Slashdot Mirror

The free market does solve this. The best known solution to the tragedy of an open-access commons is to create property rights, then get out of the way and allow the free market to work.

As that's a solution which has already been successfully implemented several times to solve this exact fishing problem with trade-able Individual Vessal Quotas (IVQ). It's also been used to solve similar wildlife/game animals issues by selling the animals to private owners.

Notice that nobody thinks we're going to run out of cows or chickens anytime soon in the world, yet they are slaughtered for more and more food every year!

So how about we continue to try more of the solutions which have actually worked to avert these types of fishing conflicts?

It shouldn't shock anyone that this article, written by the Coast Guard, happens to emphasize that by-the-way the Coast Guard should be given lots more ships and money to enforce regulations as the solution to the outlined problem. Next up, we'll read about how the Air Force believes we're going to need lots more air planes and pilots and support staff for the next big global conflict.

... the citizen patriots ... graz[ing] cattle on land without paying grazing fees ...

You missed the step in 1993 where the BLM arbitrarily slashed the number of cattle Bundy was permitted to graze. If accepted, this would destroy his livelihood and most of the value of his property (which was mainly due to the grazing rights of the attached permits).

This was apparently done due to environmentalist pressure to "protect the endangered desert tortoise". That's a pretty clear fifth-amendment "taking" of private property for public use without just compensation.

I'm not saying I agree (or disagree) with how he handled this. But there's a lot of law and history in that can of worms. Reducing it to grazing cattle without a permit picks a side and shoves the other side's claims under a rug.

It's notable that the BLM has stopped attempting to enforce their position. Bundy has his cattle back - still grazing the land in question.

(It's also notable that cattle are actually an environmental benefit on western range land. Much of the environmental troubles there are from invasive European grasses crowding out native plants. Native animals tend to avoid these grasses and eat the native plants by preference, while cattle consider them a treat and prefer them to the native fodder, thus keeping them under control. Clearing off the cattle is a recipe for environmental disaster.)

People will just tend to drive more on the days they can drive, because the streets will be less crowded. It'll still be about the same amount of pollution.

The effect is similar to building better roads hoping to reduce congestion, it doesn't work: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/w..., http://www.perc.org/articles/s...

The thing about that New York Times article is that it talks about number of DEATHS, while the Globe and Mail article talks about the total NUMBER of honey bees. The Globe and Mail article is not the first article I have seen which speaks about the number of hives rather than focusing on the number of deaths. http://www.perc.org/articles/e... http://lemire.me/blog/archives...

In 1900 there were less than 20 white rhinos left due to poaching for their horns. In 2010 there were 20,000. This success was accomplished by privatizing the white rhinos.

Today, the black rhinos face the exact same threat, and we don't know what to do?!? Is this a racist thing (lol) ?

In case you are wondering why this worked: If I own the last 20 white rhinos, they are worth a fortune. I have a tremendous economic incentive to protect them from poaching and reproduce them. Eventually as their population grows, I might be able to sell some for profit and the new owners would also have the incentive to protect and reproduce theirs. As supply grows, the value of an individual rhino drops and eventually it might be economical to sell them to hunters. If there are too many rhinos the free market would hunt them, and if there are too few the free market would protect them, keeping a stable and sustainable population. This is why any animal we can own (chickens, pigs, cows, horses, dogs, etc...) are not in any danger of extinction.

In 1900 there were only 20 white rhinos left; in 2010, there were 20,000.

So what happened? we privatized them.
In fact take any animal that can be bought: chickens, horses, cows, etc..., and none of them are in any danger of extinction.

Why this works? Well, suppose I owned those 20 white rhinos. Simple supply and demand would make them worth a fortune. I would have a very strong incentive to try to get 21, so I would make everything I could to make them reproduce. Eventually I would have enough rhinos that I will start selling some for profit and continue reproducing them. The people that buy them would also have a strong incentive to reproduce them. As supply continues to increase, the value of an individual rhino will fall. At that point, the animal is safe from extinction, and it may become more profitable to sell them to hunters for example.

Simple market forces would make us breed them when there are too little, and hunt them when there are two many, keeping a sustainable population.

Actually there's a pretty good trail being laid down:

http://missoulian.com/news/loc...

Not only that, but per this article (with stats), bee populations are stable to increasing despite CCD:

http://www.perc.org/articles/e...

The amount of honey being produced is a good indicator, given you can't make honey without bees.

This won't load for me but I imagine it goes into more detail:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/...

And actually, you can demonstrate 'insanity' in any wild colony with an aging queen -- the bees become aggressive at greater and greater distances from the hive. I watched this with a wild colony that had taken up residence in the wall of a barn. For the first three years, they were 'gentle' (not concerned about intruders) -- to the point that you could actually poke around in their entryway without incurring any retaliation. The 4th year, they got twitchy about people walking nearby. The 5th year, they regularly chased people who passed within about 20 feet of their hive entrance. The colony died off entirely that winter. Far as I saw, it never swarmed, indicating they didn't produce any new queens.

We probably don't see this in domesticated colonies because modern beekeepers are diligent about replacing queens in a timely manner. But I asked an old-timer about it (who'd been in the bee business since the 1930s) and he said that was all perfectly normal for a colony with an old queen.

I would imagine that "bee stings" is a generic term that also includes stings from wasps and hornets.

As for colony collapse, an economic analysis concludes that it's somewhat overblown.

http://perc.org/sites/default/...

This should be mandatory reading to pass high school: http://perc.org/articles/eight-great-myths-recycling-no-28

Well, I can't think of anyone who understands public health better than a pair of economists funded by a right-wing free-market anti-regulatory think tank. http://perc.org/about-perc/perc-board

Free market good, government bad. What more do you need to know?

That list gives me even more reason to believe that society and the States that surround us are both inept. Look at the rundown of the top 10 items and the reasons why the item is "contraband."

1. Marijuana -- The State says what you can put into your body (doing no crime to no one else), probably funded by the big medical business

2. Counterfeit Technology Products -- This is why you shop at stores that guarantee their products with a refund. If there was no law against counterfeit goods, I'd let the retailer find out what is best for me. In some cases, something counterfeit might be of the same quality as the "official and legal" version. Look at Fendi handbags and their knock-offs

3. Cocaine -- See #1. No crime committed against anyone else. Now if you kill someone (when on drugs or off), I can agree that a crime is committed, but the intoxicant shouldn't matter. Sometimes that intoxicant is adrenaline.

4. Opion/Heroin -- See #1 (doing crime to no one else).

5. Pirated Web Videos. Supply and demand here. The supply of digitally transmitted products is nearly infinite, therefore the price falls to the floor. Then again, I am I am against copyright.

6. Counterfeit Pharmaceutical -- Here's another place that the retail and distributor can excel at. Don't trust your distributor? Shop at one that's insured and bonded against dispensing dangerous drugs, or knock-off ones.

7. Pirated Software. See #5 (supply and demand).

8. Human Trafficking. Here's a place I can understand goverment being involved in, but it is also one they're doing a terrible job in fighting. The worst concern is my thought that a lot of States might even be involved in this problem. I know the U.S. government trafficks in human lives and bodies. See Guantanemo Bay.

9. Amphetamines/Meth -- See #1 (doing crime to no one else).

10. Animals and Wildlife Smuggling. Here's a problem better solved through groups like PERC. If you care about rare animals, spend YOUR money to make wildlife habitats to keep them out of the open arms of the State that is part of the problem with extinction.

11. Ecstasy -- See #1 (doing crime to no one else).

12. Counterfeit Auto Parts -- See #2 (shop at trustworthy retailers if you're concerned).

13. Trash Smuggling. A friend of mine is a famous pastor in Uganda. I told him we should go into business to take trash from the U.S. on boats to Uganda and let people find value in the trash. He loved the idea. He deals with the absolute poorest people in Africa every day (I'm going there again in December) and he loves the thought that one man's trash is another man's treasure. They'd probably find millions of dollars worth of treasure in our trash.

14. Human Smuggling -- See #8 (State's failure).

15. Art and Antique Smuggling. I insure against theft, so should you. The State is worthless here.

16. Pirated Movies -- See #5 (supply and demand).

17. Smuggled Cigarettes -- Thank the market for cheaper tax free smokes. I noticed they were $7 a pack in Chicago a few weeks ago. Tax free they're about 70 cents. The State created this problem.

18. Gas and Oil Smuggling. See #17 on the State destroying the market of goods through taxation/theft.

19. Pirated Music -- See #5 (supply and demand).

20. Illegal Fishing -- See #10 (privately funded habitats).

22. Pirated Mobile Phone Entertainment -- See #5 (supply and demand).

23. Pirated Video Games -- See #5 (supply and demand).

24. Counterfeit Cigarettes -- See #17 (market provisions) and #2 (shop at trustworthy retailers if you're concerned).

25. Small Arms Trafficking -- See the second amendment.

27. Counterfeit Shoes -- See #2 (shop at trustworthy retailers if you're concerned).

28. Pirated Books -- See #5 (supply and demand).

29. Counterfeit Sports Memorabilia -- See #5 (supply and demand) and #2 (shop

Socialism is fun. I think social programs will eventually collapse under there own weight. No socal programs seem to work very well and a lot of them fail completely. The only good way to handle stuff like this is to let people do what they want. The bigger the program the faster and more expensive the inevitable failure.

I'd say it's successful in Switzerland because you don't know all the facts of what is really going on.

If it I had it my way, there would be no forced recycling programs. If you want to recycle you can. Our family used to recycle aluminum and scrap metal. Once a month or so we'd haul our garbage to the dump and get a few bucks in the process.

I refer you to these links:
Recycling Myths

Jane Shaw

I'm getting sick of greenies who skew numbers and facts to scare everyone. If you listen to what they've been saying for decades, you'll see that they change their minds more than almost any other "science" which is why I refute environmentalism as a science.

Here are some great articles about the "science" of environmentalists:

More Religion than Science

Eco-Detectives Literature

Enviro-Capitalists

The Political Economy Research Center is a great place for you libertarians to support for free market environmentalism.

Please note that this is my personal opinion, but as a libertarian, its heavily set on punishing those responsible for hurting another person or persons.

First of all, you must understand that the majority of environmental damage is caused by government regulations, subsidies, intervention or on land owned by the government and leased to a corporation. A great website that speaks about free-market environmentalism is www.perc.org.

A libertarian knows that Monsanto doesn't care so much BECAUSE they're so heavily in bed with the government -- and our government can subsidize or "free up" environmental rules for any corporation they want to, because we've given them the power to.

In a libertarian society, the federal government would have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL over environmental regulations -- people would be free to pollute as they please. But here is the restriction in a free society: if you pollute your own land, that land will now be useless for you, and have absolutely no value for you in the future. In a free-market society, government won't own land, so you can't lease it only to treat it badly and move on. Secondly, if you pollute your own land, and the pollution crosses over to someone else's property, airspace, or drinking water, YOU WILL BE LIABLE. Bar none.

Today, the government lets the polluters pollute, and really just keeps the big pro-earth groups happy with thousands upon thousands of regulations that have loopholes for government's greatest supporters. Get government out of this mess: the environment is not what you want to protect, you want to protect private property.

If you're worried that pollution done now might contaminate someone's property 100 years down the road, I can see where a little government intervention on a local level is necessary -- ON A LOCAL LEVEL. Let the city or county government enact rules as to what corporations or individuals can do now. If a corporation wants to, they can always move to a city that lets them do what they want to do (and the people of that city they move to made the decision to live there and accept it).

I know, its not a perfect answer -- BUT ITS FAR FAR BETTER than what we have now.

As a libertarian, I find nothing inconsistent with caring about the poor, promoting social welfare, being generous in spirit as well as materially and in supporting libertarian policies. Most libertarians believe what they do on the basis of sound economic theories supported by empirical studies, sound logic, and critical examination. More importantly, most libertarians support those ideas based upon responsible moral convictions. If I didn't firmly believe that the best way to support the poor was to eliminate welfare, I would never in good conscience advocate such a policy. If you want to know why libertarians support the ideas that they do - look at the arguments, don't just presume that we're all just a bunch of selfish, greedy, heartless (insert your favorite insult here). If you insist on pronouncing judgements, at least do it in an intellectually responsible manner and not simply dismiss the ideas without at least hearing them out.
www.cato.org
www.fee.org
www.perc.org
www.cei.org
www.lp.org
www.free-market.net
www.reason.org