive, but the demand is still there. Wealthier people want to eat it simply because it's unique and rare now. If it weren't for tight quotas imposed on trapping them, they would be extinct now.

If its true now I am. Thats completely crazy however.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'd just like to point out that if tigers, pandas, and pretty much most animals in China wasn't protected, they will be hunted to extinction.

Quick trivia, in China pidgeon/doves were not protected until 1990s. They were hunted and killed to extinction. Even after the government imported them to make the parks look pretty, they were poached because their meat was considered to aid in health. It was not until a law was passed that forbid the hunting/poaching of these birds and a few people publically sentenced to long jail sentences did they slowly stop.

ps I love lobster... mmmm...

Squab used to be a rare treat in the US. During the depression my dad would catch some in the rafters and sell them to a man who took them to NY restaraunts for the rich.

We have plenty of pigeons.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Unfortunately the majority of men will be more tempted by cold hard cash than their inner moral voice.
That is why sometimes governments are necessary evil to keep things in check. Medicine is a great area as an example.

The Passenger Pigeon was the most common bird in North America in the early 1800s, by 1900 it was totally extinct. The 1800s federal government refused to get involved, and the result was obvious.

Many governments who attempt to control men cause massive starvations that lead to increased attempts to harnass natural reserves of food.

Look at the evironmental damage done in Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, and the former USSR by governmental control and its far more than depressing the populations of a few species of fish.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

They are more damaging because they have way too many people and due to political reasons they do not import the technology necessary to produce grown goods (or are too busy stealing the money themselves) forcing the people to eat what ever they can hunt.

Which should then be a warning against giving any person much power over another for it will be exploited to many and varied harmful ends.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

But the areas of control are different. You can not state all control is bad, just like you can not state all power is bad. (think spiderman) Sometimes the total lack of control could cause much more harm.

Everything needs a balance and check. And as much as we whinge and ***** about our candidates, the two/multi party system does present some of those balance and check, with voting and the general public/media providing some more.

Control in areas where personal greed could end the lives of others need to be controlled. Things such as healthcare (and regardless if you believe this is controlled or not, hospitals can not refuse to treat a dying man), medicine, environment, safety, etc.

edit. blah you edited your post... *shakes fist*