We've gone *way* off topic here, so if we want to continue on this subject (anarcho-capitalism et al V govt), let's start a new thread. I'd have more to say, but this post is huge already, and I've gotta go.
Yep, all true. Still dodging the question.
Arrrghhhhhhh WHAT question?
? Stop telling me I'm not answering questions that you haven't asked.
I dont understand why you started discussing about monetary deflation when nob
Read the title of this thread.
Take a look at wikipedia's page on the amazon rainforest - it's about half of the world's total rainforest. Do you truly think that's unimportant? I'm shocked at such ignorance of science just for political ideals. I don't know whether the destruction of the amazon would have a big effect on the world's environment, please don't be so arrogant as to say that you *do*.
anarchy & lawlessness: you should correct wikipedia's page if you think anarchy is not lawless. My understanding is that anarchy is nothing other than voluntary cooperation between individuals. By definition, an anarchic society has no regulations. Even the etymology of the word itself suggests an absence of hierarchy and authority. This leaves the society vulnerable to whosoever would abuse that situation. Are you so naive as to assume that nobody would seek to do such abuse?
Tell me this: if the majority of the people really wanted to destroy the Amazon to create agricultural land, how is a democratic government going to do anything else than destroying the Amazon?
There's a clear question. Absolutely nothing. [sarcasm]Apart from moving in the army[/sarcasm]. If everybody wanted to jump off a cliff, there's little anyone could do stop them either, right?
I bet all these things can be done much more cheaply than the cost of not using such precious resource as all that land.
ok. And I'll bet we could cover greenland with some mirrors (to better reflect sunlight), start melting all the ice, bottle it, and sell it as pristine million-year old, glacial water. Damn, you could even sell it still frozen, or even cheaper, you could melt it and then re-freeze it - imagine: "pure glacier, the way nature intended". Given how stupid most people are, can you doubt there would be a market for it? And why stop with Greenland? Now don't tell me that people wouldn't pay, they already pay up to ten thousand times the price for bottled than tap water. And please don't embarrass yourself by suggesting that the market would punish the corporation that decided to abuse Greenland's ice sheet. Nobody would stop them 'cos Greenland is far away from everyone except about 50000 greenlanders. People wouldn't care about Greenland, just as you don't care that the tantalum in your mobile phone comes from environmentally destructive mines in Congo controlled by armed thugs engaging in a conflict counting millions dead. And, you know what, maybe nothing would happen. Maybe sea-levels wouldn't rise. But if they did, you can be damn sure the profits made would be in CEO and shareholders pockets, and nobody would cough up the money required to protect endangered coastlines. Oh wait, what am I thinking, if the only point in preserving endangered coastlines is to preserve them, well we can just forget about it. (That bit was pure sarcasm too, folks. I hope you got it this time.)
Seriously, the "world lung" hoax??
I stand corrected, but that doesn't invalidate my point. The amazon is important, even if only because we don't yet know how important it is.
Only by respecting private property rights you'll get people to worry about the future consequences of their acts, as the rightful owners will care about what happens to their property.
And why do you think private corporations will respect private property rights? In a corporate world, people are rewarded with money and power. That means the people who come to power are the ones that like to have money - greedy self-obsessed people (not much different from politicians of today). Even hugolp agrees that politicians and corporate leaders are often one and the same. Your politicians will just become your corporate leaders, and tell me this: why should they suddenly become "nice" in an anarchist society? I'm not saying the present political leadership is any good, or that the regulations they impose are just and correct. I just don't think corporate anarchy will do better.
Had you understood what I tried to explain about how governments stimulate consumption, producing short term booms at the expense of long term recessions, you'd understand who's really shortsighted...
I understand the Austrian theory of debt spending causing boom-n-bust business cycles. I just don't think it's that simple. The latest crisis, for example, is far more complex - not least because of the rising price of energy immediately prior to the crisis. This limited growth for reasons *external* to the economy, which is something economic theories don't consider (as far as I can tell). Furthermore, my understanding is that the Austrian boom-bust cycle is caused by a debt-inflated economy, thanks to fractional reserve banking, controlled (in the US) by the Federal Reserve. Guess what? A corporation specifically designed to safeguard the interests of privately owned member banks, largely independent of the government. http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5
Useful species will be preserved,
Who gets to decide what's useful? Just their economic function? If you start disrupting an ecology, there is no way to tell the end result. It's a perfect complex system, with long range correlations between species and power-law extinction events. What if those stupid pink frogs seem useless but then, after they're all dead, it turns out they were an essential dietary part of that lovely useful crocodile's prey? Same comment for invention of new species. GM food companies are playing a game that could have dire consequences - and nobody really knows how it could play out. People talk alot, but nobody really knows.
About biodiversity, what's the point, preserving just to preserve? ... I insist that it's probably useless to preserve such a huge jungle just for the sake of preserving it. It's pointless.
Preserve it for it's potential economic utility, if nothing else. Nobody knows what the future cost of destroying the amazon rainforest would be.
In any way, what we should do about tropical forests, is not for a bunch of ecolocrats to decide.
[my ignorance, what's an ecolocrat? do you mean "econocrat"? if so:] Agreed. I would have the decisions made by scientists, sociologists and philosophers - unfortunately in a pure corporate world scientists and sociologists without some funding bias would be hard to come by.
@ptd: you don't care because you have plenty of disposable income. In a monetary deflation scenario, lots of people don't, and that chokes production.