🚀 go-pugleaf

 
 
In ca.politics Ricardo Clemente Gonzalez <koko@wam.umd.edu> said: 
 
 
>If I have $10,000 and I decide that I value a piece of property and chose
to  
>purchase it, I've made a value judgement, I have said that I'm willing to 

>forego some other possible uses for my money because I value this land.
Now, if  
>you perceive some other benefit from my land (e.g. it's value as a wetland
that  
>filters pollutants), that is a positive externality for which I am not
being  
>compensated. So right off the bat you're getting a free ride off of me.
Don't  
>try to tell me you think your entitled to reap benefits from my
investments.  
>The market provides a way for the land to be put to its highest valued
use,  
>it's called trade. If you value the land more for it's environmental
amenities  
>than I do for it"s development value the rights should naturally flow to
you  
>and your expression of value should flow to me $$$$.  
> 
> 
> 
 
The externalized benefits and costs should be internalized. The value of
the water filtration or the production of oxygen should be seen by the
society as a benefit and should be paid for when purchasing the land and
repaid in the profit that one gets from owning the land. This will drive up
the cost of land that has an environmental value but it will be to your
benefit since you own it. In a similar manner if you buy something that has
an environmental cost you should pay for the cost. For instance, the
decrease in environmental wellbeing that comes from the operation of your
car should be paid for by you. This of course will make owning cars less
attractive since the costs will go up. This will solve the problems of
environmental degredation and maintain the free market approach many seem
to believe is sacrosanct.