Stossel Show - The Tragedy Of The Commons!

[qwerty]

YouTube - Stossel Show - The Tragedy Of The Commons! (Part 1/4) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tlVHAr_02c&feature=&p=3209F8099B70AD22&index=0&playnext=1)

[qwerty]

Bump! :)

[canadian4ronpaul]

the argument for preserving animals is kind of ridiculous though...if we "privatized" elephants for their tusks and ivory... we would just have elephants living in terrible conditions as all other farm animals. survival and survival in its natural habitat are two vastly different things.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

the argument for preserving animals is kind of ridiculous though...if we "privatized" elephants for their tusks and ivory... we would just have elephants living in terrible conditions as all other farm animals. survival and survival in its natural habitat are two vastly different things.

How is it ridiculous? There are actually real world examples here to use. I forget the exact location, but it was along some beachfront property where an ingenious entreprenuer protected the local turtle population from predators, and in doing so (while farming and selling their meat and by-products), the population skyrocketed. It was his property, his labor, and his capital that led to a direct increase in the population of an animal who was at the time rapidly diminishing.

Did any PETA or animal lovers come out in support of this man and his work? Of course not. In fact, they actively lobbied Gubbermint to shut him down, and got his property taken away. The nets were taken away, and now birds of prey had free reign, and meanwhile individuals with no ownership killed them off even further. People like PETA and the like are nothing, but luddite primitivists, not concerned with animals, extinction, or the repercussions of their ideology. All they care about is a romanticism with nature without man. In essence, they are genocidists. You won't see cows, pigs, fig trees, apple trees, etc. ever go extinct (unless of course events outside of mans control), because people have direct ownership and have incentives to keep these from dying. When you remove the incentive and institute public or open ownership where no one has any direct stake, or responsibility, then what happens is obvious - you have over-use and consumption to the point where it is not out of the ordinary for the species to become extinct or to become endangered.

I am sure these lovers of the animals would rather they go extinct than to see private ownership and private property allow these animals populations to prosper and soar. No doubt they would send the lion to extinction than to see it live on (or more realistically, would rather see man die off and killed than to privatize ownership of animals like lions, because it is obvious that public ownership will surely lead to their extinction).

[JohnEngland]

However, I would argue that simply having private ownership isn't enough.

What happens when, for example, the heads and shareholders of a logging corporation in the Amazon don't care about sustainability? What if these people are corrupt, self-centred, care not for anyone else and in bed with the government?

These types of people won't care if they run out of wood. They and their shareholders will still get rich and be laughing all the way to the bank.

"To hell with society and everyone else! You only live once - may as well enjoy life at the expense of others and future generations!"

I think what is missing is that you need a moral and ethical people for private property to work best.

The rule of law, too, must be correctly written and applied so as to remove corruption and so on.

[Sola_Fide]

However, I would argue that simply having private ownership isn't enough.

What happens when, for example, the heads and shareholders of a logging corporation in the Amazon don't care about sustainability? What if these people are corrupt, self-centred, care not for anyone else and in bed with the government?

These types of people won't care if they run out of wood. They and their shareholders will still get rich and be laughing all the way to the bank.


Loggers must care about sustainability in order to remain in business, since the quality of the land the more trees they plant affects their profit.

The true stories of mismanagement are always in government owned property.



I think what is missing is that you need a moral and ethical people for private property to work best.

You don't need any other ethic but self-interest for private property to work.

[JohnEngland]

Loggers must care about sustainability in order to remain in business, since the quality of the land the more trees they plant affects their profit.

The true stories of mismanagement are always in government owned property.

You don't need any other ethic but self-interest for private property to work.

Ah, but this is my point. What happens when the people in charge of a business are only about making their money, then retiring or doing different things, and exploit the resources knowing full-well that they are ruining it for future generations.

Once you've made enough, some people don't care about remaining in business and sustainability.

Self-interest doesn't work when the people have no conscience of any kind, or any regard for anyone or anything else.

An interesting thing occured to me from the episode - they talk about the private property of the original colonists. This worked because if they didn't look after their property, they'd go hungry, lose business, maybe even die. However, when you're a multi-millionaire without a conscience, you don't need the business, the money, the conservation of natural resources or animals. You can retire without any regard for anything else but yourself.

I agree, of course, that private property is the solution and that government ruins almost everything it touches. However, I think you also need people to be fundamentally decent and ethical, as well as have a limited government which sets the rules that prevents businesses from shafting natural resources.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Ah, but this is my point. What happens when the people in charge of a business are only about making their money, then retiring or doing different things, and exploit the resources knowing full-well that they are ruining it for future generations.

Once you've made enough, some people don't care about remaining in business and sustainability.

Self-interest doesn't work when the people have no conscience of any kind, or any regard for anyone or anything else.

An interesting thing occured to me from the episode - they talk about the private property of the original colonists. This worked because if they didn't look after their property, they'd go hungry, lose business, maybe even die. However, when you're a multi-millionaire without a conscience, you don't need the business, the money, the conservation of natural resources or animals. You can retire without any regard for anything else but yourself.

I agree, of course, that private property is the solution and that government ruins almost everything it touches. However, I think you also need people to be fundamentally decent and ethical, as well as have a limited government which sets the rules that prevents businesses from shafting natural resources.

In this case, the cost of property with quality timber would sky rocket. If they destroy the land, they wouldn't be able to recover the high initial cost of the property unless they resold something worth while.

[dannno]

This was a fantastic episode..


the argument for preserving animals is kind of ridiculous though...if we "privatized" elephants for their tusks and ivory... we would just have elephants living in terrible conditions as all other farm animals. survival and survival in its natural habitat are two vastly different things.

If you allowed private industry to 'farm' elephants, then it wouldn't be cost effective to go out and hunt them in the wild. Their numbers in the wild would increase, and we could the tusks from the farmed elephants just like people who eat meat buy farmed animals because it is cheaper than going out and hunting for them.

That doesn't mean you have to support elephant farming, if you don't want them farmed them don't buy the tusks from farms where they are captive, maybe you might be ok with 'free range' elephant tusks? Or none at all.. but to make it illegal to farm elephants is just going to make elephants more likely to go extinct..

[oyarde]

This was a fantastic episode..



If you allowed private industry to 'farm' elephants, then it wouldn't be cost effective to go out and hunt them in the wild. Their numbers in the wild would increase, and we could the tusks from the farmed elephants just like people who eat meat buy farmed animals because it is cheaper than going out and hunting for them.

That doesn't mean you have to support elephant farming, if you don't want them farmed them don't buy the tusks from farms where they are captive, maybe you might be ok with 'free range' elephant tusks? Or none at all.. but to make it illegal to farm elephants is just going to make elephants more likely to go extinct..

You have talked me into it , I am ready to try a farmed pachyderm steak on the grill :)

[dannno]

bump

[qwerty]

This was a fantastic episode..



If you allowed private industry to 'farm' elephants, then it wouldn't be cost effective to go out and hunt them in the wild. Their numbers in the wild would increase, and we could the tusks from the farmed elephants just like people who eat meat buy farmed animals because it is cheaper than going out and hunting for them.

That doesn't mean you have to support elephant farming, if you don't want them farmed them don't buy the tusks from farms where they are captive, maybe you might be ok with 'free range' elephant tusks? Or none at all.. but to make it illegal to farm elephants is just going to make elephants more likely to go extinct..

So true! :)