Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our land

[zasterguava]

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).

[Phil153]

[ 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).

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[adanthar]

[ 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.)

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[adanthar]

[ 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?

[Phil153]

[ 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.

[TomCollins]

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.

[Phil153]

[ 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.