steve wrote...
One merely sells off parcels of the pasture to the
>various herdsmen so that they own their own section and they have no
>incentive to over graze.
yes, this is quite clear, but there are some serious problems that come with
the practice of private property.... private property was origionally
intended to be a 'defensive' measure... it was instituted during an era
heavily influenced by Christian thought... it was theorized that since the
'fall of man', private property became necessary to defend people from the
ill intentioned advances of others... and while i don't necessarily buy
into the idea of 'the fall', i can see the logic behind this... however,
this was during a time of almost non-existent technology, when the principle
use of property was to farm it and live on it... however, in today's world,
private property is not merely defensive, but can become highly 'offensive'.
it can now be used as a harmful force to others.... since we are able to
amass capital, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.... those who
are able to afford the parcels of land in the pasture buy them up in extreme
disproportion to those who are not... i actually think that the theory
behind socialism and communism is an excellent answer to this problem, but
the implementation of it is very tricky, and it carries its own problems....
like i've said many times, i don't have the complete answer... yet! :) but
i think discussing it can be a useful tool in getting ever closer to some
good answers....
spirit
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Perceptions of sustainability
>First the most common form the tragedy of the commons take is that of
>a common grazing pasture. In this case it is easy to introduce
>property rights. One merely sells off parcels of the pasture to the
>various herdsmen so that they own their own section and they have no
>incentive to over graze.
>
>Air pollution is a difficult externality problem since it is difficult
>to assign property rights to the air. In this case internalizing the
>externality may very well be impossible.
>
>One scheme that has been talked about is the issuing of pollution
>permits that firms could use to trade on some sort of exchange. The
>idea is that those firm's that find retooling economical will do so
>and sell their permits to those that do not. The idea is that the
>cost of polluting would then be tied to production decisions and the
>firm's would produce an amount that would be closer to an efficient
>outcome. This idea is fine in theory, but there are many practical
>difficulties in its implementation. Clearly determining the
>"efficient amount of pollution" is probably not going to be agreed upon.
>
>As for this problem being put forward by Hrdin, the idea of
>externalities has been around longer than he has.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>---Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> steve wrote...
>>
>> >The primary reason for this is that the "tragedy of the commons" as
>> >posited by Garret Hardin can be solved by the introduction of
>property
>> >rights.
>>
>> i don't really understand the implications of what you're saying here
>> steve.... but nonetheless, i want to ask you how this would apply
>to, say,
>> air pollution.... in the spirit of the "tragedy of the commons"
>argument,
>> the atmosphere can be seen as the commons.... you have x number of
>> factories, whether they're run by companies, governments, ect. and
>each
>> contributes to the total amount of pollution (not to mention
>automobiles,
>> run by individuals). the reasoning of the TOTC suggests that that
>there is
>> only so much pollution that the atmosphere can absorb until it becomes
>> danerous, or at least unpleasant, to live in... now, any rational
>person
>> will acknowledge that this is a result of pollution.... however,
>the trick
>> is that even if we could determine that x amount of pollution from
>a's car,
>> or b's factory, or c's power plant is the maximum amount allowable
>in order
>> to not saturate the atmosphere past whatever amount is determined as
>> unpleasant or harmful, even then, the reasoning of 'a' would be that
>if i
>> drive my car twice as far, it will benifit me twice as much, but it
>will
>> only harm the atmosphere a miniscule amount more, and by that
>reasoning, it
>> makes perfect sense to 'a' to do that driving.... and of course
>when all
>> polluters use this reasoning, we end up with an unpleasant or harmful
>> atmosphere.... and that was just one example.... i could come up
>with a
>> thousand of them at least.... all showing how the TOTC is still
>very much
>> an issue....
>>
>> spirit
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 4:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: Perceptions of sustainability
>>
>>
>> >---Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >It sounds as if you've given emperical evidence to support Garret
>> >Hardin's
>> >"Tragedy of the Commons" theory. That in itself is significant
>because
>> >many
>> >economists have said there is no "tragedy" at all.
>> >--------
>> >
>> >The primary reason for this is that the "tragedy of the commons" as
>> >posited by Garret Hardin can be solved by the introduction of
>property
>> >rights. The problem is that of an externality and the introduction
>> >internalizes the externality and there is no problem.
>> >
>> >Steve
>> >
>> >
>> >_________________________________________________________
>> >DO YOU YAHOO!?
>> >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|