A Solution to Overfishing - Property Rights

[Akrasia]

If you are asking about changes in sea temperature, that would seem to me to be a technological issue.

I was waiting for you to say that.
Giant kettles built into the sea bed. that and new fence technology. I can't believe I was so skeptical.
You do realise that Futurama is a fictional cartoon, right?

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 don't get it. If mr A buys a plot and uses it to generate profits, and mr B buys land and uses it to fulfil his aesthetic desire to preserve nature, over time, the profit generating explotiative capitalists will generate far more purchasing power and will gain control of more and more land squeezing out the ecologists and destroying the environment.

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.

what? in case poachers stole some of the oil they leave floating around in the sea?
Anyway, that's totally irrelevant, your point was that private ownership of the sea would solve over fishing. Oil companies are irrelevant, except that having full unregulated ownership of their bit of the sea would mean they could pollute the water as much as they like, I suppose you're right, killing all the fish would solve the problem of overfishing

Did I say they weren't (or wouldnt be) enforced by a state you moron. Please point out the quote. Fool.

You said the air corps was a waste of time and private interests could enforce their property rights more efficiently. On land, private interests pay nowhere near the full cost of defending their 'property rights' because the state is there to defend it for them. You think that it would be economical for a private company to patrol vast areas of water to protect against overfishing? You also think charities and conservationists could buy plots of sea and use them as wildlife sanctuaries? How long do you think the charities' capital would last if they had to pay a navy to patrol the seas and prevent piracy and poaching?

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.

it's still daft, you're still talking about selling all the worlds coral reefs foreshores and shallow waters to private companies to do whatever they like with. It is utterly utterly ridiculous to simply assume that these companies would have the foresight or the motivation to preserve these areas in such a way that would be a broader benefit to the ecology/wider economy and not just exploit them for short term profit destroying invaluable and irreplacable eco systems along the way

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.

I am blatantly attacking your ideology, I'm not trying to hide it. You believe that 'property rights' will solve every concievable problem but refuse to even acknowledge the other thread I posted using this very logic but applying it to poverty.
Here's the link. http://www.politics.ie/economy/99084...ty-rights.html

I openly acknowledge the arguments I made in that thread are utter nonsense, I would like you to show me where you disagree with them.

[20000miles]

Or else we could just leave nature alone and not interfere and try and turn everything on this planet into a money making opportunity.

Which would lead to the conclusion of the human race quickly dying out. It should be obvious that humans need to transform nature if we are to escape poverty.

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.

And yet you still refuse to combat the cause of their endangerment, all the while pushing for "political action", whatever that means.

[Akrasia]

Which would lead to the conclusion of the human race quickly dying out. It should be obvious that humans need to transform nature if we are to escape poverty.



And yet you still refuse to combat the cause of their endangerment, all the while pushing for "political action", whatever that means.

The cause of their endangerment is the constant expansion of human activity into their habitat and the extraction of finite resources to be used as raw materials in capitalist production.

The pathetic fact that people in Ireland believe that the 'freedom to choose' a tropical hardwood material for decking and garden furniture is a fundamental human right. It's not, it's unnecessary, it's expoitative, and it's, by any objective standard, a total waste of tropical forests that are ultimately much more valuable in the long term, as forests, than they are as deck chairs in an irish summer.

If we don't learn to live within our means then we're in for a very torrid time. Capitalism and free markets have nothing to in them to promote sustainability. A free Market can price scarcity after we've already depleted a resource, but it has no mechanism to prevent over expoitation of a resource before it becomes a problem. (what's the problem with filling my boat with Cod for cheap fish fingers, there are plenty of fish in the sea........ oh, there's a major shortage of cod now that we've killed most of them, oops, but the price has gone up so it's still worth my while to catch the remaining fish.... )

[20000miles]

The cause of their endangerment is the constant expansion of human activity into their habitat and the extraction of finite resources to be used as raw materials in capitalist production.

And once more, humans must transform natural resources into goods or they will soon perish. This is the case regardless of whether the economy is capitalist in nature or not.

The pathetic fact that people in Ireland believe that the 'freedom to choose' a tropical hardwood material for decking and garden furniture is a fundamental human right. It's not, it's unnecessary, it's expoitative, and it's, by any objective standard, a total waste of tropical forests that are ultimately much more valuable in the long term, as forests, than they are as deck chairs in an irish summer.

If we don't learn to live within our means then we're in for a very torrid time. Capitalism and free markets have nothing to in them to promote sustainability. A free Market can price scarcity after we've already depleted a resource, but it has no mechanism to prevent over expoitation of a resource before it becomes a problem. (what's the problem with filling my boat with Cod for cheap fish fingers, there are plenty of fish in the sea........ oh, there's a major shortage of cod now that we've killed most of them, oops, but the price has gone up so it's still worth my while to catch the remaining fish.... )

...

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.

[Akrasia]

And once more, humans must transform natural resources into goods or they will soon perish. This is the case regardless of whether the economy is capitalist in nature or not.

the logic that reigned on easter island....

[sandar]

This thread is a response to Ann Cahills article in todays Examiner (EU fisheries chief proposes 'discarding' quotas)



The problem with overfishing is a typical result of "The Tragedy of the Commons"[1][2][3]

This problem commonly occurs in such cases where a government prohibits homesteading or private property rights. Obviously in the case of seas the problem of defining borders becomes more difficult, but it can be done (States currently have boundaries defined for their national waters)

In 1940 Ludwig von Mises wrote:

SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA WITH MANY BEBENFITS IF IT CAN BE DONE RIGHT. THE ONLY PROBLEM I WONDER IS HOW WOULD IT WORK IN AN EU CONTEXT.....WOULD A FISHERMAN BE GIVEN PROPERTY WITHIN IRISH WATERS AND BE DEBARRED FROM EVERYWHERE ELSE?
EU States should privatise their national waters, owners would look after their property and its capital value, including the stocks of fish and the use of the property (recreation, etc) this would be a far more effective means of combating the overfishing problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] William Forster Lloyd, Two Lectures on the Checks to Population, 1833

[2] The Tragedy of the Commons -- 162 (3859): 1243 -- Science - "Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin, 1968, Science

[3] Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Hazlitt]

Giant kettles built into the sea bed.

You don't get it. If mr A buys a plot and uses it to generate profits, and mr B buys land and uses it to fulfil his aesthetic desire to preserve nature, over time, the profit generating explotiative capitalists will generate far more purchasing power and will gain control of more and more land..

In other words you think that more people would value mr A's use of the property higher than mr B.

Not only that, but in order for mr A to aquire any more of the sea-area, mr B would have to be willing to sell it in the first place. If he does sell it's because he doesn't value conserving the area higher than the money offered in trade. On the other hand maybe if mr A-krasia bought an area of sea he wouldn't sell it no matter what price offered, and in that way you'd be able to preserve the area in question.

what? in case poachers stole some of the oil they leave floating around in the sea?

Eh no actually to protect their machinery and workers from attack (from protesters and oil pirates obviously)

Anyway, that's totally irrelevant, your point was that private ownership of the sea would solve over fishing. Oil companies are irrelevant, except that having full unregulated ownership of their bit of the sea would mean they could pollute the water as much as they like, I suppose you're right, killing all the fish would solve the problem of overfishing

Well let's be clear, NO (rational) person is against pollution altogether, we all realise that pollution is an unfortunate by-product of production, and production is necessary for us to escape poverty. Therefore there are levels of pollution "acceptable" in society. If pollution doesn't affect other people or other peoples property, and the benefits outweigh the costs, then I see no problem in a certain level of sea pollution. Otherwise compensation will have to be paid by the polluter of course.

You said the air corps was a waste of time...

No I didn't.

.. and private interests could enforce their property rights more efficiently.

Again, that's not what I said. Obviously if the government sent the army to protect my house they could do a better job than a 2-man security firm that I could hire. That would be complete overkill of course.

.. On land, private interests pay nowhere near the full cost of defending their 'property rights' because the state is there to defend it for them.

Look, in the real world even though police are here to protect our property, shops still have security guards, banks still hire security firms, etc etc. That's because obviously the police can't be assigned to protect every piece of private property 24-7.

You think that it would be economical for a private company to patrol vast areas of water to protect against overfishing?

If a private company was making millions then yes I do. If the "air corps" was doing the patrolling there would still be a cost, the only difference is that this cost would be shouldered by ALL taxpayers instead of the private company.

You also think charities and conservationists could buy plots of sea and use them as wildlife sanctuaries?

Yes of course, people who were interested in conserving the plots would contribute to the cost if they valued it highly enough. People would pay to see the area etc if they valued that highly enough also.

..How long do you think the charities' capital would last if they had to pay a navy to patrol the seas and prevent piracy and poaching?

Well, they would have to calculate the costs/benefits for themselves. Again, if people valued it high enough they would contribute to it. Alternatively the state or relevant police department would be obliged to answer any calls of an attack on private property rights - that is their function. Just don't expect them to be able to patrol one persons property 24/7 similar to your or my property now.

it's still daft, you're still talking about selling all the worlds coral reefs foreshores and shallow waters to private companies to do whatever they like with.

They would only be able to profit from this if they produce goods or a service that people wanted! How else would they make money back from the investment (let alone a profit!) - people would only pay for products/services they wanted. If they are producing this then there is no problem with private individuals or firms owning it, they have paid for the privilege and are producing what people want.

It is utterly utterly ridiculous to simply assume that these companies would have the foresight or the motivation to preserve these areas in such a way that would be a broader benefit to the ecology/wider economy and not just exploit them for short term profit destroying invaluable and irreplacable eco systems along the way

Again, if people like you valued it high enough you could buy for preservation purposes. Secondly, whenever we build roads etc we are faced with the same question-preserve the natural environment or produce goods for people to live and prosper.

I am blatantly attacking your ideology, I'm not trying to hide it.

Yes I know, I pointed that out in my last post. You aren't using your brain.

You believe that 'property rights' will solve every concievable problem

No I don't, but it will solve the overfishing problem.

but refuse to even acknowledge the other thread I posted using this very logic but applying it to poverty.
Here's the link. http://www.politics.ie/economy/99084...ty-rights.html

I've never seen this thread, in fact I see now you had to give it a bump because nobody replied to it (probably because it's ridiculous). I'll contribute of course. Fish in a barrel come to mind (pardon the pun)

[Akrasia]

You think that it is practical to heat and cool your patch of the ocean to generate the conditions that fish require to survive. (as they can no longer migrate or follow seasonal ocean currents) Have you any idea how much energy that would take? and how physically impossible it would be to geoengineer ocean temperatures like that? And what a ridiculous length you have to go to to justify your idea of fencing off the oceans to solve overfishing....

In other words you think that more people would value mr A's use of the property higher than mr B.

No, in other words, businesses would have a revenue stream, non profit ecologists would have a revenue drain.
[/quote]
Not only that, but in order for mr A to aquire any more of the sea-area, mr B would have to be willing to sell it in the first place. If he does sell it's because he doesn't value conserving the area higher than the money offered in trade. On the other hand maybe if mr A-krasia bought an area of sea he wouldn't sell it no matter what price offered, and in that way you'd be able to preserve the area in question.[/quote]
Mr B would have to pay to patrol the reserves and protect them from pollution, fishing, and other activities, buy he would receive no income other than donations from other ecologists... It would be a huge burden to preserve any meaningful size of ocean as a nature reserve, and it would be futile anyway if all the seas around it are all 'fenced' off and migratory species prevented from travelling, or subject to over fishing in the non protected zones.

Eh no actually to protect their machinery and workers from attack (from protesters and oil pirates obviously)

And why has this got anything to do with the cost of patrolling vast areas of ocean to prevent poaching? Your arguments are so meandering, you raise all these irrelevant points. Securing a ship or an oil platform is a totally different to patrolling vast areas of sea for poachers (which is the logic of your entire thread, that overfishing could be stopped by giving individuals ownership of the sea and responsibility to protect their own property

Well let's be clear, NO (rational) person is against pollution altogether, we all realise that pollution is an unfortunate by-product of production, and production is necessary for us to escape poverty. Therefore there are levels of pollution "acceptable" in society. If pollution doesn't affect other people or other peoples property, and the benefits outweigh the costs, then I see no problem in a certain level of sea pollution. Otherwise compensation will have to be paid by the polluter of course.

Compensation to whom? If you own your bit of the continental shelf and you decide to mine coral and sell it as trinkets in gift shops around the world (destroying the coral reef in the process) who gets to sue them?

If the oil company pumps effluent directly into the sea that they 'own' because it's cheaper than processing it, who gets to sue them?


Yes of course, people who were interested in conserving the plots would contribute to the cost if they valued it highly enough. People would pay to see the area etc if they valued that highly enough also.

They would only be able to profit from this if they produce goods or a service that people wanted! How else would they make money back from the investment (let alone a profit!) - people would only pay for products/services they wanted. If they are producing this then there is no problem with private individuals or firms owning it, they have paid for the privilege and are producing what people want.

You use the word 'people' as if it was democratic, when what you really mean is 'wealthy people'. It's all about purchasing power. One billionaire would be able to influence the market much more than millions of ordinary people acting independently.

Again, if people like you valued it high enough you could buy for preservation purposes. Secondly, whenever we build roads etc we are faced with the same question-preserve the natural environment or produce goods for people to live and prosper.

I could value it higher than I value my own life, and I still wouldn't be in a position to compete with a multinational oil company or another extractive industry who saw the potential for billions of euros profits.

When we build roads, we have planning and consultation processes to try and reduce the environmental impact (aside from all the corruption) Your system is dictatorship of the 'owners' of the resource who pursue their own interests regardless of the wishes of others

[Hazlitt]

You think that it is practical to heat and cool...

What I said was that it is a technological issue...

No, in other words, businesses would have a revenue stream, non profit ecologists would have a revenue drain.

Businesses can only have a revenue stream if they are providing people with a good or service that they want. As for non-profit ecologists, this just shows that not as many people value that use of the property as highly as the other use.

And why has this got anything to do with the cost of patrolling vast areas of ocean..

I was replying to a previous point you made. Anyway, your argument of patrolling is not a good one, as with private interests in the protection of their property there would be an increase investment in protection of this property. If ecologists didn't have money for protection of their reserve then I'm sorry but that would be their problem, they would need to find a way to protect it. There are all sorts of methods currently being used to catch poachers, e.g. robotic fish that get caught as part of schools etc and lead authorities directly to the thieves for example. One thing is CERTAIN, under the current system poaching is RIFE and for you to argue to maintain the status quo will not help or improve matters.

Compensation to whom?

To whomever is affected by any negative effects to THEIR property. I can't sue somebody for polluting YOUR back garden, YOU would have to do that.

If you own your bit of the continental shelf and you decide to mine coral and sell it as trinkets in gift shops around the world (destroying the coral reef in the process) who gets to sue them?

They can do whatever they want with their property. Why should anyone else be allowed to sue them??! If you owned a copper mine and were digging/extracting minerals from the ground nobody can sue you for damaging your own property!

If the oil company pumps effluent directly into the sea that they 'own' because it's cheaper than processing it, who gets to sue them?

If it doesnt affect anybody else then nobody.

You use the word 'people' as if it was democratic, when what you really mean is 'wealthy people'. It's all about purchasing power. One billionaire would be able to influence the market much more than millions of ordinary people acting independently.

A billionaire could also purchase areas to conserve them. I could have said the same thing in reply to your earlier case that conservationists couldn't afford to patrol areas. I bet you Roman Abromovich, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Carlos Slim etc could WELL afford it.... don't forget that many of the above are philanthropists. People have different values regardless of their status, there are many poor people who are greedy f**kers, and many rich people who are selfless and kind, that is not an argument. Again, if I'm spending a lot of money on a piece of property from a business angle, I assumedly have to believe that I can produce goods that people want, otherwise I'll make a massive loss and have to sell it to somebody else anyway while I'm bankrupt. Also, you may never heard of companies, but they do exist, people do start companies, public companies also that have a LOT of purchasing power.

I could value it higher than I value my own life, and I still wouldn't be in a position to compete with a multinational oil company or another extractive industry who saw the potential for billions of euros profits.

Well to be honest if they saw potential for billions of euro profits then I would much prefer if they aquired the property and not you. They would be providing goods to the public where there is obviously a shortage of supply in a certain market and a much higher demand for things than what you could provide for people in that case. They would put the property to much more productive uses.

..Your system is dictatorship of the 'owners' of the resource who pursue their own interests regardless of the wishes of others

Hahahaha "dictatorship of the owners" oh come off it you kook ! What are you on about. Sure people are pursing their own interests, but everyone pursues their own interests - you included. Again, as Adam Smith said, It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.

[Akrasia]

What I said was that it is a technological issue...

That would be an ecumenical matter.....

The problem is that the many fish need water of a certain temperature which requires that they migrate (just one reason for migration). You want to fence them in to pens and regulate the ocean temperature artificially. And you wonder why I laugh and describe it as kettles under the sea. The other alternative is to knit little fish jumpers to keep them warm in winter.

Businesses can only have a revenue stream if they are providing people with a good or service that they want. As for non-profit ecologists, this just shows that not as many people value that use of the property as highly as the other use.

Why should ecologists have to pay huge sums of money to prevent others from destroying the environment.

I was replying to a previous point you made. Anyway, your argument of patrolling is not a good one, as with private interests in the protection of their property there would be an increase investment in protection of this property. If ecologists didn't have money for protection of their reserve then I'm sorry but that would be their problem, they would need to find a way to protect it.

So private property rights would solve 'overfishing' but only if the owners could afford their own permanentprivate navy? And this is an improvement on the current system?

There are all sorts of methods currently being used to catch poachers, e.g. robotic fish that get caught as part of schools etc and lead authorities directly to the thieves for example. One thing is CERTAIN, under the current system poaching is RIFE and for you to argue to maintain the status quo will not help or improve matters.

There should be international agreements and mutual cooperation between regions and states to crack down on illegal fishing and destruction of the environment. It is hard enough to do this when you have the resources of the E.U. to argue that private interests could do it better is just an article of faith.

To whomever is affected by any negative effects to THEIR property. I can't sue somebody for polluting YOUR back garden, YOU would have to do that.

So the polluting industries would just buy large areas of ocean and use them as toxic waste dumps. If they own the sea that is being polluted, all's well in the Libertarian/austrian world.

They can do whatever they want with their property. Why should anyone else be allowed to sue them??! If you owned a copper mine and were digging/extracting minerals from the ground nobody can sue you for damaging your own property!

Exactly, even if mining does permenant damage to the environment and ecology, as long as they 'own it' everything's hunky dory (I'd give the amazon rainforest a decade at most if this system was adopted)

Hahahaha "dictatorship of the owners" oh come off it you kook ! What are you on about. Sure people are pursing their own interests, but everyone pursues their own interests - you included. Again, as Adam Smith said, It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.

dictatorship as in they are not answerable to anybody. It's a recipe for disaster