The case for recycling

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And what on earth is the point of your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you just answer it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered it, learn to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you didn't. You explained who *controlls* *some* of the ocean, which isn't wnat I asked.

Since you "don't get" the point, let me ask you this: you related stories of corporate destruction in "uncontrolled" waters (despite government regulation saying such activity is not allowed!). How much did you see in "controlled" waters? And by controlled, I mean

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked you to explain the point and you didn't. Sorry if I'm not in the mood for your useless word games concerning one of the most important global issues in existence.

State laws apply in 12nm zone and economical interests belong to the state in 212 nm zone. If you want to find out who owns these bits, then please go read the legislation for all the coastal states in the world. The rest is shared property.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The rest is shared property.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's your problem. Tragedy of the commons 101.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Who would want to own the ocean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think there is value to be extracted from the ocean?

Why, if you think nobody would want to own it, do people object to it being polluted?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The rest is shared property.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's your problem. Tragedy of the commons 101.

[/ QUOTE ]

The majority of commercially viable fishing takes place in economical zones, I fail to see the point.

[tame_deuces]

Though I will certainly say one thing which I forgot to mention. I said initially that I think the market should also be allowed to play a part in this, and by that I meant that some states subsidize economically unviable fishing in waters already suffering from overfishing, this is a genuine problem.

Not the least because alot of the commercially wanted fish migrate, so destroying stuff one place tends to destroy it elsewhere also.

[JayTee]

tame_deuces,

I don't see why you can't understand pvn's point. If people care about the polluting of oceans then that means it has value. Allow people to own something with value and it is in their best interest to protect that value. If you own a home it is in your best interest to preserve it, to protect your investment, to protect its value. If no one owns it but everyone has access to use it, it is in my best interest to steal the appliances and rip out the copper pipes. Do you understand the point?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who would want to own the ocean? I mean how would you exert your supposed ownership rights? States with coastguard and military have no incentiveto do that effectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh good. We definitely want to incentivize the massive waste of natural resources constructing huge navies and blowing more money into R&D for this to, uh, you know... save the environment and our economy. Or something.

[xorbie]

I tried to start writing a post explaining how ridiculous it is to suggest that we simply start owning the ocean, but I think it would be more fun to ask you people how you think that would go about working.

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
I tried to start writing a post explaining how ridiculous it is to suggest that we simply start owning the ocean, but I think it would be more fun to ask you people how you think that would go about working.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems as if you have already made up your mind. I wonder how deeply you have actually considered the subject. In any case, here is a brief document on water privatization.

[moorobot]

On the top page 14 he admits that "in many cases ownership is not yet economically viable". He does not claim it is possible for somebody to own the ocean right now. Also see the hilarious footnote on the next page about how Austrian school libertarianism incentives innovations certain (in this case, electric sea fences) while Chicago school libertarianism does not and talks about "mixing one's labor with the ocean" (which is a laughable and utterly impracticable notion; if I work on a tiny part of the ocean do I own the whole thing or just the 3 metres that I worked on? Do the descendants of vikings own it, because they mixed there labor without it centuries ago? What if I dump some liquid which has some minor improvment (or maybe not even an improvement) on a large area? Do I own that whole area? Why does it matter who gets to it first?)