john, i'm afraid that your post went a little over my head... if you'd care
to put it into a synopsis of more simple language, that would be great....
if not, don't worry about it.... as i'm sure i'll understand it some day if
i need to...

spirit

-----Original Message-----
From: John Foster <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: Perceptions of sustainability


>RE: spirit
>
>I think this post is a very authentic reply to what may be considered a
>focus on some of the negativities surrounding 'rights' regarding property.
>Private property is not the absolute use of land for any and all uses
>what-so-ever. Private property is a bundle of 'rights' to use and enjoy
>land. Is there a 'real consensus' about which negativities contradict the
>tenets of sustainability and criteria to progress towards sustainability?
>
>There many negativities that affect property rights. A short list of them
>would suffice:
>
>1. Exclusive use,
>2. Degradation of productivity,
>3. Infringement of adjacent property owners enjoyment of land
>[including public landowners],
>4. Underuse of scarce resources,
>5. Abandonment of structures, facilities, and stewardship,
>6. Destruction of amenities that are public or private, and
>7. Abandonment of the needy [forced relocation of dependent peoples to
>otherwise poorer settings].
>
>Each of these negativities is a focus for discussion from a ethical and
>legal context. Each person can contribute to the discussion by 1) focussing
>on their unique perspective, and by 2) offering an opinion which is based
on
>learning and experience even if they have no particular perspective.
Whether
>or not an outcome is veiwed as 'bad' or good is irrelevant, the issue is
>what are the outcomes, and what consequences are to be evaluated from a
>strictly environmental and ethical reflection. What are some of the
>negativities surrounding property rights, whether public or private? Is
>ownership really a convenient measure of determining success in terms of
>reducing the negativities mentioned above?
>
>John
>
>
>At 09:15 PM 11/6/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>>>You still haven't shown how private property has resulted in a bad
>>>outcome.
>>
>>i think that i did. i showed how it can now be used as an 'offensive'
>>power. granted, i didn't go very deeply into it, but i don't feel like i
am
>>ready to do that yet. i need to learn more about it first (which is
>>something i find myself repeating again and again). but i don't think
that
>>that lack of total knowledge should stop me from discussing it. if
someone,
>>somewhere along the way can show me where my reasoning is faulty or can
show
>>me a better way, then i will learn from it. putting everything into a pot
>>certainly doesn't sound like a possibility. the intention behind it might
>>be worth fleshing out some, and if you get the inspiration to do such a
>>thing and share it with us, i'd be glad to look at it.
>>
>>>Tell me when you are hungry do you take a nap?
>>
>>this seems like an intentionally obtuse question to me. where did you get
>>this from? it sort of sounds like you are implying that i was trying to
>>solve one thing by doing something completely different? how do you mean?
>>are you saying that we should keep private property but that we should
>>redistribute the wealth? ok, ok... as i ask these questions i'm beginning
>>to think i understand you, though i still think you could have worded the
>>question a bit more civilly... and if you think that is the answer, and
if
>>you are inclined to speak on it, how do you see that solution tying in
with
>>the other factors currently present in the world (ie political boundaries,
>>increasing population, deforrestation, starvation, ect.)? and if my
>>question isn't clear, just ignore it.... i'm feeling a little rushed
right
>>now and don't have the time or will to clarify it any more at this
time....
>>
>>spirit
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 12:14 PM
>>Subject: Re: Perceptions of sustainability
>>
>>
>>>---Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> steve wrote...
>>>>
>>>> >Yeah like the tragedy of the commons. Your problem is not with
>>>> >private property but the initial allocation of resources.
>>>>
>>>> well, first of all i don't consider it to be MY problem.... i
>>>consider it
>>>> to be A problem.... but you are right in part.... let us ask, how
>>>were
>>>> resources initially allocated? well, we'd have to go pretty far
>>>back for
>>>> the answer to that... throughout most of history, they were
>>>allocated on
>>>> one simple basis... "might makes right"... the stronger and more
>>>powerful
>>>> (usually physically, be it a person or a nation) took control of
>>>> resources... and all of history can be seen as either taking, or
>>>fighting
>>>> to keep, those resources.... and this continues to this day.... and
>>>as i've
>>>> said before, the idea of private property was origionally
>>>implemented for
>>>> the benifit of protecting an individual against the ill intentioned
>>>advances
>>>> of others... but it hasn't worked.... or it's gone down hill,
>>>either way
>>>> one looks at it... the fact is that the wealth is distributed very
>>>> disproportionally, and people all over the world are starving to death
>>>> unnecessarily because of this.... private property might not be the
>>>source
>>>> of the problem, but it isn't helping at all... at least not in the
>>>form
>>>> that it's now in.... there should be some changes....
>>>
>>>You still haven't shown how private property has resulted in a bad
>>>outcome. You have shown how the use of force has resulted in bad
>>>outcomes. Here is the solution. Have everyone put all their various
>>>resources (money, stocks, bonds, cars, house(s), stero, televisions,
>>>etc.) into a big pot and then redistribute it in a "just" manner.
>>>Then let the market take over. People will then be starting from a
>>>"just" endowment and can engage in beneficial exhanges for what they
>>>may want.
>>>
>>>> private property might not be the source
>>>> of the problem, but it isn't helping at all... at least not in the
>>>form
>>>> that it's now in.... there should be some changes....
>>>
>>>Tell me when you are hungry do you take a nap?
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>>>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%