Not sure what they could do, but what I do know is that people can fish in the areas they own, not in other peoples areas. Who knows what methods etc will arise from the rivalry of the market.Originally Posted by sharper
A good article by Rothbard: Who Owns Water? - Murray N. Rothbard
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The problem is that the seas are a commons. If you choose not to fish in your 100m * 100m box, then it has no effect on fish stocks in your box. There is no incentive not to overfish in your box.
The property zones would need to be massive in order to "internalise the externalities".
This is a potential area where the EU could help (as the entire EU zone is large enough that the costs of overfishing are felt by the fishermen in the zone) However, the EU likes top down control when dealing with tragedies of the commons (like the enviroment).
I would suggest
- create a company which owns the EU oceans
- Issues 10 million shares
(presumably each fisherman gets shares in proportion to his quota)
- the company then decides the quota by majority vote
- each shareholder gets quota in proportion to his shares
(A majority can't give some shareholders preferential treatment)
- the company pays for enforcement costs
(Again with rules to protect minority shareholders)
- All shares are tradable on the stock market
(but cannot be separated into quota right and vote right)
It might be worth putting a limit (say 10%) of the shares that any 1 interest is allowed to own.
If the fishermen set the quota to high. This results in their shares decreasing in value.
Similarly, if they set it to low, then they don't get profits from fishing.
They will see the price of their share drop if they set the quota to high.
Obviously, initial allocation of the shares is a political question, but the initial allocation problem is true of all property rights.
You are talking pure unadulterated sh1t.
Most species of fish and sea mammals migrate across vast areas of ocean to spawn, to feed during the different seasons, to raise their young etc.
Your idea of fencing off the sea to protect fish simply would not work. All it takes is for one stage in a species life cycle to be overfished and you have major stock depletion.
Also, there is absolutely no incentive for the 'owner' of one area of the sea to protect the species that it has no economic interest in. Eg, if you are a tuna fisherman, you want to maximise your fishing catch, you want to catch as many tuna as you can, but you don't care if you catch all the other kinds of fish too or dolphins or whatever, so you put out the biggest dragnets your ships can support and in catching one species, you decimate the stocks of other unrelated animals.
Then there is the omnipresent problem of poaching which would still be a problem in a 'privatised' sea. It's hard enough to defend the Irish fishing waters from illegal fishing with a navy and air corps to patrol the waters, it would be totally impractical to have private interests defend their water from tresspass unless they put up barriers or mined the place...
How could anyone support this idea, it's so moronic.
It's an utterly ridiculous idea with absolutely no merit on any level.
All it shows is that the 'libertarians/austrians' have absolutely no ideas other than blindly repeating 'property rights' to every single problem we face.
The main cause of overfishing is capitalism. Capitalism is the system that promotes constant expansion of an industry to maximise profits as much as possible. Capitalism is short termism. Instead of catching enough to feed your family and your community, you catch as much fish as you possibly can in the belief that you will make more money that way, and you do for a while, but the profits attract competitors who catch lots of fish too but then the price of fish goes down so you need to catch more and more fish just to stay still. It doesn't take too long for species to be fished to the brink of extinction. The solution a problem caused by unregulated capitalism, is certainly not more capitalism.
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
So do many land animals, ever hear of zoos ? I don't know if you've ever owned an animals but you can look after them and breed them etc.
Firstly I agree privatisation should be done in stages and we should start with the continental shelves. Is it impossible to fence off areas of sea - no. Has research and development in this area been given an incentive to develop better methods and technologies - no. Do owners of certain areas have an incentive to conserve fish stocks, replenish etc - yes.
That is what it's like under the current system Akrasia (again see Tragedy of the Commons). Under a privatised system it would be in owners interests to keep the capital value of his stock high, they will (if they envisage a future shortage and therefore a higher price) keep stocks OFF the market preserving them for times of future scarcity.
Well as we all know, property owners have an interest to preserve and defend their property. They would certainly not do a worse job than is currently the case.
Firstly many people (correctly I think) believe that it is absurd to have "air corps" etc being wasted on this job. Secondly, before private ownership of land you had the same problems you described above, property rights was the solution to this!
Like I pointed out earlier, there has been no incentive through private ownership rights for people to research new and innovative "fencing" techniques etc because researchers etc have nothing to apply it to!
I hope you're not dismissing it purely on ideological grounds and are willing to investigate the possibility and the potential benefits and have a rational discussion on the matter.
Again - see Tragedy of the Commons - private ownership rights is a solution to this problem.
Your rejection of this idea is purely on ideological grounds,.
Absolute BULLCRAP. If an entrepreneur anticipates a shortage in the future (and therefore higher demand) they BUY UP those goods etc to keep them off the market for such times, performing a VITAL function. They "smooth out" supply over a length of time. Short-termism ppffft. Total nonsense.
AGAIN see above comments over future forecasting and The Tragedy of The Commons.....
You have firstly INCORRECTLY identified the cause of the problem. Secondly you have either FAILED or simply DO NOT KNOW much about markets or economics. Thirdly you appear opposed to this proposal purely as an "anti-capitalist" rather on the merits of the argument.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Genius, So we can hunt fish to extinction, but that's ok because we can have fish zoos to preserve the popular fish as curiosities for as long as people are willing to pay the massive costs of visiting underwater theme parks so they can look at sardines in captivity.
So you think that the owners of these sea plots would be able to change millions of years of evolution to stop fish and sea mammals from migrating along ocean currents as the seasons change.Firstly I agree privatisation should be done in stages and we should start with the continental shelves. Is it impossible to fence off areas of sea - no. Has research and development in this area been given an incentive to develop better methods and technologies - no. Do owners of certain areas have an incentive to conserve fish stocks, replenish etc - yes.
Your religious faith is amusing.
It would be in the owners interest to manipulate prices, of course it would, but it would not be in his capacity to control the life cycle of these fish, and any attempt to do so would result in appalling destruction of the ocean environment (killing predator fish who kill the valuable fish, resulting in imbalances in the natural ecology and unintended consequences (some other creature will try and fill the void, whether it's another kind of fish, or a parasite or a disease)That is what it's like under the current system Akrasia (again see Tragedy of the Commons). Under a privatised system it would be in owners interests to keep the capital value of his stock high, they will (if they envisage a future shortage and therefore a higher price) keep stocks OFF the market preserving them for times of future scarcity.
Would they be allowed to mine the seas on the perimeter to their territory? that would be the cheapest way of protecting their 'interests'. There is no way in hell fishermen could afford to patrol the vast areas of sea that would be required to make such a system work. the bigger the area of sea, the more expensive to patrol... it would not workWell as we all know, property owners have an interest to preserve and defend their property. They would certainly not do a worse job than is currently the case.
Property rights enforced by a state you moron, and property rights that are clearly defined. You can fence off a field and everything that grows there is yours, but you can't fence off the sea, and lay claim to the animals there without destroying the thing you're trying to defend.Firstly many people (correctly I think) believe that it is absurd to have "air corps" etc being wasted on this job. Secondly, before private ownership of land you had the same problems you described above, property rights was the solution to this!
You're mad. You believe the problem with this idea is that fence technology is not advanced enough?Like I pointed out earlier, there has been no incentive through private ownership rights for people to research new and innovative "fencing" techniques etc because researchers etc have nothing to apply it to!
there are no merits, it's a terrible terrible idea.I hope you're not dismissing it purely on ideological grounds and are willing to investigate the possibility and the potential benefits and have a rational discussion on the matter.
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
Since many marine creatures are commonly owned noone profits from their survival.
All one needs to do is look around and notice that we could slaughter all cows, chickens and horses into extinction, but we don't. None of these creatures are on the endangered species list. These animals are so valuable we have made them property.
Take this idea and run with it guys.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
¦
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
So instead of a planet with millions of diverse highly adapted and interrelated species, we'll have a few hundred breeds of domesticated farm animals and the odd species kept alive because people are willing to pay to look at them. You think that is an improvement?
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
If you feel that these millions of species benefit your existence, you are free to bid for the land on which they reside and preserve them. (Assuming you don't don't this, it's fair to assume you're ambivolent as to the survival of these species). The market breeds diversity, and there is a high chance that there will be groups doing this type of conservation work, if it has enough voluntary support, of course.
But I fail to see how your point dents my original point.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
¦
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And others would use their property more akin to farms, and others for different things, the market would decide that.
If you are asking about changes in sea temperature, that would seem to me to be a technological issue.
So we shouldn't have built roads and houses and office blocks and skyscrapers because of the damage to the ecology etc? That's your subjective opinion sure, but people would be free to do as they wish with their property. If people valued the natural ecology high enough they'd buy plots and leave it be.
You're assuming it would only be fishermen buying plots of sea. Just say an exploration company looking for minerals wanted a plot of sea (oil or whatever) it would be certainly worth their while to patrol the borders of their area for security reasons.
Did I say they weren't (or wouldnt be) enforced by a state you moron. Please point out the quote. Fool.
Firstly I said earlier that we should start with Continental Shelfs. Secondly I said that there has been no incentive to develop the best methods of "fencing" etc as we all know because people can't own the sea.
No.
You haven't given any arguments against it apart from "fishes like to swim" and "what about the ecology".... but you haven't addressed the problem with overfishing, depleted stocks etc. In fact you haven't given much of an argument at all. In fact your posts have been moronic and petulant and worthless. In fact you are a hypocrite accusing others of being idealogues while being guilty of that exact thing all thread.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Or else we could just leave nature alone and not interfere and try and turn everything on this planet into a money making opportunity.
It takes political action to protect endangered species. Charities would never be able to out bid businesses on a scale large enough to make a meaningful difference.
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote