I think you'd really find Herman Daly's work to be interesting. He says a lot of interesting things that just make sense. As an example, one of the things he says is the error economists commit when they add the cost of cleanup into the GNP (i.e. a firm engages in environmental cleanup by selling its services, and by virtue of the fact that those services are consumed, then they are a part of the GNP). Daly argues that these things should actually be subtracted from the GNP, as they do not represent growth at all.

He's got some really interesting viewpoints. They're worth reading - not just skimming.

Interview with Seed Magazine: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

Steady State Economics and the fallacies of growth: http://dieoff.org/page88.htm

The Irrationality of Homo Economicus: http://www.iisd.org/didigest/special/daly.htm

Essay on growth: http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/85/herman-daly.html

Opportunity cost of growth: http://steadystate.org/opportunity-cost-of-growth/

And a video (part 3 among several): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmkw2qSpHsc&feature=related

You ruined it by ignoring science.

I think you're doing a disservice to your cause by not being willing to explore in greater depth what might be considered public property. Unless you're omniscient, it stands to reason that you don't have a complete set of facts about the physical nature of our planet.

Mostly, I think you vastly underestimate the accumulative global effects of aggregated local events.

I was going to discuss how the concept of circulation renders the notion that you own everything on your land suspect. Circulation can refer to atmospheric circulation, ocean currents, drainage networks, migratory paths of fauna, etc. Additionally, it could refer to light transport and in general, electromagnetic radiation.

I'm not familiar with the thread or the phrase as it relates to the conversation.

But anyway, if we are in agreement that we define the atmosphere, even local low altitude air, as public property because it circulates, then we can continue.

What about water? I will grant that some of it is relatively stationary, but not as much as you think. Springs are the result of underground hydraulics. Some water comes from the rain directly from above. And I'll admit that when water on the surface evaporates, it goes through a cleansing process. However, a good portion of water comes from aquifers, and drainages upstream.

What is your stance on water as public property?

But we're not talking about litigation yet. We're only discussing how to define public property.

Sure. But collectively, it's a different matter. Recall China?

So you're claiming that air near the ground doesn't move north, east, west, south or upwards? I would disagree with that.

Okay, without getting into litigation yet, let's just talk about things which might be defined as belonging to the people. I'm being very vague here, and maybe we can come up with things that aren't just physical things.

With regard to the atmosphere, why do you include it in, what we'll refer to as public property? Is it because it circulates, and thus it's hard to attach to any one geographical locale?

I won't disagree with you there.

Let's look at it from a slightly different angle. Is there anything that you might define as belonging to the people, as opposed to a subset of the people?

It's exactly those situations that stress any given system though.

Actually, you're correct in this instance. But I don't think you should use that as an example for lifeboat scenarios in general. As an example, which of the following two scenarios do you think is more preferable:

1. Knife juggler accidentally punctures raft, and all members are subsequently devoured by sharks.

2. One of the members subdues the juggler, binds his hands, and all members are subsequently picked up by a vessel one day later.

I take offense at the insinuation that I live in a cave. I live underneath a bridge.

Yes. Obviously the poor souls on those lifeboats should've accurately predicted what events were going to take place in their futures while they were still children and aspired to become masons or school teachers instead.

Another case, with legal precedent, that some here might find interesting, and I'm certain will add fuel to the fire was the case of R v Dudley and Stephens. Have fun!

R v Dudley and Stephens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens

This thread has given me great entertainment. Otherwise I wouldn't keep coming back. As an aside, are you familiar with the saga of the whaling ship Essex and its survivors? Note that I am not making a claim one way or another with regard to the relevancy of the events as they relate to the debate herein, but I'm sure both sides will be able to find material therein to augment their arguments.

Essex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_%28whaleship%29

Ultimate power? No. There are distinctions to be made here. No time right no though. Maybe later.

The world is not necessarily composed of an army of BitMoles.

That's nice and all, but who enforces that principle consistently?

Who says you can stop it?

It's different because what you propose is not necessarily what your neighbor proposes. In fact, either you're proposing that your neighbor abides by your system, or you are not.

Your fabled system is not a system, except on your property. Unless of course you are coercing your neighbor to use the same system. But by the rules of your system, coercion is not allowed.