|
|
#11
08-20-2006, 12:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How would an AC society deal with Chilean Sea Bass?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Species have been going extinct since they first existed. It is the natural order of things. Why should it stop now? [/ QUOTE ] That attitude served the people of Easter Island really well. Link Basically they depleted their resources to the point where they nearly went extinct. Are you saying in AC land that overfishing would be allowed and seen as a natural evolutionary process? [/ QUOTE ] A worthless resource like a Chilean Sea Bass and a natural resource VALUED by man is completely different. If it has value, there is profit in protecting and growing it, and therefore won't go extinct. Do you think chickens and cows will go extinct any time soon? 
|
|
#12
08-20-2006, 12:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an AC society deal with Chilean Sea Bass?
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying in AC land that overfishing would be allowed and seen as a natural evolutionary process? [/ QUOTE ] Did you read that exerpt I posted? Overfishing comes from a lack of property rights. Because no one owns the ocean now, there's no incentive to conserve and every incentive to overfish. Think of farms. There isn't an overharvesting of corn and wheat, is there? Are we in danger of running out of corn? No, because there are people with property rights over certain areas that are willing to grow corn to meet the demand for it. But if arable land wasn't owned and was instead forced to be unowned by the government, there probably would be an overharvesting of corn because people wouldn't have any incentive to plant it if someone else will come along and snatch it up. So if property rights work in producing land-based food, why can't they do the same for water-based food? I think part of the objections to AC that many have (myself included awhile ago) was that it's tough to wrap your mind around people owning a resource that hasn't been owned before.
|
|
#13
08-20-2006, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an AC society deal with Chilean Sea Bass?
[ QUOTE ]
A worthless resource like a Chilean Sea Bass and a natural resource VALUED by man is completely different. If it has value, there is profit in protecting and growing it, and therefore won't go extinct. Do you think chickens and cows will go extinct any time soon? [/ QUOTE ] Worthless? You don't seem realize that the reason Chilean Sea Bass is going extinct is BECAUSE it is so highly valued that pirates are willing to risk million dollar fines and prison terms to poach it. You can make millions is a couple months by poaching it. There are many resources like that. The tiger is another one. The Chinese make bogus medicine out of tigers and the demand is so large that tigers are going extinct.
|
|
#14
08-20-2006, 01:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an AC society deal with Chilean Sea Bass?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A worthless resource like a Chilean Sea Bass and a natural resource VALUED by man is completely different. If it has value, there is profit in protecting and growing it, and therefore won't go extinct. Do you think chickens and cows will go extinct any time soon? [/ QUOTE ] Worthless? You don't seem realize that the reason Chilean Sea Bass is going extinct is BECAUSE it is so highly valued that pirates are willing to risk million dollar fines and prison terms to poach it. You can make millions is a couple months by poaching it. There are many resources like that. The tiger is another one. The Chinese make bogus medicine out of tigers and the demand is so large that tigers are going extinct. [/ QUOTE ] So it's valueable. Doens't that mean if someone owned a region of the ocean that contained many sea bass, they would want to protect it for the future?
|
|
#15
08-20-2006, 01:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an AC society deal with Chilean Sea Bass?
1. The technology in the article you posted for electronic fencing isn't readily available. The US Army Corps of Engineers installed a system like this on a River and it was considered state of the art. Putting a system like this in the ocean is likely to be next to impossible for the foreseeable future.
2. If we did install this system, it would be a massive environmental disaster. Many marine species are migratory. And that's assuming the fence didn't electrocute the fish. 3. Its not just a matter of keeing the fish in, you also have to keep the poachers out. 4. Any system like this would introduce a massive amount of inefficiency to maintain fencing/property defense. Frankly, govt. regulation is much simpler.
|
|
#16
08-20-2006, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an AC society deal with Chilean Sea Bass?
[ QUOTE ]
Did you read that exerpt I posted? [/ QUOTE ] I did and this is what I was looking for when I made this thread. I was talking to Tom about his opinions. I have libertatian leanings but when these tough questions arise, I think libertarianism isn't well served with "just let them go extinct because it's not a valuable resource (even though it's a highly profitable catch [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] ). The problem with your solution is that it's not possible to implement it. There is no way you are going to get the world (and that is what it would take to protect all sea resources) to privatize the oceans. Without a massive war to change the world order, it would take decades or centuries to evolve the world order to accept such free market principles. In that time many resources would go extinct. *edit* Also, there is no evidence that private ownership will protect species. Ranchers don't do anything to protect wolves for example. Who's to say that sharks wouldn't be at risk in a sea rancher's plot of ocean where he is fishing Sea Bass? He may want to eliminate all predators and that might have repercussions across the whole ecosystem.
|
|
#17
08-20-2006, 01:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an AC society deal with Chilean Sea Bass?
I think you're getting bogged down in the details and ignoring the main idea. The idea is that the market will find a way. The demand for electric fences that can fence off a part of the ocean is not very big right now because no one can own the ocean. Allow ownership, and the demand may emerge (or demand for some other method). That's the point.
[ QUOTE ] 3. Its not just a matter of keeing the fish in, you also have to keep the poachers out. [/ QUOTE ] Do farmers have a hard time with corn poachers? If people are allowed to own parts of the ocean and poachers are a problem, I think the owners now have an interest in protecting their property. Again, the market will respond to this demand if given a chance. [ QUOTE ] 4. Any system like this would introduce a massive amount of inefficiency to maintain fencing/property defense. Frankly, govt. regulation is much simpler. [/ QUOTE ] Says you, who trusts the government first and foremost. The government has to invest at least as much effort as the private sector and has little incentive to cut costs. Private organizations, otoh, have a large incentive to cut costs.
|
|
#18
08-20-2006, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an AC society deal with Chilean Sea Bass?
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with your solution is that it's not possible to implement it. There is no way you are going to get the world (and that is what it would take to protect all sea resources) to privatize the oceans. [/ QUOTE ] It's not possible? There are large estates that have various-sized bodies of waters on their property now. Owning bodies of water is not impossible. Enforcing the ownership may be difficult at first, but enforcment would likely be taken into account by those looking to buy/homestead parcels of ocean. [ QUOTE ] Also, there is no evidence that private ownership will protect species. Ranchers don't do anything to protect wolves for example. [/ QUOTE ] In your example, the ranchers aren't ranching wolves. The wolves are a threat. Now the "sea rancher" may kill the sharks in his pen, or he may relocate them outside of his pen (cue anti-ACer saying he'll put sharks in his competitors pen! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]). Maybe someone will buy a plot of ocean where they can "house" sharks. They might be willing to take the sharks off the sea rancher's hands for a price. There you have demand for shark-free plots of ocean and a possible free-market solution. The "what if" scenarios may be endless. But the market has the capability of solving them if the gov't doesn't muck things up.
|
|
#19
08-20-2006, 02:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an AC society deal with Chilean Sea Bass?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Short answer: ownership. With it comes the incentive to maintain the property. [/ QUOTE ] You would have ownership of the ocean? Who would sell it or how would property rights be distributed? [/ QUOTE ] You wouldn't own the ocean, you would own the fish. You brand your fish, and round them up when it's time to take them to market. If anyone rustles your fish, you get a posse and string them up.
|
|
#20
08-20-2006, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would an AC society deal with Chilean Sea Bass?
[ QUOTE ]
It's not possible? There are large estates that have various-sized bodies of waters on their property now. Owning bodies of water is not impossible. Enforcing the ownership may be difficult at first, but enforcment would likely be taken into account by those looking to buy/homestead parcels of ocean. [/ QUOTE ] Those estates don't own the ocean though, they only own the land. They can't extract resources from the ocean without a license from the government.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
