I acquire property, and through my hard work, improve the land I now own.

[myrkul]

I think the real issue here is suburban sprawl. It rarely goes the other way - i.e. suburban retraction. It only takes one interval of time in which those who defend against suburban sprawl let there defenses down for suburban sprawl to move further out. Thus you essentially have a never ending growth outwards, which destroys the existing infrastructure of wilderness and the ecosystem services it provides.

I thought this was a thread seeking opinions on the philosophy of homesteading. If you want to discuss ecosystem services, and the like, I believe you had a thread for that, too.

Come on... You weren't really expecting gardening tips in the politics section?

No, I was expecting politics. Instead, it seems he desires to give out gardening tips. It's a shame, really, I was looking forward to his opinions on homesteading. After he had suitably educated himself, of course.

[1714925471]

1714925471

[1714925471]

1714925471

[1714925471]

1714925471

[JoelKatz]

Thus you essentially have a never ending growth outwards, which destroys the existing infrastructure of wilderness and the ecosystem services it provides.

Right, but it replaces it with something that stakeholders prefer. So mind your own business.

Do existing landowners benefit? Yes and no. If the preexisting community was rather small, then they likely will benefit, because as the population around them grows, new infrastructure is built, which can both cause home values to rise, while the availability of services rises. On the other hand, if it's already a well developed community, an oversupply of housing might occur, traffic congestion occurs where there is little room for increases of traffic flow, and the inevitable suburban sprawl continues.

You really think traffic congestion is the biggest problem?

Ultimately, it's the developer that wins. This is their business. They are a business whose interest is to make money. They don't live in the community. The environment is not a concern, except for where lawsuits might occur.

Actually, the value of their own land is the #1 concern of developers.

[FirstAscent]

Thus you essentially have a never ending growth outwards, which destroys the existing infrastructure of wilderness and the ecosystem services it provides.

Right, but it replaces it with something that stakeholders prefer. So mind your own business.

The stakeholders interest is purely profit. Profit amongst a small group of individuals is not a metric by which the condition of the world should be defined.

Do existing landowners benefit? Yes and no. If the preexisting community was rather small, then they likely will benefit, because as the population around them grows, new infrastructure is built, which can both cause home values to rise, while the availability of services rises. On the other hand, if it's already a well developed community, an oversupply of housing might occur, traffic congestion occurs where there is little room for increases of traffic flow, and the inevitable suburban sprawl continues.

You really think traffic congestion is the biggest problem?

No. I didn't say that. I think suburban sprawl is the real problem here.

Ultimately, it's the developer that wins. This is their business. They are a business whose interest is to make money. They don't live in the community. The environment is not a concern, except for where lawsuits might occur.

Actually, the value of their own land is the #1 concern of developers.

You just restated what I just said.

[JoelKatz]

The stakeholders interest is purely profit. Profit amongst a small group of individuals is not a metric by which the condition of the world should be defined.

The "condition of the world" is just the sum of the conditions of all the parts that compose the world.

[DoomDumas]

This very tiny blue dot in space is our only place we can survive.. Instead of fighting to own part of it or it's ressources, we must all aim to preserve it for everything alive on it.  It's our duty, has it's the only place we all have to survive.

No, it's not. We can survive just fine elsewhere. We just need less protection here.

Go visit : http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/mission-statement to better understand my view of this little blue dot in space called Earth

Short version: Kill most of the humans, the rest live in techno-communes, ruled over by a "benevolent" AI.

Your short version just prove that you did'nt get thru the material, lectures, books, podcasts, videos...

May I suggest you get to know something before writing those kind of conclusion..  
What peoples tends to do : proceed by shortcut, by association to known stuff in our brain/memory..

If you dont dig, you wont find out !

[DoomDumas]

Historically, stronger groups have always taken whatever they want from weaker groups.

Because of scarcity !

[myrkul]

Go visit : http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/mission-statement to better understand my view of this little blue dot in space called Earth

Short version: Kill most of the humans, the rest live in techno-communes, ruled over by a "benevolent" AI.

Your short version just prove that you did'nt get thru the material, readings, podcast, videos... 

You got a better translation for "live within the carrying capacity of the planet" than "population control"?

[DoomDumas]

You got a better translation for "live within the carrying capacity of the planet" than "population control"?

Do you know what TZM think the carrying capacity of the earth is ?

Again, Association..  You suppose that the carying capacity of the earth is less than 8 billions humans ?  IMHO, after getting to know TZM, I'll go for a lot more than 12 billions human !

Please read the stuff..

juat an example : actualy, because of the current economic system we all live in, half of the produced food is dumped/lost each year..

[myrkul]

juat an example : actualy, because of the current economic system we all live in, half of the produced food is dumped/lost each year..

You got a reference for that stat?

[DoomDumas]

juat an example : actualy, because of the current economic system we all live in, half of the produced food is dumped/lost each year..

You got a reference for that stat?

Look at this :



I've nothing less to add to this thread..  Just read the TZM stuff, they have solutions, based on real science, for all human and life...

[myrkul]

juat an example : actualy, because of the current economic system we all live in, half of the produced food is dumped/lost each year..

You got a reference for that stat?

Look at this :



I've nothing less to add to this thread..  Just read the TZM stuff, they have solutions, based on real science, for all human and life...

So... that's a no, then?

Science means stats, not movie quotes.

[FirstAscent]

The stakeholders interest is purely profit. Profit amongst a small group of individuals is not a metric by which the condition of the world should be defined.

The "condition of the world" is just the sum of the conditions of all the parts that compose the world.

I don't see how a tautology is a defensible argument for letting the condition of the world deteriorate.

[Explodicle]

The stakeholders interest is purely profit. Profit amongst a small group of individuals is not a metric by which the condition of the world should be defined.

The "condition of the world" is just the sum of the conditions of all the parts that compose the world.

It's not just the sum. Ecosystem services provide an external benefit to people outside of the landowner's property, sometimes even on the other side of the world.

In theory with perfect information and zero transaction costs, everyone would just pay landlords to preserve the environment. IMHO one exciting possible application of cryptocurrency is to make the decentralized solution more practical than the state-run solution within our lifetimes.

[myrkul]

In theory with perfect information and zero transaction costs, everyone would just pay landlords to preserve the environment.

The converse is also true. With perfect information and zero transaction costs, everyone would request (and receive) damages for reduction in value of their property due to lost services.

[JoelKatz]

The stakeholders interest is purely profit. Profit amongst a small group of individuals is not a metric by which the condition of the world should be defined.

The "condition of the world" is just the sum of the conditions of all the parts that compose the world.

I don't see how a tautology is a defensible argument for letting the condition of the world deteriorate.

My point is that there's no special "condition of the world" that needs to be specially protected. The same general protections that preserve the condition of a portion of the world will protect the condition of the entire world if applied to it.

[Explodicle]

My point is that there's no special "condition of the world" that needs to be specially protected. The same general protections that preserve the condition of a portion of the world will protect the condition of the entire world if applied to it.

If my quick explanation wasn't helpful, there's more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

[myrkul]

My point is that there's no special "condition of the world" that needs to be specially protected. The same general protections that preserve the condition of a portion of the world will protect the condition of the entire world if applied to it.

If my quick explanation wasn't helpful, there's more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Fully private ownership of property will internalize most externalities. That's what we've been saying.

Alternatively, it might be seen as a case of poorly defined property rights, as with, for example, pollution of bodies of water that may belong to no-one (either figuratively, in the case of publicly owned, or literally, in some countries and/or legal traditions).

If it harms "everybody," then it harms "somebody," and that "somebody" will internalize the cost.

[Explodicle]

My point is that there's no special "condition of the world" that needs to be specially protected. The same general protections that preserve the condition of a portion of the world will protect the condition of the entire world if applied to it.

If my quick explanation wasn't helpful, there's more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Fully private ownership of property will internalize most externalities. That's what we've been saying.

Alternatively, it might be seen as a case of poorly defined property rights, as with, for example, pollution of bodies of water that may belong to no-one (either figuratively, in the case of publicly owned, or literally, in some countries and/or legal traditions).

If it harms "everybody," then it harms "somebody," and that "somebody" will internalize the cost.

Ok, I'm not even going to retype this stuff for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_Theorem#Criticism

Understand transaction costs or don't, but please stop flapping your mouth about economics. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Last time I gave you a supply and demand diagram, you said you didn't understand it because you're "not an economist"... this is INTRO ECON 101 shit, no degree required, take a goddamn class!

[myrkul]

My point is that there's no special "condition of the world" that needs to be specially protected. The same general protections that preserve the condition of a portion of the world will protect the condition of the entire world if applied to it.

If my quick explanation wasn't helpful, there's more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Fully private ownership of property will internalize most externalities. That's what we've been saying.

Alternatively, it might be seen as a case of poorly defined property rights, as with, for example, pollution of bodies of water that may belong to no-one (either figuratively, in the case of publicly owned, or literally, in some countries and/or legal traditions).

If it harms "everybody," then it harms "somebody," and that "somebody" will internalize the cost.

Ok, I'm not even going to retype this stuff for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_Theorem#Criticism

Understand transaction costs or don't, but please stop flapping your mouth about economics. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Never claimed it would be perfect, just better.

In many cases of externalities, the parties might be a single large factory versus a thousand landowners nearby. In such situations, say the critics, not only do transaction costs rise extraordinarily high, but bargaining is hindered by the basic incentive to free-ride and poorly defined property rights—classic public good problems. (Though these problems do not preclude a free market Coasian solution.)

(emphasis mine)

A class-action tort via arbitration seems an ideal way to keep those transaction costs as low as possible, too. You saying it won't work is like saying that a plane won't fly because air friction exists.

[JoelKatz]

Ok, I'm not even going to retype this stuff for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_Theorem#Criticism

Understand transaction costs or don't, but please stop flapping your mouth about economics. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Last time I gave you a supply and demand diagram, you said you didn't understand it because you're "not an economist"... this is INTRO ECON 101 shit, no degree required, take a goddamn class!

Transaction costs are a challenge, one a free market would happily take up. Since governments are so bad at dealing with externalities, it's almost impossible to imagine a free market doing worse.

In fact, governments are probably more vulnerable to externalities and transaction costs than any other organization or operation. Voters have no incentive to educate themselves about the issues, almost no incentive to balance the costs of their actions to other people, and candidates have little to no incentive to plan past the end of their terms.