🚀 go-pugleaf

Oh good!  I found a server with better propagation time than the one week
I was getting, so I can join in again.

In article <C13Jx6.F6H@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In message <38511105@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGow
>en) writes:
>>Brian Yoder writes:
>>>But how much is that impact "worth"?  Who decide how much an acres of forest
>>>is worth?  Greenpeace?  Earth First? Users of lumber?  Backpackers?  Timber
>>>companies?  My point here is that the kind of system you seem to be advocating
>>>is NOT a way of informing the market...it is a way of putting the market
>>>under the control of a political process.

The market already operates within the context of a political process.
The value of money is greatly impacted by the actions of the central banks.
Some forms of property (such as the copyright) exist because a political
process has defined them.

>>Issues about the long-range health of ecosystems and the biosphere *must*
>>be handled by a political process, and cannot be left up to market processes.
>
>Why?  Because you don't believe that property rights are unalienable?  ...

If the impacted "resource" is a natural commons (meaning that privatization
is not a reasonable option) such as an ecosystem or the atmosphere, then the
remaining choices are to ignore the impact, or allow the government to
regulate the use of the commons as a public trust.

I can find no meaningful sense in which any individual "owns" a portion of
the atmosphere as property.

>Of course if you deny that these are true then you'll have to explain how an 
>unalienable rights can be subordinated to government control, ...

If something has not been privatized (such as an ecosystem), then it is a
commons.  I fail to see why anyone has to "explain" how non-existant
property can be subordinated to government control.

>Unacceptable to whom?  Just because you and your friends don't like the way 
>others use property that THEY own is no justification for you to force them to
>do as you would like them to.

If your use of property affects a natural commons, then why should I not
concern myself with the impact on the commons?  It appears to be your
argument (please correct me if I'm wrong) that any resource can either be
privatized, or the impact on the resource can be ignored.  It is my
contention that there are resources which exist as a natural commons
(such as an ecosystem).  As one member of the public that uses this
commons, I fail to understand why I should be asked to ignore impacts
to it.

>Are you holding up Victorian England as the ideal society?  I believe that in
>Victorian England, the government owned the water supply, ...

My understanding of CA water law (I'm not a lawyer) is that the state of
CA owns all surface water, whereas agencies and individuals own the right
to use the water.  If they don't use their right, they lose it to someone
else (appropriative water rights).  I also understand that much of the
western US operates on this principle.

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.  The specific case regarded Mono
Lake, where LA was diverting the flow of the streams feeding Mono Lake into
the Owens River.  The decision was that the Water Resources Board should
have considered the public trust value of these streams (and of Mono Lake)
before granting appropriative rights to Los Angeles.

The notion of public trust is that certain things (such as Mono Lake) are
of common value, and that the government is responsible for acting as a
trustee (at least that is what I gathered from reading the majority
opinion in the above-referenced case).

Tom.
#--------------------------------------------------#
| Tom Tilley                                       |
| Internet : tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com   |