AC and Mortality

[AndysDaddy]

I've seen posts arguing against AC that say things along the lines of "What's to keep owners of some rare (or slow-to-replenish) resource (like trees, or fish in the ocean) from harvesting them to extinction?" The AC answer is usually along the lines of "The owner of such a resource has incentive not to over harvest so as to maintain the income."

Maybe it has been pointed out before (I haven't seen it), but I posit that a person has at least one good reason to maximize short term profit over a continuous flow of income: his mortality.

The resources on a piece of property are only available to its owner for a limited time (his lifespan). It is only through the "immortal" State that long term incentives exist to maintain a scarce resource.

Counterpoints?
--
Scott

[Borodog]

Children.

Next.

Also, the "lifetime" of a politician in office in a democratic-republican state is obviously less than the typical property owner's lifespan; his incentive is to exploit his office for as much as he can get away with will in it without jeopardizing it. See my thread on Monarchy vs. Democracy.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


The resources on a piece of property are only available to its owner for a limited time (his lifespan). It is only through the "immortal" State that long term incentives exist to maintain a scarce resource.


[/ QUOTE ]

An owner of resources can benefit not only from the extraction an use of those resources but in using htem as collatoral for loans and also from the sale of those resources. Loggers who replant trees that will take 50 years to mature can still sell that plot of land 25 years from now and earn a profit on their investment of replanting without having to cut a single tree down.

[Nielsio]

Think about a company. You may only work at a company for 4 years, but if you do anything to hurt it's property (in any way), it will hurt you.

And ofcourse: a business thrives on creating wealth. The government thrives on taking wealth.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
It is only through the "immortal" State that long term incentives exist to maintain a scarce resource.

[/ QUOTE ]

The state is still rund and has its decisions made by individuals who are mortal aswell. If a person can get reelected by voting to pave over a wetland why wouldn't he do so? There is nothing magical about the state that allows them to circumvent a person individual preferences and his mortality. In fact providing for the current generation by penelizing a future generation is a tool that states often use to garner votes. Think of national debts and Social Security types of programs where burdens of payments are shifted to people not even born yet.

[hmkpoker]

Human beings can have time preferences that are longer than their own life spans. When a person has satisfied his material needs, he will usually be driven to create something greater than himself, be it through work or children. Our biology is wired to drive us to please others. Evolution does an EXCELLENT job of keeping this trait, because those who do not feel like doing this tend not to reproduce.

Why else would people be complaining about inheritance brats? Logically, shouldn't the often unreligious and amoral capitalists they want to tax to death be liquidating all their assets and consuming their entire fortunes when they become old?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it has been pointed out before (I haven't seen it), but I posit that a person has at least one good reason to maximize short term profit over a continuous flow of income: his mortality.

The resources on a piece of property are only available to its owner for a limited time (his lifespan).

[/ QUOTE ]
It would definitely make the owner more money to simply sell the rights to that resource.
[ QUOTE ]
It is only through the "immortal" State that long term incentives exist to maintain a scarce resource.


[/ QUOTE ]
The decisions are still being made by mortal humans.

[Smasharoo]

Children.

Next.

Because everyone has children, silly.

Not to mention how well it worked for previous examples of nearly completely free markets with limited resources, like, oh, Bison hunting.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Bison hunting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Link?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention how well it worked for previous examples of nearly completely free markets with limited resources, like, oh, Bison hunting.

[/ QUOTE ]
IIRC, the railroads received large land grants and subsidies from the government, which allowed them to treat the land like crap.