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.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there some natural right to chilean sea bass?

[/ QUOTE ]

The right to remain delicious!

[pvn]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think it's possible, but you support coercive government intervention which you admit doesn't work anyway?

I'm confused.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean, an arbitrator? These can't exist without government?

And I still don't see how quotas are the only possible answer here. Quotas are, in fact, at odds with ownership.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreement between whom?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This whole paragraph is basically a big appeal to emotion. ZOMG, established industries might wither!

But anyway... so we're talking big business - which again implies that market incentives would heavily incentivize a voluntary solution. If only it were given a chance.

[tame_deuces]

This has never been a government vs voluntarist issue for me, it boils down to this:

1.) Having resource X which will last for as long as it is tended well.
2.) Noting that it has not been tended well, though things are improving but too slowly.
3.) Debating some premises which I don't think would change the status quo at all - personally believing that this ISN'T a voluntarist vs government issue - since the core debatable dilemmas remains the same: Is it possible to own migrating wild fish, and I don't private interest is going to solve that puzzle over the night either.

Basically I have no intention of going into yet another AC vs. the government debate with you, and you and me always twist the debates in that direction. I find them boring and intellectually futile - it is obvious you seem me as some strict AC-opponent - which I am not, I even find its base principles appealing, I just don't think it would work in practice for a long time yet - and I hate debating through analogies, though noted you haven't used them in this thread.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
This has never been a government vs voluntarist issue for me, it boils down to this:

1.) Having resource X which will last for as long as it is tended well.
2.) Noting that it has not been tended well, though things are improving but too slowly.
3.) Debating some premises which I don't think would change the status quo at all - personally believing that this ISN'T a voluntarist vs government issue - since the core debatable dilemmas remains the same: Is it possible to own migrating wild fish, and I don't private interest is going to solve that puzzle over the night either.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're begging another question here. The way you're framing this, the "problem" (which I still haven't seen rigorously defined) can't be considered solved unless the fish are still wild.

I'll go ahead and say that the idea of owning wild animals seems a little self-contradictory, though I may be assigning connotations to the word which I shoudln't be.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically I have no intention of going into yet another AC vs. the government debate with you, and you and me always twist the debates in that direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

What other direction do you want to go in? And if you don't want to go there, well, nobody is forcing you to reply.

[ QUOTE ]
I find them boring and intellectually futile - it is obvious you seem me as some strict AC-opponent - which I am not, I even find its base principles appealing, I just don't think it would work in practice for a long time yet - and I hate debating through analogies, though noted you haven't used them in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, if you think people aren't ready for freedom, then you *are* an opponent of freedom, whether you want to admit it or not.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
moorobot,

There is no precedent in law to address your questions, precisely because water privatization has never been considered. Not being able to currently answer every question about water privatization isn't a reason to disregard it.

an excerpt for those that don't read the article:

[ QUOTE ]
On land, man went through the hunting and gathering stage, during which his standard of
living was appropriate to the stone age. When he graduated from this precarious existence to one
of farming, his standard of living exploded in an upward direction, as did sustainable population
size. After that came manufacturing, and then the information age, with similar upward spurts in
how well man could live, and how many of this species could be supported.

As far as the seas are concerned, however, we are still back in a cave man type of
development, where hunting and gathering are in the main the only avenues open to us. It was
not until the institution of private property took hold on the land that farming, herding and later
developments could be supported. It is a well known fact, at least within the free market
environmental community38, that the cow prospered, due to private property rights which could
avert the tragedy of the commons, while the bison almost perished as a species due to lack of
same. Nowadays, happily, this problem has been remedied with regard to the buffalo.39 But the
whale, the porpoise, edible fish and other sea species are dealt with, at present, in precisely the
same manner which almost accounted for the disappearance of the bison.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for saving me the time on having to read this. I might do it just for humor's sake later though.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

Sorry, if you think people aren't ready for freedom, then you *are* an opponent of freedom, whether you want to admit it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

For you I am, for many people I am the opposite; a proponent of freedom through views and actions. And your view of what is true can't be objectively valid unless you propose that people aren't entitled to having a free opinion of what freedom is - which would be a paradox. And neither can I for that matter.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sorry, if you think people aren't ready for freedom, then you *are* an opponent of freedom, whether you want to admit it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

For you I am, for many people I am the opposite; a proponent of freedom through views and actions. And your view of what is true can't be objectively valid unless you propose that people aren't entitled to having a free opinion of what freedom is - which would be a paradox. And neither can I for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahah. Nice try, but this is a bait and switch. I'm not trying to impose any particular definition of freedom. And it's *your* position (implicity) that - whatever it is - it won't "work in practice" (and therefore implicitly that it shouldn't be allowed).

Edit: also, please don't ever try any of that hypocritical "you twist things around" crybaby stuff again.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sorry, if you think people aren't ready for freedom, then you *are* an opponent of freedom, whether you want to admit it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

For you I am, for many people I am the opposite; a proponent of freedom through views and actions. And your view of what is true can't be objectively valid unless you propose that people aren't entitled to having a free opinion of what freedom is - which would be a paradox. And neither can I for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahah. Nice try, but this is a bait and switch. I'm not trying to impose any particular definition of freedom. And it's *your* position (implicity) that - whatever it is - it won't "work in practice" (and therefore implicitly that it shouldn't be allowed).

Edit: also, please don't ever try any of that hypocritical "you twist things around" crybaby stuff again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't bait and switch anything, I simply refuse your authority to claim I am an opponent of freedom. It's voluntarism principle 101.

It is your opinion that I am, nothing more.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sorry, if you think people aren't ready for freedom, then you *are* an opponent of freedom, whether you want to admit it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

For you I am, for many people I am the opposite; a proponent of freedom through views and actions. And your view of what is true can't be objectively valid unless you propose that people aren't entitled to having a free opinion of what freedom is - which would be a paradox. And neither can I for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahah. Nice try, but this is a bait and switch. I'm not trying to impose any particular definition of freedom. And it's *your* position (implicity) that - whatever it is - it won't "work in practice" (and therefore implicitly that it shouldn't be allowed).

Edit: also, please don't ever try any of that hypocritical "you twist things around" crybaby stuff again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't bait and switch anything, I simply refuse your authority to claim I am an opponent of freedom. It's voluntarism principle 101.

It is your opinion that I am, nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have definitely conceded the argument.