🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan26.174925.4730@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>, tilley@leads15.UUCP (Tom Tilley) writes:
>In article <C1AzBw.C2H@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan19.194409.9141@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
 
>>>If the impacted "resource" is a natural commons (meaning that privatization
>>>is not a reasonable option) such as an ecosystem or the atmosphere,
 
>>... Even if you could somehow justify such commons, why does it follow that
>>the government (rather than the users of the resource) ought to centrally plan
>>the use of those resources?
 
>If the users of the commons regulate the commons, then they are (for that
>purpose) acting as a government (example: housing associations).  
 
Not really.   A private "users association" can't do a lot of things that governments
do, like force others unrelated to the resource to subsidize their actions, or
exert political pressure from outside to prevent exploitation of the resource, or
to require such exploitation when it is not economically viable.  In general, such
ownership groups have strong vested interests in preserving AND exploiting
the resource according to the values involved, whereas the government is
likely to make ill-informed and short-sighted choices in line with political 
expediency.
 
>Further,
>such associations would tend to have the force of the civil government
>behind them (such as a housing association does in enforcing its by-laws).
 
But nobody has to join such an association, and anyone can quit any time
he wishes.  
 
Of course if you want to apply this idea consistently, ANY collective 
ownership (such as a corporation or partnership) is a government. 
Right?
 
>Of course, since everyone breathes, it would be hard to distinguish the "air
>association" from a form of global government!
 
Not at all.  What is in short supply is not air for breathing, but air for disposing
of various waste products.  Anyway, your idea that any collective ownership
is the same as government ownership is quite flawed.
 
>I never said it (government) should centrally plan the use of the commons.
>I did say it should regulate the use of the commons.
 
I don't see the difference.   If the government has the power to regulate the use
of the commons then shoudln't it look ahead in order to determine what current
policy should be?  The kind of environmental regulation we are talking about
is de facto ownership (which may allow the leasing of the property to others
when the owner sees fit to do do).  What do you see as the difference between 
central regulation and central planning.  It sounds like nothing more than a 
semantic difference.
 
>The stock market is regulated by the SEC.  Setting aside for the moment the
>issue of whether you agree with this regulation or not, 
 
I don't.
 
>do you seriously
>believe that the regulation of the stock market means that we have central
>planning of the stock market?
 
Yes, we do.  Now, it happens that this central planning happens to put
the participants on a long leash, but the government has established
the principle that it may interfere with any business or financial deal
it chooses to.  Just because it doesn't always choose to doesn't mean
that it isn't in control.
 
>>>I can find no meaningful sense in which any individual "owns" a portion of
>>>the atmosphere as property.
 
>>If the air in a certain region (say, a city) can absorb N units of gas X per
>>day safely, then why not simply make that a tradable right just like water
>>rights and oil rights are?  ...
 
>The capacity of the air in a given region to absorb impact varies greatly
>from day to day depending upon the weather (N is a variable, not a constant).
 
So?  That fact can be included in the property agreement.  On a given
day an oil well or mine might produce different levels of product too, but
there's no problem there, is there?
 
>What is "N"?  What is "safely"?  
 
That's a detailed scientific issue which has to be addressed on a case-by-case
basis.  It's like my saying that "You need N grams of protein X per day in order to
remain healthy.".  Do you see any difference in principle to answering these
questions?
 
>What other air-quality values should we
>seek to guarantee for this commons (example: being able to see for more than
>100 yards along I-5 in Burbank)?  This is beginning to sound like a "political
>process".
 
Such questions can be addressed either by a political process (marked by the 
use of the standard "51% of the population 'feels' that the level ought to be X."
(which I oppose) or it could be according to some scientific standard.  Of course,
the gvernment could allocate a fairly large number of "shares" and the excess
ones could be purchased by those who are looking for better scenic views
until the price rises to where their willingness to pay meets the willingness of the
producers and consumers of products and services at question (transportation,
manufactured goods, electricity, or what have you).  Actually, as I think of it,
it doesn't really matter how many units are put into trading in general since
(as long as they are divisible into usable chunks) the price will tend to optimize 
the various values at issue.
 
>Of course, this presupposes the use of the atmosphere as a dump.  You note
>that dumping rights can be traded.  Compare this to a landfill.  One can
>sell dumping rights to a landfill.  The difference is that someone also owns
>the actual landfill, whereas the atmosphere is a commons.  
 
Indeed, and I am saying that its use as a dumping ground can be privatized.
Additionally, if you can link anyone's dumping to someone else's harm,
you are in a position to levy civil or criminal charges.  This also is not 
precluded by owning the atmospheric usage anymore than the right
to own a gun does not grant one the right to murder someone.
 
>The act of my
>dumping garbage into a landfill does not fill your house with garbage.  The
>act of my dumping garbage into the atmosphere does fill the air around you
>(and your house) with garbage.
 
If you put garbage in my house there would be detrimental effects on me,
and that effect can be directly linked to your actions.  Most air pollution isn't
anything like that.
 
>This proposal does not address my point about the atmosphere being a commons
>not reasonably privatized: it merely addresses dumping rights into that
>commons.  Since, under this notion the atmosphere itself remains a commons,
>I as a user of the commons would prefer that dumping rights to it not be
>made a form of property.
 
Aaaah, so what you want is to use a resource without paying for it.  By what 
right do you want to have someone else provide you with this property?
 
>>>If something has not been privatized (such as an ecosystem), then it is a
>>>commons.
 
>>How do you define "ecosystem" in this context?  Why is it valuable?  To whom?
 
>From "The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition":
 
>    ecosystem - n. An ecological community together with its physical
>    environment, considered as a unit.
 
>The pieces of the unit are interdependent, so the sum in this case is
>greater than the parts.
 
What does that mean?  Greater in what sense?  I guess I still don't know what
you mean by "ecosystem".  Do you mean the sum of everything in the world?
Do you mean a single forest or river?  Or a region the size of half a continent?
 
>Valuable to society (as a common interest).
 
What is that?  I certainly have a thorough theory of what values are, but
in my view, a value is only applicable to individuals.  societies have no
values aside from the members that comprise it.  How do you judge
the relative "value" of a tree standing in a forest to a backpacker as
compared to someone who wants to keep backpackers away from an
area so it remains pristine as compared to someone who wants to 
build a house out of the wood in the tree as opposed to someone 
who wants to make matches out of the tree?
 
>>Besides, what about property which can quite easily be privatized (like
>>a forest for example)?
 
>What about it?  I am not objecting to the existence of property.  I am also
>not objecting to commons impact (with some of my examples of commons impact,
>I have deliberately used the first person pronoun to communicate my
>recognition that some commons impact is inevitable).  I am objecting to
>the notion that one person's impact to a commons is a private decision that
>is of no legitimate concern to others.
 
But that's not my position.  If you can prove some harm from my pollution of the
air, then go ahead and  sue.  It would be best for everyone if contested
resources were acquired according to some kind of private property right, but
I'm not advocating the use of common resources in such a way as to injure
others.
 
>Your example was probably not quite what you intended: a forest is an
>ecosystem, not a bunch of trees standing together (hence the concern over
>the ancient forest).  Try: "tree farm".
 
How do you differentiate between the two, and why?  Is it that you want political
control over everything you want to control without paying for it while leaving
everything else to businessmen?
 
>>>... Further, in 1983 the CA supreme court (in Audibon Society v. Superior Court
>>>of Alpine County, Feb. 1983) found the "public trust doctrine" to co-exist
>>>with the "appropriative rights" doctrine.
 
>>Just because a court did or didn't make some ruling doesn't mean that it was
>>correct.
 
>I do agree that a court's ruling does not "make right".  It does, however,
>make a statement about the law (the context in which I mentioned it was the
>description of CA water law).
 
My point is not that my perspective is consistent with current California (or
any other) law, but that my point is right and ought to be the guide for 
the passage of laws.
 
--Brian