The case for recycling

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if you can't stop with the cheap shots, why do you debate here at all? I have been nothing but forthcoming and to the point all along here, stating my opinions on a field I'm no expert in, but at least think have some good knowledge of.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a cheap shot. Saying that *you* don't have the answer, then extrapolating from that to say that "coercive intervention is the only solution" is the "cheap shot". It's an unjustified conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
If you guys have the answer to this problem, then by all means, I applaud you

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. But you don't, either, and yet your pushing a "solution" upon others. One that you admit is making things worse.

And note that you're begging a lot of questions. But I guess pointing that out would be a "cheap shot". Oh well, let's do it anyway:

1) if fish can't be owned, on what basis can governments restrict what is done with/to them?

2) why should we just blindly assume that something must be done in the first place? Is there some natural right to chilean sea bass?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you inferred in your statement that since I didn't know the solution, that it had to be impossible, or that I had to think it was impossible - and I tell you right away I'm not what most people would assume was narrowminded individual.

As for your questions:

1.) You would have to go by quotas which is the only thing that makes has any hope of working, but you have a lot of geographical claims and hopeless handling of resources going on in the world today - I don't think those would be better if we simply go over the property rights - since ownership of fish would be...well...a strained issue - On this issue I think you need some sort of legitimate authority which can rightfully handle violations of an ecologically and capitalistically unfit resource-handling.

If that could be some sort of big trade agreement is a definite possibility, but I don't know how AC looks on those, since it sounds kinda close to monopoly if it has to be followed.

2.) Well worst case scenario and things goes to hell you would be looking at widespread famine and huge economical collapses - the fishing industry alone is responsible for around 15% of the world's protein intake total, massively more in coastal nations - so we're talking big business, and then we haven't even looked at other industries which indirectly depends on it. If that scenario makes it a responsibility...I don't know, I think it does - you don't have to agree.