dree12
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
|
 |
August 09, 2012, 10:31:51 PM |
|
asdf,
A classic example was the harvesting of the Blue Whale in the mid 20th century. Near term gain won out over long term valuation of Blue Whales. It was enforced regulations that saved the Blue Whale.
Before you cite the Commons and property ownership as a rebuttal, let me just head off that silliness right now. If a Japanese whaler is able to catch a whale, then clearly they have proclaimed themselves the owner of the whale, whether one considers that legitimate or not. But even so, they obviously only valued the whale as a source of blubber and other various derivative products. Therefore, what we witnessed was a free market valuing the whales at a certain price (for their food and oil products). Is that the correct price?
In the absence of regulation, what would have been the ultimate outcome? Perhaps extinction, especially if the free market worked as you believe it should, that is to say, the price of blue whales rose significantly as their numbers were reduced, for that would've only invited greater effort to hunt the last of the blue whales.
Whaling is not allowed in AnCap because the market will prohibit you from using the land. How many people support blue whales? How many people want to kill them? I think you'll find the number is in favor of supporting the whales. The ocean is not a "free-for-all" zone: it can only be used if you own it. Whalers don't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
August 09, 2012, 10:38:16 PM |
|
asdf,
A classic example was the harvesting of the Blue Whale in the mid 20th century. Near term gain won out over long term valuation of Blue Whales. It was enforced regulations that saved the Blue Whale.
Before you cite the Commons and property ownership as a rebuttal, let me just head off that silliness right now. If a Japanese whaler is able to catch a whale, then clearly they have proclaimed themselves the owner of the whale, whether one considers that legitimate or not. But even so, they obviously only valued the whale as a source of blubber and other various derivative products. Therefore, what we witnessed was a free market valuing the whales at a certain price (for their food and oil products). Is that the correct price?
In the absence of regulation, what would have been the ultimate outcome? Perhaps extinction, especially if the free market worked as you believe it should, that is to say, the price of blue whales rose significantly as their numbers were reduced, for that would've only invited greater effort to hunt the last of the blue whales.
Whaling is not allowed in AnCap because the market will prohibit you from using the land. How many people support blue whales? How many people want to kill them? I think you'll find the number is in favor of supporting the whales. The ocean is not a "free-for-all" zone: it can only be used if you own it. Whalers don't. Are we discussing AnCap? Let's not, as it's flawed. Are you suggesting ownership of the oceans? Let's not, as it's flawed. |
|
|
|
|
dree12
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
|
|
August 09, 2012, 10:42:23 PM |
|
asdf,
A classic example was the harvesting of the Blue Whale in the mid 20th century. Near term gain won out over long term valuation of Blue Whales. It was enforced regulations that saved the Blue Whale.
Before you cite the Commons and property ownership as a rebuttal, let me just head off that silliness right now. If a Japanese whaler is able to catch a whale, then clearly they have proclaimed themselves the owner of the whale, whether one considers that legitimate or not. But even so, they obviously only valued the whale as a source of blubber and other various derivative products. Therefore, what we witnessed was a free market valuing the whales at a certain price (for their food and oil products). Is that the correct price?
In the absence of regulation, what would have been the ultimate outcome? Perhaps extinction, especially if the free market worked as you believe it should, that is to say, the price of blue whales rose significantly as their numbers were reduced, for that would've only invited greater effort to hunt the last of the blue whales.
Whaling is not allowed in AnCap because the market will prohibit you from using the land. How many people support blue whales? How many people want to kill them? I think you'll find the number is in favor of supporting the whales. The ocean is not a "free-for-all" zone: it can only be used if you own it. Whalers don't. Are we discussing AnCap? Let's not, as it's flawed. Are you suggesting ownership of the oceans? Let's not, as it's flawed. AnCap is not flawed, it's just not perfect. Personally, I find some other governments better: An (without the Cap), AnCom (without possession), or a small centrist government. I don't support ownership of the oceans (then again, I don't support ownership of any land), but it is a necessary evil to prevent the chaos in the first place. An owned ocean is much less vulnerable to whaling than an unowned one. |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
August 09, 2012, 10:45:08 PM |
|
FA isn't the only one that values the species at more than the wood. Many people would agree. The market agrees. If one supports ancap, it only makes sense that they would rationally decide to preserve the forest rather than burn it down so some greedy company can produce value from it.
This simply is not true. People only value their property to the extent that they can fulfill their vision for it and within the limits of their own knowledge as to its potential. |
|
|
|
|
dree12
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
|
|
August 09, 2012, 10:58:11 PM |
|
FA isn't the only one that values the species at more than the wood. Many people would agree. The market agrees. If one supports ancap, it only makes sense that they would rationally decide to preserve the forest rather than burn it down so some greedy company can produce value from it.
This simply is not true. People only value their property to the extent that they can fulfill their vision for it and within the limits of their own knowledge as to its potential. Right, and the forest is not property of someone who isn't capable of understanding its value. Whoever creates the most value out of it, which are the people who understand the value, owns the forest. Not the forestry cabal in a fair anarcho-capitalist society. |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
August 10, 2012, 02:20:15 AM |
|
FA isn't the only one that values the species at more than the wood. Many people would agree. The market agrees. If one supports ancap, it only makes sense that they would rationally decide to preserve the forest rather than burn it down so some greedy company can produce value from it.
This simply is not true. People only value their property to the extent that they can fulfill their vision for it and within the limits of their own knowledge as to its potential. Right, and the forest is not property of someone who isn't capable of understanding its value. Whoever creates the most value out of it, which are the people who understand the value, owns the forest. Not the forestry cabal in a fair anarcho-capitalist society. How is it determined who owns the forest? |
|
|
|
|
RodeoX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1145
The revolution will be monetized!
|
|
August 10, 2012, 06:29:47 PM |
|
My suggestion: It's going to get hot and dry, then we are all going to starve. Enjoy the last days of humanity.  The odds of turning things around must be less than 1 in 10,000? There is not even a theoretical way to address our problems, let alone a solution. |
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
August 10, 2012, 08:00:34 PM |
|
My suggestion: It's going to get hot and dry, then we are all going to starve. Enjoy the last days of humanity. The odds of turning things around must be less than 1 in 10,000? There is not even a theoretical way to address our problems, let alone a solution.  Leave the damn thing be for a few hundred years, it'll find equilibrium again. Next time try not to fuck with it so much. |
|
|
|
|
nimda
|
|
August 10, 2012, 08:09:18 PM |
|
Can I go short Mars One? I'll liquidate the position when it reaches its funding goal.
|
|
|
|
|
dree12
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1077
|
|
August 10, 2012, 08:14:05 PM |
|
My suggestion: It's going to get hot and dry, then we are all going to starve. Enjoy the last days of humanity. The odds of turning things around must be less than 1 in 10,000? There is not even a theoretical way to address our problems, let alone a solution. Leave the damn thing be for a few hundred years, it'll find equilibrium again. Next time try not to fuck with it so much. Ah, Mars. A even more delicate planet for us to mess up. Honestly, better to go somewhere we probably can't mess up if we tried. Coincidently, there's a nice place to live that's also probably the third-easiest heavenly body to get to. We probably couldn't mess that up for a while. Maybe too easy to get to... Something like this. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
August 10, 2012, 08:21:30 PM |
|
My suggestion: It's going to get hot and dry, then we are all going to starve. Enjoy the last days of humanity. The odds of turning things around must be less than 1 in 10,000? There is not even a theoretical way to address our problems, let alone a solution. Leave the damn thing be for a few hundred years, it'll find equilibrium again. Next time try not to fuck with it so much. Ah, Mars. A even more delicate planet for us to mess up. Honestly, better to go somewhere we probably can't mess up if we tried. Coincidently, there's a nice place to live that's also probably the third-easiest heavenly body to get to. We probably couldn't mess that up for a while. Maybe too easy to get to... Something like this.A little too warm for my tastes. The advantage of Mars is that there is zero other life to fuck up. Literally all we have to worry about is what we bring with us. It additionally has the advantage of forcing us to figure out how to work with ecosystems instead of against them, and when we go back home, maybe we don't fuck up this time. |
|
|
|
|
asdf
|
|
August 11, 2012, 12:17:29 AM |
|
It's really simple guys. If the value of the forest to society is higher in it's natural state than it is in it's harvested state, the forest will be saved. It depends on the aggregate of the subjective values of all individuals. All the edge effects and biodiversity are factored in by the market.
No, all the factors are not factored in. The value between two parties is equivalent to who can pay what and what can often be earned in one lifetime. In general, a party is not going to pay more than what he believes he can derive near term. Yeah, but prices are set by the market. What one party can "derive near term" depends on how the market values his resources, not just on his personal values. If biodiversity is valued by the market, then he can derive value from his resources as a biodiverse system. So the the values of the market are factored into the price. Similarly, a coal mine only has value to the entrepreneur because the market values coal. So one may buy the land to mine the coal if it's profitable. Profit is the indicator that the markets values are being met. All economic activity in a free society is just a reflection of the aggregate values of the market. With the state, it's a function of a tyrants values. Why would an individual pay an amount equal to a value that factors in the rain forest's value to all of the future of humanity? He can't afford it, and the seller will be more than willing to lower the price until he is satisfied personally.
He wouldn't, he would only pay an amount based on what he may yield in return. What he may yield is a function of the markets values. If he can't find the capital for this investment, then clearly society doesn't value the rainforest enough for the proposed utilization. Just because you personally might value it higher than the average market value per individual, doesn't mean you have the right to initiate force to impose your values on others. If you think people misrepresent the value of the rainforest then you are charged with the task of education; a non-violent solution to the problem. Furthermore, in a fractured model of ownership, it's easy for one to justify his sale, and allow the others to share the burden of valuing their properties to the full environmental value.
It's not a burden to have a valuable asset. You're thinking in a collectivist mindset. If non-fractured forests are more valuable than fractured ones, the market will answer this demand. Again, edge effects are factored in by the market. |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
August 11, 2012, 12:54:42 AM |
|
It's really simple guys. If the value of the forest to society is higher in it's natural state than it is in it's harvested state, the forest will be saved. It depends on the aggregate of the subjective values of all individuals. All the edge effects and biodiversity are factored in by the market.
No, all the factors are not factored in. The value between two parties is equivalent to who can pay what and what can often be earned in one lifetime. In general, a party is not going to pay more than what he believes he can derive near term. Yeah, but prices are set by the market. What one party can "derive near term" depends on how the market values his resources, not just on his personal values. If biodiversity is valued by the market, then he can derive value from his resources as a biodiverse system. So the the values of the market are factored into the price. Similarly, a coal mine only has value to the entrepreneur because the market values coal. So one may buy the land to mine the coal if it's profitable. Profit is the indicator that the markets values are being met. All economic activity in a free society is just a reflection of the aggregate values of the market. With the state, it's a function of a tyrants values. Why would an individual pay an amount equal to a value that factors in the rain forest's value to all of the future of humanity? He can't afford it, and the seller will be more than willing to lower the price until he is satisfied personally.
He wouldn't, he would only pay an amount based on what he may yield in return. What he may yield is a function of the markets values. If he can't find the capital for this investment, then clearly society doesn't value the rainforest enough for the proposed utilization. Just because you personally might value it higher than the average market value per individual, doesn't mean you have the right to initiate force to impose your values on others. If you think people misrepresent the value of the rainforest then you are charged with the task of education; a non-violent solution to the problem. Furthermore, in a fractured model of ownership, it's easy for one to justify his sale, and allow the others to share the burden of valuing their properties to the full environmental value.
It's not a burden to have a valuable asset. You're thinking in a collectivist mindset. If non-fractured forests are more valuable than fractured ones, the market will answer this demand. Again, edge effects are factored in by the market. In summary: the market does not value the ecosystem as it should due to near term interests, ignorance and greed, and our children, their children, and so forth are left to pay the price. |
|
|
|
|
|
FredericBastiat
|
|
August 11, 2012, 01:57:22 AM |
|
I really wished we could have saved the dodo bird, I think they're kinda cute. Alas... it can never be.
Education not violence. Try it on for size. It might just suit you. It's certainly less painful for others.
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
August 11, 2012, 02:14:56 AM |
|
I really wished we could have saved the dodo bird, I think they're kinda cute. Alas... it can never be.
Education not violence. Try it on for size. It might just suit you. It's certainly less painful for others.
What is your point about the dodo bird? All I can imagine is, you think concern over species extinction is about aesthetics. Is that correct? Is it safe to assume that you don't understand ecosystem services, trophic cascades, coevolution, nutrient cycling, water quality, flood control, and so on? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
August 11, 2012, 02:22:25 AM |
|
Education not violence.
What do you think I've been doing for the past twelve months here? Ranting, getting perilously close to educating but shying away, and advocating violence? |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
August 11, 2012, 02:47:11 AM |
|
Education not violence.
What do you think I've been doing for the past twelve months here? Ranting, getting perilously close to educating but shying away, and advocating violence? I admit that I do get disgusted with a very prevalent way of thinking here based on basically ignoring any information that is not convenient to the popular ideologies around here. I have been educating and sharing links to reputable scientific studies for a long time here. They largely go ignored, and then the person(s) come back and present more material that is clearly indicative that they are operating with a minimal set of knowledge about certain issues. I do not advocate violence. But I do advocate rules and regulations. If in your world, even the idea of a rule or regulation means violence, then go ahead and think that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
August 11, 2012, 02:54:32 AM |
|
Education not violence.
What do you think I've been doing for the past twelve months here? Ranting, getting perilously close to educating but shying away, and advocating violence? I admit that I do get disgusted with a very prevalent way of thinking here based on basically ignoring any information that is not convenient to the popular ideologies around here. I have been educating and sharing links to reputable scientific studies for a long time here. They largely go ignored, and then the person(s) come back and present more material that is clearly indicative that they are operating with a minimal set of knowledge about certain issues. I do not advocate violence. But I do advocate rules and regulations. If in your world, even the idea of a rule or regulation means violence, then go ahead and think that way. You advocate forcing people to be nice to Gaia. I've not heard you give, or agree to, any market incentives to encourage that, you just say they should be made to do it. That's advocating violence. |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
August 11, 2012, 03:01:12 AM |
|
Education not violence.
What do you think I've been doing for the past twelve months here? Ranting, getting perilously close to educating but shying away, and advocating violence? I admit that I do get disgusted with a very prevalent way of thinking here based on basically ignoring any information that is not convenient to the popular ideologies around here. I have been educating and sharing links to reputable scientific studies for a long time here. They largely go ignored, and then the person(s) come back and present more material that is clearly indicative that they are operating with a minimal set of knowledge about certain issues. I do not advocate violence. But I do advocate rules and regulations. If in your world, even the idea of a rule or regulation means violence, then go ahead and think that way. You advocate forcing people to be nice to Gaia. I've not heard you give, or agree to, any market incentives to encourage that, you just say they should be made to do it. That's advocating violence. Have you read all my posts? I doubt it. |
|
|
|
|
|
