[FooSH]

I think the ACists here have made a pretty big assumption that I'd like to challange.

They state that it is alway in a private company's interests to preserve an area to maximize long term profit, but consider this;

Company A want to buy an area of forest and carry out sustainable logging. They will receive a slow but steady profit for the foreseeable future.

Company B want the same area of forest. They will log it all in 6 months for a big profit then sell the inferior quality land for a reduced price, then they buy another area of forest and repeat.

As you can see company B will make more money in the short term and the long term as long as there is wood to cut, but hey, even then they can go into mining, or just buy a yacht and take early retirement.

Governments are defined by the area they occupy, they plan on being there for ever so naturally want to look at the long term preservation of that land. Private companies are not tied to any specific area, if the most profitable action is to rape the land and move on, it's a safe bet thats what they'll do. There was the example of the owner and tenants of a house. If an owner found out that if he gutted the house, selling all the fixtures and fittings and the empty shell, he would have enough money for 2 houses, what would he do?



Borodog, you mentioned that private land owners are opposed to "distant" bureaucrats meddling in their local affairs. As globalization increases I think you will find it is the local bureaucrats who will be fighting on the side of preservation against the distant private owner.