|
Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our land
...Or more precisely the limited democratic framework of Britain and the USA to allow for public struggle and protest to force the state to
- protect public land - limit the destruction of land for private interest - subsequently protecting the enviroment - subsequently securing our fundamental rights as citizens to have access to the most treasured of lands and not to be in the hands of a select few. Shame on those who wish to strip us of our rights and hand over our freedoms to the unobligated clutching hands of private power and fat-cats! Anarchism would surely secure the equality and liberty of citizens to roam and explore ones country ("the land is indispensable to our existence, -- consequently a common thing, consequently insusceptible of appropriation; but land is much scarcer than the other elements, therefore its use must be regulated, not for the profit of a few, but in the interest and for the security of all. In a word, equality of rights is proved by equality of needs."-Proudhon); but within our realistic reach there's still a lot we can do within the system to protect our land. Here are some examples of victories of public struggle and the subsequent actions of the state concerning land ownership and its implications: [ QUOTE ] -pre- 2007 50% of the entire British coastline was closed to public access until.... 'Right to roam' England's beaches -Allemansrätt (Legal Right of Access to Private Land in Sweden) -Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 - In USA: -Judge Halts Oil and Gas Development in Proposed Colorado Wilderness Ruling protects wilderness qualities and rare plants from harmful drilling -Whipsnake Retains Critical Habitat, For Now Courts rule in favor of preserving, for now, more than 400,000 acres of San Francisco East Bay grasslands -Shell-Shocked in the Arctic An appeals court rules that Shell Offshore, Inc., must stay away from the Beaufort Sea at least through the winter of '07/08. -Utah Counties Can't Run Over National Parks You don't own parts of our national parks just because you say so. -Relief for Lake Okeechobee Is on the Way A federal judge rules that using Lake O as a polluted water reservoir is illegal without a federal permit. -Ghost Fleet Will Stay Put A plan to export obsolete military ships to England for scrapping is stopped. -Florida Coal Plan Is Nixed The Florida Public Service Commission refuses to approve a permit for a huge new coal-fired power plant near the Everglades. -Smog Slapdown Turndown Is Upheld An industry attempt to overturn tough ozone regulations is rejected by the DC Court of Appeals. -Supreme Court Rules Against Administration in Warming Case The high court says that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and that EPA has authority to regulate tailpipe emissions. -Judge Suspends Five Mine Permits A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that the practice of dumping the rubble into streams from blown up mountaintops violates the Clean Water Act. -Court Rebukes Administration for Misrepresenting Scientists To justify an increase in logging on steep slopes in the Northwest, the Forest Service ignored advice from leading scientists including some from the Fish and Wildlife Service. -Unanimous Ruling Goes Against Duke Power Supreme Court rules that power plant expansion requires upgraded pollution controls. -A Win for Forest Wildlife and the Public An attempt by the Bush administration to remove wildlife protection and exclude the public from forest-management decisions is rejected. -Klamath Salmon to Get Vital Water An attempt by irrigators to overturn minimum flows for salmon is rejected. -Protecting the "Heart of California" from Urban Development The primary zone of the California Delta is truly the heart of the state. This western watershed for the Sierra Nevada mountains is home to a multitude of wildlife and family farms, it also provides drinking water to millions of Californians. A recent proposal to allow 162 units of housing within this zone at Clarksburg was successfully challenged by Earthjustice and a coalition of local residents. -Lake Won't Be Obliterated by Waste Pristine Alaskan lake won't be used to dump toxic mining waste. -Protecting People from Brick Kiln Emissions Brick and clay manufacturers produce some of the worst air pollution in our nation. Now the EPA must follow the law and make this industry clean up its act. Proposed Wilderness Area to Regain Peace and Quiet Palisades Wilderness Study Area protected from ten-fold increase in recreational helicopter skiing -Polluting Lake Okeechobee Declared Illegal Water district must comply with the Clean Water Act before dumping into this drinking water source. - more here [/ QUOTE ] Dare I end this with the appropriate words of the great Woody Guthrie? You bet!: This land is your land, this land is my land From California, to the New York Island From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters This land was made for you and me As I was walking a ribbon of highway I saw above me an endless skyway I saw below me a golden valley This land was made for you and me I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts And all around me a voice was sounding This land was made for you and me The sun comes shining as I was strolling The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling The fog was lifting a voice come chanting This land was made for you and me As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there And that sign said - no tress passin' But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin! Now that side was made for you and me! In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple Near the relief office - I see my people And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin' If this land's still made for you and me. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
More examples!
[ QUOTE ] The law allows the industry to claim and mine minerals on the public’s land at rock-bottom rates. A patenting provision transfers the land itself for the 1872 price—$2.50 to $5 an acre (this provision is presently under a moratorium). No royalties are required on the ore mined, which can include (in Nevada) copper, silver, and gold and (in other states) platinum. [/ QUOTE ] Mining executives use a "rape and run" strategy. They defer environmental cleanup until after the mine is tapped out. Then they declare bankruptcy and walk away, leaving the state with the bill. No property owner other than the government would ever stand for having somebody come on to their land, take a fortune, and leave a mess behind. Go democracy! |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
More examples! [ QUOTE ] The law allows the industry to claim and mine minerals on the public’s land at rock-bottom rates. A patenting provision transfers the land itself for the 1872 price—$2.50 to $5 an acre (this provision is presently under a moratorium). No royalties are required on the ore mined, which can include (in Nevada) copper, silver, and gold and (in other states) platinum. [/ QUOTE ] Mining executives use a "rape and run" strategy. They defer environmental cleanup until after the mine is tapped out. Then they declare bankruptcy and walk away, leaving the state with the bill. No property owner other than the government would ever stand for having somebody come on to their land, take a fortune, and leave a mess behind. Go democracy! [/ QUOTE ] Yes, and George Bush tried to get roads built over protected forests - but was denied due to protests from publicly funded organisations. The state is as guilty as private power (they go hand in hand). However, popular protest and struggle, as with most things (civil rights, feminism...), forces the state to take some action. Thus one can be thankful such an apparatus exists, unlike in doctrines such as ACism. As I noted the statist approach is not the optimum, but, it's currently the only viable option and as such one can be thankful it exists as opposed some alternatives. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
No property owner other than the government would ever stand for having somebody come on to their land, take a fortune, and leave a mess behind. Go democracy! [/ QUOTE ] Eh? How about the powerless & the poor? The cowardly? Natives & the uninformed? The coerced, or those who willingly sign agreements they didn't understand? People whose children are kidnapped when they start litigation? There are a million ways for business to distort fair outcomes in the interests of profit, and to me these things seem far easier to achieve without a government and the universal rule of law. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No property owner other than the government would ever stand for having somebody come on to their land, take a fortune, and leave a mess behind. Go democracy! [/ QUOTE ] Eh? How about the powerless & the poor? The cowardly? Natives & the uninformed? The coerced, or those who willingly sign agreements they didn't understand? People whose children are kidnapped when they start litigation? There are a million ways for business to distort fair outcomes in the interests of profit, and to me these things seem far easier to achieve without a government and the universal rule of law. [/ QUOTE ] Would you agree that if a corporation has control of a politician that it becomes much easier for them to get their way? Also, we're talking about the basic premise of AC, private property. Have you read any of the literature and discussion on this topic, or just chose to ignore them. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
(I am an ACist, but have a soft spot for the environment.)
I agree with your bolded quote aiming for equality of rights, but how can regulation even approach this? The default AC position of unfettered property rights is the system that captures that ideal the most, since it is universal and objective. I'm assuming you disagree obviously, but I think that only leaves a few murky possibilities. First of all, it means you do not believe individuals have the right to own land in the true sense of the phrase. I'm doubting you mean that land cannot be owned though. My guess is you'd want restrictions to exist in how people could treat their land. This is where the state is invoked. But now you have inequality... You have an exclusive class of people that monopolize land regulation, which is composed of individuals who follow their own personal incentives just like everyone else. And now here is where democracy is invoked as the check against abuse of power. Well, what about global public action, or global democracy? What if the world majority votes that no more trees can be cut down in America? No one would accept this ridiculous outcome. America would claim unrestricted ownership rights over its territory. So, how did America, this entity, acquire the right to have ownership when no individual is capable of this? What is so magical or benevolent about America, or any other country in the world? Can I become a single-person state (maybe start with an island) and then have the right to purchase land and do whatever I please with it? Now we're back to the AC position! Anyway, I still smile when the state protects the environment, but that is only because it is my preference (it is what I would do if I owned so much land). And to be honest, I sadly have a dim outlook for the environment over the next few decades no matter what system is used. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
Would you agree that if a corporation has control of a politician that it becomes much easier for them to get their way? [/ QUOTE ] Depends on the corporation and the issue. It's somewhat easier for many, much easier for a few, and not much different for others. In terms of land exploitation under the current system vs land exploitation under all private property, it would be way, way easier for businesses to destroy for a quick profit if certain things were in private hands and regulations didn't exist. I think mining, timber and other activities overseas prove that. [ QUOTE ] Also, we're talking about the basic premise of AC, private property. [/ QUOTE ] I believe we are. [ QUOTE ] Have you read any of the literature and discussion on this topic, or just chose to ignore them. [/ QUOTE ] My points directly address the issue of environmental protection under a system of private property. I'm pointing out some of the flaws in the idealistic and unquantified AC response: "people look after their own stuff better", which to me is generally true for most classes of goods but a long way from the issues at hand. The market is really, really terrible at taking both a broad and long term view, which is needed for certain things such as environmental protection. I've read AC literature on this topic and I'm unimpressed with both the rigor and the supporting evidence. And the OP's point about being able to petition the government is a valid one. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your questions. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
Do you really think it is god's doing? Dude, your god takes the cake! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think it is god's doing? Dude, your god takes the cake! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] No, as an atheist I meant it in a metaphorical sense. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our land
zaster,
Let's examine the alternative to private ownership of valuable natual resources, including land. Common ownership of a valuable resource leads to a tragedy of the commons, as each individual seeks to maximize his personal exploitation of the resource (because people are greedy and evil, as I'm sure you'll agree). In the absence of private ownership then, to avoid this tragedy of the commons, a political elite must seize control of the resource and forceably exclude the majority of people from using it as they wish. In what way is this not "ownership", and in what way is it not exactly the kind of ownership that you fear, that a small group of powerful elite control valuable natural resources including land and exclude the majority of people from access to and use of it? It isn't. In fact, your whole argument rests on the assumption that the political owners will view preservation of lands in their natural state as the best political use of those resources. Frankly, I find such an assumption incredibly politically naive. Politicians will instead lease those lands to whatever powerful interests and for whatever purposes will return the most wealth and political power to themselves. In fact, the one main difference between the private ownership you despise and the public ownership that you praise is that under public ownership, the politicians cannot outright sell public lands and pocket the profits. Hence they have no inceptive beyond the political to preserve the capital value of the land for the future. Contrast this with private owners who must always balance their desire for current income with preserving the capital value of their assets, which is always a market value. The only difference is that state owners have an incentive to plunder at as fast a rate as possible and private owners have an incentive to preserve capital value. The result is that everywhere private property rights are allowed to form, tragedies of the commons are avoided, and everywhere that property rights are not allowed to form, tragedies of the commons or tragedies of political exploitation result. The cases you cite where governments act to "protect" lands are the environment are cases where it is politically expedient to do so in the short term. When the direction of the winds of political expediency shift, as they always do, . . . |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our land
The alternative to private ownership is that the land is democratically owned and thus its owners are obligated to treat it with public interests in mind. State ownership is the lesser of the two evils assuming these are the only 2 alternatives (there are more).
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
In the absence of private ownership then, to avoid this tragedy of the commons, a political elite must seize control of the resource and forceably exclude the majority of people from using it as they wish. [/ QUOTE ] You use forceful language to make your point, but it doesn't really represent the situation. Firstly, there is no political elite. Any person can run for a position in the lawmaking or executive body of the government. Any person. All he needs is to get the VOLUNTARY agreement of enough people in the area where he lives. If you claim that this system is distorted, then you have to accept that any system which is based on similar first principles of voluntary actions can suffer distortions as well. Anyway, do you really believe ONE PERSON should own something as valuable as Yellowstone National Park? If the price of timber goes up (or minerals, or oil), and that one person decides that he wants to cut down every tree in the park to make a fortune (so he can get wealthy fast, and buy other land that he wants more), there is nothing to stand in his way. That things so important rest on the assumption of long term rationality of a single individual is utterly retarded to me. Yet this is what your total private ownership scenario entails. I am well aware that it could be managed by private trusts, but there is zero guarantee of that - and you run into the same problem (see below). To come back to your " a political elite must seize control of the resource and forceably exclude the majority of people from using it as they wish." point, if Yellowstone (or any other area) was legitimately bought by a group of people or person who entrusted it voluntarily to the government, would government control of that area (to the forcible exclusion of all others) be valid? This is the thing that your rhetoric masks - any private ownership of land is "forcible exclusion of the majority of people". Government ownership just attempts to do it in the public interest. I can visit the wonder of Yellowstone any time I like without being subject to arbitrary whims and fees of an individual (who can keep me out of that area at the point gun at his whim, like the jack booted thug that he is). |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our land
[ QUOTE ]
The alternative to private ownership is that the land is democratically owned and thus its owners are obligated to treat it with public interests in mind. [/ QUOTE ] Obligated how? By what mechanisms do you propose that those in the state be compelled to do this, since they have control of all the resources? [ QUOTE ] State ownership is the lesser of the two evils assuming these are the only 2 alternatives (there are more). [/ QUOTE ] Please show this. I provided a simple explanation for how state ownership and private ownership is largely indistinguishable, with the exception that state owners have no incentive beyond the political to preserve the capital value of the resource. Please show how this is mistaken. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
I provided a simple explanation for how state ownership and private ownership is largely indistinguishable, with the exception that state owners have no incentive beyond the political to preserve the capital value of the resource. [/ QUOTE ] Even if you take the first part of your premise as a given, political incentive seems like a much stronger rationale to - for example - preserve Yellowstone National Park than any given private individual's motivation to do the same. The fact that there's even still a debate about drilling in the ANWR seems to suggest that that incentive is incredibly strong. (In that particular example, it might even be too strong. Your point, however, has consistently been that it practically doesn't exist, not that it's overwhelming.) |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In the absence of private ownership then, to avoid this tragedy of the commons, a political elite must seize control of the resource and forceably exclude the majority of people from using it as they wish. [/ QUOTE ] You use forceful language to make your point, but it doesn't really represent the situation. Firstly, there is no political elite. Any person can run for a position in the lawmaking or executive body of the government. Any person. [/ QUOTE ] Just because anyone may be a member of the political elite does not mean there is no political elite. All representative government accomplishes is to replace personal priveleges with functional priveleges. In either case, human beings are still the holders and benificiaries of those privileges. [ QUOTE ] All he needs is to get the VOLUNTARY agreement of enough people in the area where he lives. If you claim that this system is distorted, then you have to accept that any system which is based on similar first principles of voluntary actions can suffer distortions as well. [/ QUOTE ] Your capitalization of the word "voluntary" does not change the fact that what the parties involved are voluntarily agreeing to do is get together and coerce someone else, which, even if I grant arguendo that this kind of contract is legitimate, is emphatically not analogous to the market, where all legitimate transaction is actually voluntary. [ QUOTE ] Anyway, do you really believe ONE PERSON should own something as valuable as Yellowstone National Park? If the price of timber goes up (or minerals, or oil), and that one person decides that he wants to cut down every tree in the park to make a fortune (so he can get wealthy fast, and buy other land that he wants more), there is nothing to stand in his way. That things so important rest on the assumption of long term rationality of a single individual is utterly retarded to me. Yet this is what your total private ownership scenario entails. I am well aware that it could be managed by private trusts, but there is zero guarantee of that - and you run into the same problem (see below). [/ QUOTE ] Do you really believe that the highest and best use of Yellowstone could ever possibly be for its timber? There are vast millions of acres of timber farmland. Or perhaps strip mining? How about as a toxic waste dump? Where do you get this stuff? The highest and best use of Yellowstone is clearly as a park; it is in fact ideally suited for exactly this purpose. There are many, many wildlife preserves that are privately owned. Yet you just assume that they either can't exist, or that the people who own them will magically one day decide to plow them under to make parking lots or something, because apparently they can't be trusted to care as much about nature as you and the indefinite stream of infallible bureaucrats stretching off into the distant future that you so blithely put your trust in. People like nature and parks. They are willing to pay to patronize and preserve them because they value them as parks in their natural states. That's their highest and best use. Claiming that relying on the "long term rationality" of the owner, who has his own self-interest tied to the preservation of the long term capital value of the asset, is "retarded" while relying on the long term rationality of a short-term politico whose self-interest is tied to the immediate plunder of the asset but who has no interest in the capital value of the asset at all is what is actually retarded. If the price of timber DID go up to the point where it's best use was to be clear cut, do you honestly believe that some timber company wouldn't just make a big enough campaign contribution to be granted the timber rights to clear cut the place? How naive are you? Have you read nothing about the history of the government? This *exact* thing has happened time after time. Privately owned timber land is carefully managed to preserve its value, but government timber land, with its short term leases to the maximum bidder, is clear cut and mismanaged, causing terrible harm to the public forests. Or the public lands are neglected, underbrush is allowed to accumulate, become dry and turn into tinder, turning the public lands into giant fire hazards, decimating the public lands with massive wild fires. Why don't you actually check into how your precious government actually manages the lands under its control compared to comparable private lands before you jump head first into these arguments? [ QUOTE ] To come back to your " a political elite must seize control of the resource and forceably exclude the majority of people from using it as they wish." point, if Yellowstone (or any other area) was legitimately bought by a group of people or person who entrusted it voluntarily to the government, would government control of that area (to the forcible exclusion of all others) be valid? [/ QUOTE ] Who cares? [ QUOTE ] This is the thing that your rhetoric masks - any private ownership of land is "forcible exclusion of the majority of people". [/ QUOTE ] Yes. Exactly correct. [ QUOTE ] Government ownership just attempts to do it in the public interest. I can visit the wonder of Yellowstone any time I like without being subject to arbitrary whims and fees of an individual (who can keep me out of that area at the point gun at his whim, like the jack booted thug that he is). [/ QUOTE ] The entire point of the argument is that government ownership of land is exactly like the private ownership of land that you hate so much, with the sole difference that private owners are interested in preserving the capital value of the land whereas those in government do not. You simply assume that governments will preserve lands and grant you access while assuming that private owners are morons who will destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs. I.e., you assume your entire argument. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I provided a simple explanation for how state ownership and private ownership is largely indistinguishable, with the exception that state owners have no incentive beyond the political to preserve the capital value of the resource. [/ QUOTE ] Even if you take the first part of your premise as a given, political incentive seems like a much stronger rationale to - for example - preserve Yellowstone National Park than any given private individual's motivation to do the same. The fact that there's even still a debate about drilling in the ANWR seems to suggest that that incentive is incredibly strong. (In that particular example, it might even be too strong. Your point, however, has consistently been that it practically doesn't exist, not that it's overwhelming.) [/ QUOTE ] Just wait for the price of oil to hit $80 or $100 per barrel and get back to me on what happens to ANWR. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I provided a simple explanation for how state ownership and private ownership is largely indistinguishable, with the exception that state owners have no incentive beyond the political to preserve the capital value of the resource. [/ QUOTE ] Even if you take the first part of your premise as a given, political incentive seems like a much stronger rationale to - for example - preserve Yellowstone National Park than any given private individual's motivation to do the same. The fact that there's even still a debate about drilling in the ANWR seems to suggest that that incentive is incredibly strong. (In that particular example, it might even be too strong. Your point, however, has consistently been that it practically doesn't exist, not that it's overwhelming.) [/ QUOTE ] Just wait for the price of oil to hit $80 or $100 per barrel and get back to me on what happens to ANWR. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, fine, they'll drill it. At what point would a corporation have drilled it? If it's "prior to now", doesn't this imply that political incentive in this case is *stronger* than corporate? |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
The entire point of the argument is that government ownership of land is exactly like the private ownership of land that you hate so much, with the sole difference that private owners are interested in preserving the capital value of the land whereas those in government do not. [/ QUOTE ] It's good that you say this because this is the point at which we disagree. I and others do not think that private owners are interested in the preserving the long term capital of certain types of goods and land. I think the Amazon (and yes, guaranteed ownership does indeed exist there, very similar to an AC system, in fact) makes that a slam dunk win for me. I also think that markets fail when confronted with ecosystems that require preservation. But this requires a well referenced argument to make a case, which I don't have time for immediately. [ QUOTE ] You simply assume that governments will preserve lands and grant you access while assuming that private owners are morons who will destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs. I.e., you assume your entire argument. [/ QUOTE ] Are you familiar with the golden goose story? This is actually a good analogy for the preservation vs plunder situation. You have a goose that lives forever, and lays a golden egg a week, worth $1000. Or, you can kill the goose and retrieve a diamond egg from its belly, worth $10,000,000. Put 1000 of these in the hands of private owners. What percentage of golden geese still exist after a year? After 10 years? After a century? I think not many. The fact is that the immediate economic value of many types of land is very low when preserved. For example, companies clear fell large areas of land they actually own, despite huge amounts of evidence that such activities are less profitable and far worse environmentally in the long run compared to managed extraction. WHY??? The answer is because the owners of these businesses want to be wealthy, NOW. Not in 50 years time. And when land is cheap, as it is in many places, exploiting large areas of it quickly is the best way to make a fortune and hurt your competitor. Your theory of private rationality fails miserably in this regard, or at least, fails to take into account people's massive preference for quick profit over very long term gain. And in fact, the market selects for these kind of people by giving them wealth, and makes them land owners in the short term (under a century). This is the core of the reason why capitalism fails dismally at protecting land. Further to this, the timber industry is an excellent example of governments doing a better job than private businesses at preservation. Governments generally preserve state forests for managed timber extraction and other uses (at least, they do in Australia); they rarely clear fell any area. This is in spite of the disincentives you claim politicians have. So I think your case is weak. There are many more points to add to the one above, and I agree that more rigor is required to fully debunk it. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
A golden goose that has $10,000,000 inside of it thats only paying $52,000 interest a year won't survive because its foolish to keep it alive. Just kill the damn thing and invest it in ANYTHING and make better than the .5% interest rate the goose is giving you. Even social security is a better investment than this goose.
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
A golden goose that has $10,000,000 inside of it thats only paying $52,000 interest a year won't survive because its foolish to keep it alive. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly, actually if you factor in the worth of money in hands of a capable entrepreneur, and the cheapness/abundance of land, and uncertainty about the future value of various items, the ratio of long term wealth to immediate wealth makes it an economic slam dunk to pillage the land - at least form the individual's perspective. One of the other problem is that long term consequences are uncertain and that avenues of wealth are unrealized. For example, 30 years ago the value of ecotourism was not considered. Now, people with fragments of the remaining wilderness in various areas can make good money, and this value will only increase with time. But the guys who felled the last 1/4 or so only looked at the value of the land at the moment - they simply didn't know any better, or didn't care about the value of something in 20 years time. This is the myopia of capitalism and private ownership. Another example is the value of pharmaceuticals in various ecosystems. Massive economic potential - no one had a clue 20 years ago just how valuable this storehouse of organic chemicals could become. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A golden goose that has $10,000,000 inside of it thats only paying $52,000 interest a year won't survive because its foolish to keep it alive. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly, actually if you factor in the worth of money in hands of a capable entrepreneur, and the cheapness/abundance of land, and uncertainty about the future value of various items, the ratio of long term wealth to immediate wealth makes it an economic slam dunk to pillage the land - at least form the individual's perspective. [/ QUOTE ] But your argument is that the goose, even though it's worth more dead than alive, shouldn't be "pillaged". Please explain why. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
But your argument is that the goose, even though it's worth more dead than alive, shouldn't be "pillaged". Please explain why. [/ QUOTE ] http://www.singletracks.com/blog/wp-...on-arizona.JPG |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
But your argument is that the goose, even though it's worth more dead than alive, shouldn't be "pillaged". Please explain why. [/ QUOTE ] Remember when I said that AC as a philosophy appears to take an almost sociopathic view of life as a game you play with money as a scoresheet? Good times. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The entire point of the argument is that government ownership of land is exactly like the private ownership of land that you hate so much, with the sole difference that private owners are interested in preserving the capital value of the land whereas those in government do not. [/ QUOTE ] It's good that you say this because this is the point at which we disagree. I and others do not think that private owners are interested in the preserving the long term capital of certain types of goods and land. [/ QUOTE ] This flies in the face of common sense and hundreds of years of long-settled economic theory. Owners have no interest in the value of their capital? [ QUOTE ] I think the Amazon (and yes, guaranteed ownership does indeed exist there, very similar to an AC system, in fact) makes that a slam dunk win for me. [/ QUOTE ] Lol! You mean the same Amazon where the government is taking the land away from the natives and giving it to timber companies and subsidizing slash and burn agriculture and colonization? What a slam dunk! [ QUOTE ] I also think that markets fail when confronted with ecosystems that require preservation. But this requires a well referenced argument to make a case, which I don't have time for immediately. [ QUOTE ] You simply assume that governments will preserve lands and grant you access while assuming that private owners are morons who will destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs. I.e., you assume your entire argument. [/ QUOTE ] Are you familiar with the golden goose story? This is actually a good analogy for the preservation vs plunder situation. You have a goose that lives forever, and lays a golden egg a week, worth $1000. Or, you can kill the goose and retrieve a diamond egg from its belly, worth $10,000,000. Put 1000 of these in the hands of private owners. What percentage of golden geese still exist after a year? After 10 years? After a century? I think not many. [/ QUOTE ] Argument by mythical creatures and made up numbers. [ QUOTE ] The fact is that the immediate economic value of many types of land is very low when preserved. For example, companies clear fell large areas of land they actually own, despite huge amounts of evidence that such activities are less profitable and far worse environmentally in the long run compared to managed extraction. WHY??? The answer is because the owners of these businesses want to be wealthy, NOW. Not in 50 years time. And when land is cheap, as it is in many places, exploiting large areas of it quickly is the best way to make a fortune and hurt your competitor. Your theory of private rationality fails miserably in this regard, or at least, fails to take into account people's massive preference for quick profit over very long term gain. And in fact, the market selects for these kind of people by giving them wealth, and makes them land owners in the short term (under a century). This is the core of the reason why capitalism fails dismally at protecting land. [/ QUOTE ] Support any of this. It is complete and total bunk. [ QUOTE ] Further to this, the timber industry is an excellent example of governments doing a better job than private businesses at preservation. Governments generally preserve state forests for managed timber extraction and other uses (at least, they do in Australia); they rarely clear fell any area. This is in spite of the disincentives you claim politicians have. [/ QUOTE ] Again. Support any of this. The record of public vs. private land conservation is clear. [ QUOTE ] The federal government owns approximately one third of the land in the United States, and its land policies in the West, where most of its property is located, have led to the steady deterioration of the land and its wildlife . . . The quality of management of private lands in contrast to that of public lands—whether federal, state or local—bears this out: There are few if any clear-cutting, depletion, or soil erosion problems on Boise Cascade’s properties or other private forests. There are few if any overgrazing problems on private ranches. And there is far less poaching on private lands than in public parks. <font color="white"> . </font> Those close to the land—whether in a commercial sense or even in terms of a cause—are far better stewards than bureaucrats, whose management of the “commons” ensures abuse since they possess few incentives to protect the land. Since their revenues are extracted from the citizenry by the force of taxation, bureaucratic managers have no way of telling whether they administrate resources in ways beneficial to the public or not. <font color="white"> . </font> Where in a market economy, disenchanted consumers are free to shop elsewhere, no such opportunity exists under the domain of a bureaucracy with monopoly powers. <font color="white"> . </font> Guaranteed revenues almost regardless of how they perform, bureaucrats actually have every incentive to mismanage resources in order to justify their jobs and their agency’s ever expanded existence. Even If bureaucrats were angels with perfect ambitions to do only good, the dilemma of their ignorance in being shielded from the verdict of customers (the citizenry), prevents them from acting in ways to protect and enhance resources. <font color="white"> . </font> In contrast, the quality of land management for wildlife by privatizing federal lands is well illustrated by hundreds of successful private preserves operated throughout the United States, many of which help boost the populations of threatened and endangered species. <font color="white"> . </font> For example, the Audubon Society’s Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary in Vermilion Pariah, La., owns and carefully manages the land for wildlife and for oil production. In order to maximize its value, the Audubon Society carefully investigated and weighed the use of its land and discovered that there is no necessary conflict between the pursuit of both economic and environmental goals. <font color="white"> . </font> The Nature Conservancy, another major environmental group, similarly accomplishes many of its goals—setting aside land for species—very effectively by buying property and keeping it out of the hands of the government . . . <font color="white"> . </font> On privatized lands, ranchers, and mining lumber concerns would be forced to consider not just grazing, extraction and harvesting (now at low costs), but reforestation, remediation, and land rotation if they wanted to remain profitable in the future. -- David J. Theroux, Independence Institute [/ QUOTE ] I could go on for dozens of pages citing government created tragedies of the commons: [ QUOTE ] One example has been timber resources. In the American West and in Canada, most of the forests are owned, not by private owners but by the federal (or provincial) government. The government then leases their use to private timber companies. In short, private property is per*mitted only in the annual use of the resource, but not in the forest, the resource, itself. In this situation, the private timber company does not own the capital value, and therefore does not have to worry about depletion of the resource itself. The timber company has no economic incentive to conserve the resource, replant trees, etc. Its only incentive is to cut as many trees as quickly as possible, since there is no economic value to the timber company in maintaining the capital value of the forest. In Europe, where private ownership of forests is far more com*mon, there is little complaint of destruction of timber resources. For wherever private property is allowed in the forest itself, it is to the benefit of the owner to preserve and restore tree growth while he is cutting timber, so as to avoid depletion of the forest's capital value.8 <font color="white"> . </font> Thus, in the United States, a major culprit has been the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which owns forests and leases annual rights to cut timber, with resulting devastation of the trees. In contrast, private forests such as those owned by large lumber firms like Georgia-Pacific and U.S. Plywood scientifically cut and reforest their trees in order to maintain their future supply.9 <font color="white"> . </font> Another unhappy consequence of the American government's failure to allow private property in a resource was the destruction of the West*ern grasslands in the late nineteenth century. Every viewer of "Western" movies is familiar with the mystique of the "open range and the often violent "wars" among cattlemen, sheepmen, and farmers over parcels of ranch land. The "open range" was the failure of the federal govern*ment to apply the policy of homesteading to the changed conditions of the drier climate west of the Mississippi. In the East, the 160 acres granted free to homesteading farmers on government land constituted a viable technological unit for farming in a wetter climate. But in the dry climate of the West, no successful cattle or sheep ranch could be organized on a mere 160 acres. But the federal government refused to expand the 160-acre unit to allow the "homesteading" of larger cattle ranches. Hence, the "open range," on which private cattle and sheep owners were able to roam unchecked on government-owned pasture land. But this meant that no one owned the pasture, the land itself; it was therefore to the economic advantage of every cattle or sheep owner to graze the land and use up the grass as quickly as possible, otherwise the grass would be grazed by some other sheep or cattle owner. The result of this tragically shortsighted refusal to allow private property in grazing land itself was an overgrazing of the land, the ruining of the grassland by grazing too early in the season, and the failure of anyone to restore or replant the grass?anyone who bothered to restore the grass would have had to look on helplessly while someone else grazed his cattle or sheep. Hence the overgrazing of the West, and the onset of the "dust bowl." Hence also the illegal attempts by numerous cattle*men, farmers, and sheepmen to take the law into their own hands and fence off the land into private property?and the range wars that often followed. <font color="white"> . </font> Professor Samuel P. Hays, in his authoritative account of the conserva*tion movement in America, writes of the range problem: <font color="white"> . </font> [ QUOTE ] Much of the Western livestock industry depended for its forage upon the "open" range, owned by the federal government, but free for anyone to use?. Con*gress had never provided legislation regulating grazing or permitting stockmen to acquire range lands. Cattle and sheepmen roamed the public domain?. Cattlemen fenced range for their exclusive use, but competitors cut the wire. Resorting to force and violence, sheepherders and cowboys "solved" their dis*putes over grazing lands by slaughtering rival livestock and murdering rival stockmen?. Absence of the most elementary institutions of property law created confusion, bitterness, and destruction. <font color="white"> . </font> Amid this turmoil the public range rapidly deteriorated. Originally plentiful and lush, the forage supply was subjected to intense pressure by increasing use?. The public domain became stocked with more animals than the range could support. Since each stockman feared that others would beat him to the available forage, he grazed early in the year and did not permit the young grass to mature and reseed. Under such conditions the quality and quantity of available forage rapidly decreased; vigorous perennials gave way to annuals and annuals to weeds.10 [/ QUOTE ] <font color="white"> . </font> Hays concludes that public-domain range lands may have been depleted by over two-thirds by this process, as compared to their virgin condition. -- Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty [/ QUOTE ] How about I go into how ocean fish stocks are being "protected" into oblivion by the tragedy of the commons that results from governments refusing to allow property rights to develop in ocean fisheries? Or how African countries that tried to protect elephants as public resources saw their populations decimated but nations that simply gave the elephants to the local tribes to do with as they saw fit saw their populations steadily increase? Given that even poor, ignorant African tribesman were apparently smart enough to care about their long term capital value, doesn't that tend to belie your "all non-bureaucrats are short-sighted nimrods" theory? [ QUOTE ] So I think your case is weak. There are many more points to add to the one above, and I agree that more rigor is required to fully debunk it. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think your moronic-private-owner/angelic-bureaucrat theory is going to be debunking anything. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A golden goose that has $10,000,000 inside of it thats only paying $52,000 interest a year won't survive because its foolish to keep it alive. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly, actually if you factor in the worth of money in hands of a capable entrepreneur, and the cheapness/abundance of land, and uncertainty about the future value of various items, the ratio of long term wealth to immediate wealth makes it an economic slam dunk to pillage the land - at least form the individual's perspective. One of the other problem is that long term consequences are uncertain and that avenues of wealth are unrealized. For example, 30 years ago the value of ecotourism was not considered. Now, people with fragments of the remaining wilderness in various areas can make good money, and this value will only increase with time. But the guys who felled the last 1/4 or so only looked at the value of the land at the moment - they simply didn't know any better, or didn't care about the value of something in 20 years time. This is the myopia of capitalism and private ownership. Another example is the value of pharmaceuticals in various ecosystems. Massive economic potential - no one had a clue 20 years ago just how valuable this storehouse of organic chemicals could become. [/ QUOTE ] You aren't convincing me anything with the golden goose example. Preserving it would be extremely foolish. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But your argument is that the goose, even though it's worth more dead than alive, shouldn't be "pillaged". Please explain why. [/ QUOTE ] http://www.singletracks.com/blog/wp-...on-arizona.JPG [/ QUOTE ] . . . [ QUOTE ] Remember when I said that AC as a philosophy appears to take an almost sociopathic view of life as a game you play with money as a scoresheet? Good times. [/ QUOTE ] Geez guys, no Pegasus that [censored] rubies worth $5000 per week? |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But your argument is that the goose, even though it's worth more dead than alive, shouldn't be "pillaged". Please explain why. [/ QUOTE ] http://www.singletracks.com/blog/wp-...on-arizona.JPG [/ QUOTE ] What's your point, exactly? |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
Borodog,
At what $/barrel price point would a corporation owning the ANWR, in your opinion, have decided to drill it for oil? |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But your argument is that the goose, even though it's worth more dead than alive, shouldn't be "pillaged". Please explain why. [/ QUOTE ] Remember when I said that AC as a philosophy appears to take an almost sociopathic view of life as a game you play with money as a scoresheet? Good times. [/ QUOTE ] Good times, indeed. It was his example, not mine. I'm asking for someone to explain WHY the cost/benefit "scorecard" should be disregarded, and the decision that doesn't fit with the "scorecard" chosen. Can you provide an answer? Now is your BIG CHANCE to show how dumb the "scorekeeping" is. Hint: you and iron are both walking into the same pile of poopoo. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
Borodog, At what $/barrel price point would a corporation owning the ANWR, in your opinion, have decided to drill it for oil? [/ QUOTE ] I haven't the foggiest. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Borodog, At what $/barrel price point would a corporation owning the ANWR, in your opinion, have decided to drill it for oil? [/ QUOTE ] I haven't the foggiest. [/ QUOTE ] Would a private corporation have decided to drill it for oil prior to the close of today's market price? |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Borodog, At what $/barrel price point would a corporation owning the ANWR, in your opinion, have decided to drill it for oil? [/ QUOTE ] I haven't the foggiest. [/ QUOTE ] Would a private corporation have decided to drill it for oil prior to the close of today's market price? [/ QUOTE ] I haven't the foggiest. That's what businessmen are for. What's the point? |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Borodog, At what $/barrel price point would a corporation owning the ANWR, in your opinion, have decided to drill it for oil? [/ QUOTE ] I haven't the foggiest. [/ QUOTE ] Would a private corporation have decided to drill it for oil prior to the close of today's market price? [/ QUOTE ] I haven't the foggiest. That's what businessmen are for. [/ QUOTE ] Since various businessmen have been lobbying Congress to open ANWR for drilling for the last two decades or so, I'll go ahead and assume that a private corporation would have drilled ANWR by now. Does that sound like a fair assumption? [ QUOTE ] What's the point? [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The fact that there's even still a debate about drilling in the ANWR seems to suggest that that [political incentive to preserve land] is incredibly strong. (In that particular example, it might even be too strong. Your point, however, has consistently been that it practically doesn't exist, not that it's overwhelming.) [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Borodog, At what $/barrel price point would a corporation owning the ANWR, in your opinion, have decided to drill it for oil? [/ QUOTE ] I haven't the foggiest. [/ QUOTE ] Would a private corporation have decided to drill it for oil prior to the close of today's market price? [/ QUOTE ] I haven't the foggiest. That's what businessmen are for. What's the point? [/ QUOTE ] I'll go ahead and get to the punchline. He's going to do some sort of cost/benefit "scorecard" that shows that there's money to be made by blowing the earth up and getting the iron out of the core for scrap. But it will leave out a crucial piece of information - the VALUE to the OWNER of leaving the resource INTACT. It's like we get into a discussion about chopping cars. Let's say a guy who owns a parking lot lets me have access to the cars that are parked there in his trust, and he'll let me take the rims, radios, etc. But he won't let me take the entire car (if entire cars disappear his customers might start to suspect something). Now, I run some cost/benefit analysis, and it's clearly beneficial *to me* to "pillage" the cars. From this, we can obviously conclude that people everywhere will be tearing their OWN cars apart, right? |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
I'll go ahead and get to the punchline. He's going to do some sort of cost/benefit "scorecard" that shows that there's money to be made by blowing the earth up and getting the iron out of the core for scrap. But it will leave out a crucial piece of information - the VALUE to the OWNER of leaving the resource INTACT. [/ QUOTE ] What's the corporate value of leaving the ANWR intact? |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Borodog, At what $/barrel price point would a corporation owning the ANWR, in your opinion, have decided to drill it for oil? [/ QUOTE ] I haven't the foggiest. [/ QUOTE ] Would a private corporation have decided to drill it for oil prior to the close of today's market price? [/ QUOTE ] I haven't the foggiest. That's what businessmen are for. [/ QUOTE ] Since various businessmen have been lobbying Congress to open ANWR for drilling for the last two decades or so, I'll go ahead and assume that a private corporation would have drilled ANWR by now. Does that sound like a fair assumption? [/ QUOTE ] I have no idea what the situation would be in the absence of government ownership of the land. It's an impossible counterfactual. I also don't know the details of what the agreement would be whereby the government would open up this land for private exploitation. Given the incestuous history of corporate-government arrangements, my strong suspicion is that the drilling would be heavily subsidized by government. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What's the point? [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The fact that there's even still a debate about drilling in the ANWR seems to suggest that that [political incentive to preserve land] is incredibly strong. (In that particular example, it might even be too strong. Your point, however, has consistently been that it practically doesn't exist, not that it's overwhelming.) [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] A) Why are you ignoring mountains of empirical evidence and virtually my entire theoretical argument for this obtuse point about ANWR? One case, regardless of whether it actually shows what you think it does, does not belie the vast majority of the history of government land management. B) Didn't you already admit that at sufficient price access will inevitably be bought? So you're just haggling about the price at which the resource will be destroyed? And this is supposed to be some sort of argument in favor of government ownership? C) Why did you switch from Yellowstone, where the highest and best use is clearly as a park, to ANWR, where the highest and best use might not be? If the highest and best use of ANWR is actually to drill oil, who are you and your coercive government to deprive the mass of the consuming public of the highest and best use of that resource? Not to mention that exploitation of oil resources needn't destroy the value as a wildlife preserve, as is demonstrated by the Audobon Society case I quoted above. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
This is the thing that your rhetoric masks - any private ownership of land is "forcible exclusion of the majority of people". Government ownership just attempts to do it in the public interest. I can visit the wonder of Yellowstone any time I like without being subject to arbitrary whims and fees of an individual [/ QUOTE ] This is what is so amusing about you Phil, how you manage to display your ignorance so gracefully. If you knew anything about the history of Yellowstone, or the Grand Canyon, or anyone of a number of national parks in the US. Did you know that there actually was a time when these areas of land were designated national parks AND people really could walk about the freely without fees or whims of individuals running them? Perhaps if you did you would know that the government spent tens of millions of dollars cleaning up the parks because they were trashed. Trails were worn down to bedrock which is both dangerous for the hiker as rocks are slippery, but further increases the rate of erosion. Animals were hunted out of the park (wolves, grizzles, elk) because the government paid no attention to their numbers. Trash and litter were spread quite liberally throughout the parks because there were no rangers, or trashcans or signs gently asking people to remove it from the park. It is hilarious that you post this crap when in actual fact that it was only when the government started limiting visitors and charging fees that these conditions improved. It is only when they stopped things like this "I can visit the wonder of Yellowstone any time I like without being subject to arbitrary whims and fees of an individual" that the very things you are so concerned with stopped occurring. But what is most amusing is the fact that there are probably dozens to hundreds of books on the history of the Grand Canyon, or Yellowstone which dedicate many words describing these very facts. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'll go ahead and get to the punchline. He's going to do some sort of cost/benefit "scorecard" that shows that there's money to be made by blowing the earth up and getting the iron out of the core for scrap. But it will leave out a crucial piece of information - the VALUE to the OWNER of leaving the resource INTACT. [/ QUOTE ] What's the corporate value of leaving the ANWR intact? [/ QUOTE ] The Pretense of Knowledge. |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what the situation would be in the absence of government ownership of the land. It's an impossible counterfactual. I also don't know the details of what the agreement would be whereby the government would open up this land for private exploitation. Given the incestuous history of corporate-government arrangements, my strong suspicion is that the drilling would be heavily subsidized by government. [/ QUOTE ] In other words, it's fine for me to make a giant assumption for the sake of argument that "state ownership and private ownership is largely indistinguishable", but for you to concede that a corporation would probably have drilled in ANWR by now is an impossible counterfactual. You know, it doesn't work both ways. You don't get to pretend to be extremely knowledgeable on economic theory and then feign ignorance on whether you can even assume that a corporation that's been lobbying to drill an area for oil since the 1970's would want to, err, drill the area for oil. [ QUOTE ] A) Why are you ignoring mountains of empirical evidence and virtually my entire theoretical argument for this obtuse point about ANWR? One case, regardless of whether it actually shows what you think it does, does not belie the vast majority of the history of government land management. [/ QUOTE ] What history would that be? We both know land management, except in the most primitive sense, hasn't even been a twinkle in the public consciousness until around 1900. Since that point, and especially since 1950, I submit that the American government has actually managed the environment pretty well. Corporate management of the land...not so much. Even those well maintained forests you've been mentioning so much have been brought about through government incentives, if not outright, umm, force. [ QUOTE ] B) Didn't you already admit that at sufficient price access will inevitably be bought? So you're just haggling about the price at which the resource will be destroyed? And this is supposed to be some sort of argument in favor of government ownership? [/ QUOTE ] You keep saying that government has no incentive to maintain public land. Clearly, sufficient incentive in the other direction means that land won't be maintained - everything has a price. That doesn't matter, though, because your argument is that the governmental incentive is weak or nonexistent compared to corporate incentives. Well, ANWR is as a slam dunk case as it gets for the opposite conclusion. Yellowstone is also a slam dunk - for example, there's gold in thar hills - but it's not as well known. [ QUOTE ] C) Why did you switch from Yellowstone, where the highest and best use is clearly as a park, to ANWR, where the highest and best use might not be? If the highest and best use of ANWR is actually to drill oil, who are you and your coercive government to deprive the mass of the consuming public of the highest and best use of that resource? [/ QUOTE ] Again, you don't get to have it both ways. Either governmental incentives to protect the environment are always too low/nonexistent compared to the market's, or they're not. Which is it? |
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'll go ahead and get to the punchline. He's going to do some sort of cost/benefit "scorecard" that shows that there's money to be made by blowing the earth up and getting the iron out of the core for scrap. But it will leave out a crucial piece of information - the VALUE to the OWNER of leaving the resource INTACT. [/ QUOTE ] What's the corporate value of leaving the ANWR intact? [/ QUOTE ] They will have it tomorrow? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.