Economic libertarians - tell me how an anarcho-capitalist state would prevent BP from ****ting all over the environment?

[Guard Dog]

At this point, saving the fisheries is a lost cause. It's too hard to regulate fishing in international waters, and there aren't any governments that would be willing to do it, either, for fear of costing people their jobs and livelihoods. Look at Japan if you want an example.

 

The problem with this is that right now we have two choices - cost many fishermen their livelihoods now, or lose the potential for anyone to make a living off of that resource in the future. It should be clear what the correct course of action is.

 

My worry is that unless we start regulating the consumption of other resources soon (forests, for example), we may reach a similar point. Humans have a frightening capacity to destroy their own civilizations through environmental damage, and unless we make some sacrifices now there won't be anything to lose in the future.

 

Something to think about: What was the man who cut down the last tree on Easter Island thinking when he did it?

Once again I cannot answer for how it is done elsewhere but in the US and Canada commercial fishing is restricted to certain seasons. It is specifically desiged to give the fish time to school, spawn and mature. In Alaska the crab season is just six weeks long. This is all done to manage the fish populations and to prevent overfishing. In Florida lobster season is just 13 weeks, Stone Crab season is short, all sport & commercial fishing seasons are finite leanths. Just down the road from me is over 10000 acres of timber land owned and managed by Georgia Pacific Co. Every seven years or so they cut down every single tree then replant the whole 10000 acres with pine saplings. Seven years later they repeat the cycle. The big commercial cotton farms south of Memphis always have a certain percentage of their fields lying fallow. Plus you do realize a good portion of the fish and all of the beef/chicken/pork consumed in North America is farm raised now. As far as freshwater fish is concerened, commercial fishing no longer exists, it far more cost effective to simply raise them. Many saltwater hatcheries are popping up, especially in the northwest.

 

You guys seem to think there is no conservation going on. Nothing could be farther from the truth. When you find examples of evil corporations despoiling the land it is the exception, not the rule. In fact I would say far more harm is done by well meaning but ignorant government officials and enviormentalists. The regulations these companies are operatig under are a mixed bag of state and federal but the majority of it comes from state governments. Like I said, that is all together appropriate and it not an overreach, until the federal governemnt steps in and screws everyone over, like all the examples I've listed.

[Oblarg]

At this point, saving the fisheries is a lost cause. It's too hard to regulate fishing in international waters, and there aren't any governments that would be willing to do it, either, for fear of costing people their jobs and livelihoods. Look at Japan if you want an example.

 

The problem with this is that right now we have two choices - cost many fishermen their livelihoods now, or lose the potential for anyone to make a living off of that resource in the future. It should be clear what the correct course of action is.

 

My worry is that unless we start regulating the consumption of other resources soon (forests, for example), we may reach a similar point. Humans have a frightening capacity to destroy their own civilizations through environmental damage, and unless we make some sacrifices now there won't be anything to lose in the future.

 

Something to think about: What was the man who cut down the last tree on Easter Island thinking when he did it?

Once again I cannot answer for how it is done elsewhere but in the US and Canada commercial fishing is restricted to certain seasons. It is specifically desiged to give the fish time to school, spawn and mature. In Alaska the crab season is just six weeks long. This is all done to manage the fish populations and to prevent overfishing. In Florida lobster season is just 13 weeks, Stone Crab season is short, all sport & commercial fishing seasons are finite leanths. Just down the road from me is over 10000 acres of timber land owned and managed by Georgia Pacific Co. Every seven years or so they cut down every single tree then replant the whole 10000 acres with pine saplings. Seven years later they repeat the cycle. The big commercial cotton farms south of Memphis always have a certain percentage of their fields lying fallow. Plus you do realize a good portion of the fish and all of the beef/chicken/pork consumed in North America is farm raised now. As far as freshwater fish is concerened, commercial fishing no longer exists, it far more cost effective to simply raise them. Many saltwater hatcheries are popping up, especially in the northwest.

 

You guys seem to think there is no conservation going on. Nothing could be farther from the truth. When you find examples of evil corporations despoiling the land it is the exception, not the rule. In fact I would say far more harm is done by well meaning but ignorant government officials and enviormentalists. The regulations these companies are operatig under are a mixed bag of state and federal but the majority of it comes from state governments. Like I said, that is all together appropriate and it not an overreach, until the federal governemnt steps in and screws everyone over, like all the examples I've listed.

 

Farm raised fish is a joke, as they feed them different types of wild-caught fish. Until they get aquaculture working starting with Algae, it won't be a superior method.

 

Yes, there are regulations in place, but they're not strict enough. They're not nearly strict enough. Don't believe me? Go read up on the subject. Left to their own devices, people will exhaust renewable resources, because people are short-sighted. This is why we need regulation. Go read Collapse - It has happened many, many times throughout history.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Oblarg

[Guard Dog]

Farm raised fish is a joke, as they feed them different types of wild-caught fish. Until they get aquaculture working starting with Algae, it won't be a superior method.

 

Yes, there are regulations in place, but they're not strict enough. They're not nearly strict enough. Don't believe me? Go read up on the subject. Left to their own devices, people will exhaust renewable resources, because people are short-sighted. This is why we need regulation. Go read Collapse - It has happened many, many times throughout history.

I suspect you and I will never find much common ground on this subject. I do find it curious that you do not trust people to do the right thing when they are assembled in corporations but somehow think the exact same people will do the right thing when they are assembled in governments. I will never understand that. Governments are short sighted, arrogant, ignorant, and wasteful just like business can be because all of them are run by people. How do you trust one but not the other? Yes I read your platitudes about it being the role of government to look out for the good of the people in a perfect world. Well, reality is light years from perfect and I hope you are not so naieve as to think that it isn't.

[Hurlshort]

Today I had a co-worker say she doesn't buy Christmas trees because she doesn't believe in killing a tree for a holiday. It literally hurt my head.

[Oblarg]

Farm raised fish is a joke, as they feed them different types of wild-caught fish. Until they get aquaculture working starting with Algae, it won't be a superior method.

 

Yes, there are regulations in place, but they're not strict enough. They're not nearly strict enough. Don't believe me? Go read up on the subject. Left to their own devices, people will exhaust renewable resources, because people are short-sighted. This is why we need regulation. Go read Collapse - It has happened many, many times throughout history.

I suspect you and I will never find much common ground on this subject. I do find it curious that you do not trust people to do the right thing when they are assembled in corporations but somehow think the exact same people will do the right thing when they are assembled in governments. I will never understand that. Governments are short sighted, arrogant, ignorant, and wasteful just like business can be because all of them are run by people. How do you trust one but not the other? Yes I read your platitudes about it being the role of government to look out for the good of the people in a perfect world. Well, reality is light years from perfect and I hope you are not so naieve as to think that it isn't.

 

Actually, no, I don't think they'll likely do the right thing in either situation, but that's simply because the government is not functioning as it ideally should. A business functioning as it ideally should could still very well do a lot of harm to the environment, while a government wouldn't. The world isn't ideal, obviously, but as both businesses and governments currently are seemingly unwilling to make sacrifices now to protect the resources we have, it's the only thing you really can base the decision on.

 

I don't have bright hopes for the future.

[Guard Dog]

I don't have bright hopes for the future.

Gotcha. What it boils down to is that you are a little pessimistic by nature and that colors how you see things. I can hardly fault you for that, like that Jimmy Buffet song says "We've got a lot to drink about".

[Walsingham]

Fwiiw, it's nice to read a direct address to a point, even if it doesn't get 100%.

 

I'm over tired today, so I apologise if I missed something in your post, but I have two three rejoinders based on my understanding so far:

 

1. The fact that fisheries are hard to govern does not alter the fact that they 'need' to be governed or they could be effectively annihilated. Although I'll grant you that's more to do with the fish moving than it is system nesting.

 

2. I suggest you are factually incorrect when you say a badly managed farm can't starve anyone. A point you go on to prove (unless I missed something) in your example about pollutants. Although I can give you another example to look up. I was in Thailand back in the 90s and witnessed unprecedented flooding. This was caused by deforestation of the North East, which turned jungle into dustbowl. Land was bought and exploited privately. The buggers who profited either lived abroad or moved abroad on the proceeds. Billions of dollars of damage was done to people living hundreds of miles away. Farms away from the deforestation flooded, with crops and nutrient levels destroyed.

 

3. What I won't/can't disagree with is that governments do arse up their regulation of complex systems. We can have a very sensible discussion as to why. However, I'm going to take a punt and suggest it's largely to do with a lack of predictive understanding. The solution to this isn't to hope government goes away or that complex systems go away. The solution is to master the predictive understanding.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Walsingham

[Guard Dog]

1. The fact that fisheries are hard to govern does not alter the fact that they 'need' to be governed or they could be effectively annihilated. Although I'll grant you that's more to do with the fish moving than it is system nesting.

 

In North America (Canada, US & Mexico) fisheries ARE regulated. Overfishing is not really a serious problem here. If the fish population begins to suffer they simply restrice the seasons or catch limits or even suspend a season entirely. Certain areas have been restricted for fishing for a season or two. It is a system that works pretty well because all three contries particiapte in it.

 

2. I suggest you are factually incorrect when you say a badly managed farm can't starve anyone. A point you go on to prove (unless I missed something) in your example about pollutants. Although I can give you another example to look up. I was in Thailand back in the 90s and witnessed unprecedented flooding. This was caused by deforestation of the North East, which turned jungle into dustbowl. Land was bought and exploited privately. The buggers who profited either lived abroad or moved abroad on the proceeds. Billions of dollars of damage was done to people living hundreds of miles away. Farms away from the deforestation flooded, with crops and nutrient levels destroyed.

 

I can not answer for how it is done elsewhere but that really does not happen here. State and local governments use zoning laws to determine what land can be used for to prevent things like that from happening. And they are quite good at it. It only gets screwed up when Uncle Sam sticks his finger into it.

 

3. What I won't/can't disagree with is that governments do arse up their regulation of complex systems. We can have a very sensible discussion as to why. However, I'm going to take a punt and suggest it's largely to do with a lack of predictive understanding. The solution to this isn't to hope government goes away or that complex systems go away. The solution is to master the predictive understanding.

 

The problem there is that government officials are somewhat skilled and proficient at being government officials. However, being that puts them into a position to create laws and policy on theings the are utterly ignorant about. My time working with these people has lead me to two conclusions in that direction.

 

1) Elected officials actually do believe they are wiser and more informed about everything that anyone else just because they are an elected official. This leads well meaning people to do incredibly destructive and harmful things. It also lends purpose to evil people to do harmful and destructive things.

 

2) If you try to convince one of them they are wrong about something they will automaticly ignore your facts, figures, logic, and reason and dismiss everything you are saying because they figure you have a political axe to grind. It never occurs to them they arrived at their conclusions because THEY have a political axe to grind. Most elected officials assume eveyone is political and therefore all facts are open to political intepretations.

 

Smarter government would be great, if only there was some way to get it and keep it. Until then I'll settle for smaller government.

[Oblarg]

1. The fact that fisheries are hard to govern does not alter the fact that they 'need' to be governed or they could be effectively annihilated. Although I'll grant you that's more to do with the fish moving than it is system nesting.

 

In North America (Canada, US & Mexico) fisheries ARE regulated. Overfishing is not really a serious problem here. If the fish population begins to suffer they simply restrice the seasons or catch limits or even suspend a season entirely. Certain areas have been restricted for fishing for a season or two. It is a system that works pretty well because all three contries particiapte in it.

 

Tell that to the Codfish.

 

I can not answer for how it is done elsewhere but that really does not happen here. State and local governments use zoning laws to determine what land can be used for to prevent things like that from happening. And they are quite good at it. It only gets screwed up when Uncle Sam sticks his finger into it.

 

 

Actually, I'd say the only reason it doesn't happen is because the government regulates it. I'd love for you to give a legitimate reason why federal government is incompetent by design while state and local governments aren't. How to run a sustainable farm does not magically change when you cross a state border.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Oblarg

[Guard Dog]

Actually, I'd say the only reason it doesn't happen is because the government regulates it.

 

I don't disagree but then I've been saying for this entire thread that is a good application of government power. Do you actually read what Im posting?

 

I'd love for you to give a legitimate reason why federal government is incompetent by design while state and local governments aren't. How to run a sustainable farm does not magically change when you cross a state border.

 

State and local governments are made up of people from that state and communities. They are the most accesible, most reactive, and as a rule know the history and needs of their constituients far better than faceless burecrats on the other side of the country in DC. You can pick up the phone and call a state rep and they will talk to you. Try that with a congressman. State governments hire civil, agricultural, mining, and enviormental engineers to assist with policy. The Federal government does not. You do know that 99% of federal legislation is written by lobbyists right?

 

Also state and local governments do not run farms. People do. Businesses do. All the government does is provide a regulatory framework but it should come from the government closest to the community who understands the land, enviorment, people and needs of the community. And who is most accountable to the community their policies affect. Like I said it works well until Uncle Sam gets involved. If you had actually read any of the examples I've posted you would see where I was coming from.

[Enoch]

2. I suggest you are factually incorrect when you say a badly managed farm can't starve anyone. A point you go on to prove (unless I missed something) in your example about pollutants. Although I can give you another example to look up. I was in Thailand back in the 90s and witnessed unprecedented flooding. This was caused by deforestation of the North East, which turned jungle into dustbowl. Land was bought and exploited privately. The buggers who profited either lived abroad or moved abroad on the proceeds. Billions of dollars of damage was done to people living hundreds of miles away. Farms away from the deforestation flooded, with crops and nutrient levels destroyed.

 

I can not answer for how it is done elsewhere but that really does not happen here. State and local governments use zoning laws to determine what land can be used for to prevent things like that from happening. And they are quite good at it. It only gets screwed up when Uncle Sam sticks his finger into it.

I'd dispute that one a bit. States and local governments in the U.S. can and have screwed these kinds of things up for decades, largely because ecological effects don't particularly care about jurisdictional borders. For example, Maryland has been dealing with problems in the Chesapeake similar to the ones you mentioned earlier w/r/t the Everglades. But a chief source of the agricultural runoff was coming down the Susquehanna from Pennsylvania, which didn't have much incentive to police its own farmers aggressively for the benefit of ecology and commerce outside its borders. (Rust-belt coal-fired power plants causing acid rain in the Northeast is another example that springs to mind.) Press coverage and public anger can overcome these problems by putting pressure on the states and local governments where the emissions are happening, but federal action (e.g., regulations under the Clean Water Act) is a much surer way to correct externality-based market failures like this when the externalities aren't all contained in one jurisdiction.

[Guard Dog]

2. I suggest you are factually incorrect when you say a badly managed farm can't starve anyone. A point you go on to prove (unless I missed something) in your example about pollutants. Although I can give you another example to look up. I was in Thailand back in the 90s and witnessed unprecedented flooding. This was caused by deforestation of the North East, which turned jungle into dustbowl. Land was bought and exploited privately. The buggers who profited either lived abroad or moved abroad on the proceeds. Billions of dollars of damage was done to people living hundreds of miles away. Farms away from the deforestation flooded, with crops and nutrient levels destroyed.

 

I can not answer for how it is done elsewhere but that really does not happen here. State and local governments use zoning laws to determine what land can be used for to prevent things like that from happening. And they are quite good at it. It only gets screwed up when Uncle Sam sticks his finger into it.

I'd dispute that one a bit. States and local governments in the U.S. can and have screwed these kinds of things up for decades, largely because ecological effects don't particularly care about jurisdictional borders. For example, Maryland has been dealing with problems in the Chesapeake similar to the ones you mentioned earlier w/r/t the Everglades. But a chief source of the agricultural runoff was coming down the Susquehanna from Pennsylvania, which didn't have much incentive to police its own farmers aggressively for the benefit of ecology and commerce outside its borders. (Rust-belt coal-fired power plants causing acid rain in the Northeast is another example that springs to mind.) Press coverage and public anger can overcome these problems by putting pressure on the states and local governments where the emissions are happening, but federal action (e.g., regulations under the Clean Water Act) is a much surer way to correct externality-based market failures like this when the externalities aren't all contained in one jurisdiction.

 

 

Oh no arguments there. In fact in an earlier post I mentioned it was all together appropriate for the Federal government to act in situations such as these. There are a few court cases I listed where financial/punative damages were sought and awarded by affected states against offending parties that fell under the jurisdiction of other states. By and large though, the regulation of land use in a particular state or community is best left to the governing body of that state or community.

[Walsingham]

Then, unless I've misunderstood you again, you agree that regulatoin is necessary. You also agree that big government regulation is necessary. You are simply saying we need less stupid regulation. We differ because you view dumb regulation as a function of government size, and I at least see it as a function of dumb decision making. Strategic vs tactical solutions.

 

I think your point about elected officials overriding expert judgement is often true. However, I would field a counter argument on two points, more for discussion than to score:

 

1. High ranking officials are sometimes parochial and a bit dim. Local officials are very often parochial an a bit dim. They also tend to have less experience of decision making.

 

2. In the UK we have something we call NIMBYism. Not In My Back Yard ism. If local officials always ruled, we'd have a hell of a time building big municipal works like nuke plants, garbage burners, dams and so on. Now, that may be an argument in favour of local government in some eyes, but really big projects are sometimes very cool. I'd say.

[Oblarg]

Then, unless I've misunderstood you again, you agree that regulatoin is necessary. You also agree that big government regulation is necessary. You are simply saying we need less stupid regulation. We differ because you view dumb regulation as a function of government size, and I at least see it as a function of dumb decision making. Strategic vs tactical solutions.

 

This, I think, is the crux of the matter.

[Guard Dog]

Then, unless I've misunderstood you again, you agree that regulatoin is necessary. You also agree that big government regulation is necessary. You are simply saying we need less stupid regulation. We differ because you view dumb regulation as a function of government size, and I at least see it as a function of dumb decision making. Strategic vs tactical solutions.

 

Not exactly. Dumb regulation is just dumb regulation and it is onerous and harmful no matter what quarter it comes from. Keeping the scope and power of government small only serves to minimize the harm it can do. There really is little difference in being screwed of by a well meaning but stupid buerecrat or a feckless or even malicious one. Limiting their power protects you from every type. Now that is not to say government has no role to play of that regulation is a bad thing per se. I think by now I should have made that abunantly clear in both philisophical arguments and examples. But it MUST be applied carefully and with restraint and consideration. The government at any level does not know how to apply power judiciously or with restraint. As Regan once said, government is like a giant baby, an insatiable appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. Do you think those idiots who wrote the everglades restoration act realized the end result of their well beaning but ignorant law would be thousands of acres of green sugar cane fields being paved over for houses? Which do you think did greater harm to the enviorment, the sugar farmers who had already stopped suing phosphate of the government that ran them off forever? Florida banned the use of phosphate fertilizer, that was a good and restrained regulation. They also partnered with US Sugar in redirecting water runoff to minimize the amount that seeped into the everglades. That was also good. The federal government came in and took the whole thing over and ruined everything for everyone because they did not listen to the people who actually live in the state and they did not even try to work with US Sugar.

 

You cannot make government smarter, it just cannot be done because to govern effectively you either have to know everything about everything (which is impossible) or get politicians to listen to someone other than their campaign advisors or the lobbyists who support them (also impossible).

[Nepenthe]

Then, unless I've misunderstood you again, you agree that regulatoin is necessary. You also agree that big government regulation is necessary. You are simply saying we need less stupid regulation. We differ because you view dumb regulation as a function of government size, and I at least see it as a function of dumb decision making. Strategic vs tactical solutions.

 

Agreed with Wals. I'll give GD that "big government" can lose sight of issues and become inefficient through that, but that some things need to be handled at a higher level. Unfortunately, this rarely works in practice, a good example is the EU and its official principle of subsidiarity (meaning that matters should always be dealt with at the lowest level that can efficiently deal with them) vs. what happens in practice.

[Walsingham]

Then, unless I've misunderstood you again, you agree that regulatoin is necessary. You also agree that big government regulation is necessary. You are simply saying we need less stupid regulation. We differ because you view dumb regulation as a function of government size, and I at least see it as a function of dumb decision making. Strategic vs tactical solutions.

 

Not exactly. Dumb regulation is just dumb regulation and it is onerous and harmful no matter what quarter it comes from. Keeping the scope and power of government small only serves to minimize the harm it can do. There really is little difference in being screwed of by a well meaning but stupid buerecrat or a feckless or even malicious one. Limiting their power protects you from every type. Now that is not to say government has no role to play of that regulation is a bad thing per se. I think by now I should have made that abunantly clear in both philisophical arguments and examples. But it MUST be applied carefully and with restraint and consideration. The government at any level does not know how to apply power judiciously or with restraint. As Regan once said, government is like a giant baby, an insatiable appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. Do you think those idiots who wrote the everglades restoration act realized the end result of their well beaning but ignorant law would be thousands of acres of green sugar cane fields being paved over for houses? Which do you think did greater harm to the enviorment, the sugar farmers who had already stopped suing phosphate of the government that ran them off forever? Florida banned the use of phosphate fertilizer, that was a good and restrained regulation. They also partnered with US Sugar in redirecting water runoff to minimize the amount that seeped into the everglades. That was also good. The federal government came in and took the whole thing over and ruined everything for everyone because they did not listen to the people who actually live in the state and they did not even try to work with US Sugar.

 

 

Isn't that rather like saying that living in a tent protects you against having to get builders in to fix your home?

 

You've dwelt at length on the failure of individual govt initiatives. You have yet to come close to a convincing argument that the overall net effect is detrimental.

[Guard Dog]

You've dwelt at length on the failure of individual govt initiatives. You have yet to come close to a convincing argument that the overall net effect is detrimental.

That was not really the point I've been driving at. The majority sentitment on this thread is Economic Activity = Enviormental Harm = Bad and Government Regulation = Good for the Enviorment = Good. To paraphase Aristotle the truth is in the mean. Unregulated economic activity has the potential to be very harmful to the enviorment. No one, not even me is arguing that. What I'm trying to point out to everyone is unrestrained regulation is just as bad. Government does have a role to play in protecting the enviorment from the excesses of business but when it is unable to restrain it's own excesses then it becomes harmful. If it is forced to live within it's own established responsibilities, then it is a good thing. When it overreaches it is not. Far from it.

 

Now the examples I've provided were specific, but much of the discussion has been philisophical. It is a difficult subject to discuss in the abstract because the net effect of government is not always detrimental but it can be, if it not applied with restraint. You know where I stand on it, I know what you think about it. I doubt we'll ever agree on the philisophical questions of the size and role of government in any way but that's ok too.

 

I do find it interesting however that a so many people are distrustful of business, which is run by people, are so trusting of government, which is run by the same kind of people. Often the SAME people.

[Walsingham]

 

[And I find it astonishing that people are often so mistrustful of government when they cheerfully swallow mountains of abuse from private companies. ]

 

Having said that, I don't think we're actually that far apart, just facing in different directions. I'm a bit of a systems theorist when the mood is on me, and it seems to me that a balance is pure common sense. I'm certainly no enemy of business. Yet a system which is governed by greed and unemcumbered by and ties of responsibility needs to be kept in check when it gets funny notions. And equally I've had too much experience of government to regard it entirely as the angels.

 

A key difference between us is philosophical, I suppose. Maybe a little practical. You see business as fundamentally innocuous because it can't deploy force (which is simply not true in my opinion). I on the other hand consider democratic government* to be fundamentally deserving of power and capable of great things.

 

 

*In the full meaning of the word, not just one which holds elections, before LoF jumps in.