| Author | Message | ||
     Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 529 Registered: 6-2004  |
mj, it still sounds to me like the elephant hunting is regulated. those countries have just enlisted local tribes people to do the regulating by selling licenses and do the policing. moreover, private ownership of property and regulation of its use are also not mutually exclusive as that article seems to suggest. | ||
| common sense Citizen Username: Common_sense Post Number: 47 Registered: 12-2004 |
i think that Libertarian has noble objectives but also operates on a first principle basis, which is that we have to start fresh and find out for ourselves that for example unregulated beef will kill people (paraphrasing here). But isn't this a bit naive - society has already gone through that phase and that is why it has come up with some regulations. We don't all need to hit our hands with a hammer to know it hurts you know. I tend to look at it as follows - if we have govt programs helping poor people for example, it is because we as a socity want that. If we didn't want it we wouldn't have it. Same with the gun thing -American society is comfortable with the plehtora of guns and massive amounts of gun killing - if it wasn't, we wouldn't have all the guns or the killing. As Churchill once said - democracy is absolutely the worst form of government - except for every other kind. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1689 Registered: 1-2003  |
Tom, Pretty much, yeah. Common good is almost always bad, and sharing (except in families and small groups committed to cooperation) virtually never works. Please point out a time it has in the public realm. Think about shared public property, like public toilets. They're often gross. Public streets tend to get trashed. Earlier I mentioned how people litter on public lands, and think about what you share at work. The refrigerator where I work is disgusting — filled with food that's rotten. Compare dirty public toilets to privately run toilets. They're common in Europe, and cleaner, because their owners — selfishly seeking a profit — work at keeping them clean. (once again, I got a lot of this from libertarian sources) Maple, The GOVERNMENT isn't regulating the elephant hunting, the OWNERS of the elephants are. There is a HUGE difference. Its like private game farms here. The owners of the farm NEVER overhunt their land. The government basically told the locals that the elephants are yours to do with as you wish. Kill them, protect them, hunt them for profit. They are yours. Once the villagers owned the rights to kill the elephants, the problem of poachers was basically solved. Other governments tried to enlist locals in saving the elephants, results: payoffs, corruption, and less elephants. Why? Because the locals didn't have any stake in the elephants surviving. Once the government gave the elephants to the locals, problem solved. The government doesn't own the elephants, the locals do, and as such they take care of them. Private ownership of property and regulation of its use AREN't exclusive of each other. But by the government protecting the property rights of individuals instead of regulating their use of shared resources, the problems of the commons are solved. | ||
| common sense Citizen Username: Common_sense Post Number: 48 Registered: 12-2004 |
MJ - central or local govt, the elephants are being regulated. otherwise i could just go over and kill them all, no ? | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 530 Registered: 6-2004 |
exactly my point. if this was unregulated, I could grab an elephant gun and go over to one of those towns and slaughter as many elephants as I pleased. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest I wouldn't be allowd to do that. and if I'm not, that's regulation, whether by the country's central government or a committee of townspeople | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5775 Registered: 1-2003  |
I like public roads and streets. I like that I can travel on them from anywhere to anywhere, and no one can say boo about it. I like the fact that my neighbors park in front of my house and I park in front of theirs. I like public parks. If I could afford that much space, it wouldn't be as much fun. I like public sidewalks. I like public education, and I feel it is everyone's duty to provide it to all who need it. It improves our society in countless ways. Even the most selfish business person enjoys the skills and employability of Joe Average. Believe it or not, I hate government and taxation, too. The government does a terrible job at so much. I fear the lack of them more than I hate them, however. Membership in something like a religious congregation is voluntary, yet many choose it. There is communal property there. Membership in society is similar. We get to choose who runs it, and indirectly, how. Our ability to affect who runs government and how is as imperfect as the market economy is. Consider that no one is happy about worker abuse but we are, on the whole, powerless to change the situation. Just today, my wife was bemoaning the fact that her new gloves ripped. It's hard to find good stuff at any price. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 487 Registered: 3-2004 |
no one is saying roads and streets shouldnt be paid for by the government. no one is saying that the government shouldnt be involved in maintaining and helping to drive the nation. but there are many things the government shouldnt be involved in. educating our children is one of them. the proff in that is how miserable a job they are doing at it. a private education is far better in almost all areas. not all people can afford it? if their is demand for it at lower prices then someone will provide it. i dont want my taxes to pay for it but people with children in this country have decided that it is everyones responsibility to pay to raise what was a personal choice for them. why am i getting dragged into their personal choices? if i am responsible to pay for your children then i think it only fair that i get to have some input into how you raise them. i didnt help you decide to have sex with your spouse and get pregnant, why am i involved now? it is selfish thinking at its worst. it is not a right, it is an entitlement. people have children without being able to afford them and then expect everyone else to chip in for their upkeep. well guess what, i dont want your children , i dont like your children, and i resent you having children that you cant afford. you made a personal choice relying on others to pay for it. from now on i want the children i am paying to educate to shovel my drive and mow my lawn. fair is fair. boy! that subject really gets me worked up! | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2127 Registered: 5-2001  |
Somehow, I think when most procreation occurs, people are not making a conscious choice that they are relying on others to pay for. I suspect that if everyone lived up to a certain standard in terms of education and morality and responsibility, then libertarians would have far less complaint about contributing funds to areas of common concern. Is that true? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 488 Registered: 3-2004 |
"personal responsibility" are the words tattooed on the ••• of every libertarian Somehow, I think when most procreation occurs, people are not making a conscious choice that they are relying on others to pay for. their} lack of forthought becomes my problem why? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5776 Registered: 1-2003 |
I can afford to raise my kids because I procreated them with the assumption society can pay for their education. I am playing by the rules in having that assumption. Society gets the benefit, why shouldn't it pay for it? How can you love the term "personal responsibility" without loving "personal duty" equally? Why don't you feel you're ducking your membership dues to society? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 489 Registered: 3-2004  |
what you feel are membership dues, i see as forced entitlements. instead of society, paying to raise YOUR kids, why not think whether or not YOU can pay for YOUR kids before having them? i am going to get a dog and it will be better for society as a whole if he is well trained and not prone to biting strangers. i think you should pay for obedience school. i am going to buy a car. it is better for society if it is driven by a well trained driver who is versed in safe driving techniques. i think you should pay for me to have a chauffeur. i think i would like some trees on my street. they will make the place look nicer, thereby increasing property values, which will increase tax revenue, which will mean a bigger pool of money for our society. i think you should buy me some trees and plant them for me. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5777 Registered: 1-2003 |
We can't have entitlements without duties, and vice versa. We can't have personal responsibility without common responsibility, and vice versa. I suppose it is confusing for you to sort out which things benefit mostly individuals and which things benefit mostly society. It isn't easy for anyone. But I don't think we should give up just because the job is hard. Thus far, most of society has agreed upon this list, however, and we are all free to move to change it. Most of us agree that schools are among the most fundamental things in the common good. By that it also means that schools are a common duty. My dog greets me when I get home, but he doesn't do you much good. I'll pay to raise him, thanks. I won't pay for a chauffeur, because it's inefficient, but I'll pay my share of the bus driver's salary. I'm happy the town pays for trees in our town on public property. We all benefit from it. So you see, you tried to come up with hypothetical situations, but they are quite real. And the dog example is where I'll agree with you. I do draw the line somewhere. I don't believe in everything being communal. Society already told me it will pay to educate my kids, so it is not presumptuous for me to take society's word for it. It is presumptuous of you to say society should revoke its promise. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1690 Registered: 1-2003 |
The elephants aren't being regulated by the government for gods sake. The village OWNS them. If you kill them you are killing THEIR property. That is the same as stealing, and yes, they will regulate you for it. They aren't selling you a license as much as they are selling you one of their elephants for you to kill. They regulate it themselves. You are missing the point. Governmental regulation FORBIDS killing of elephants in countries, and the elephants are being killed at a higher rate than in countries where the government gave up regulating elephants and allowed private entities (townspeople, ranchers, reserve owners, basically any landowners) to kill as many as they want. They can also sell that right to anyone. Viola, elephant population triples. If a rancher wants to let you kill all of his elephants, no one will stop him. They are his to do with whatever he wants. No regulation there. In other countries he can't touch them, and yet they are killed at alarming rates. Libertarians want to regulate their own property how they see fit. Its not government's job. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5779 Registered: 1-2003 |
MJ wrote: They regulate it themselves. Who is themselves? You are missing the point. Condescension doesn't convey your point very well. You haven't noticed that yet. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1692 Registered: 1-2003 |
Themselves are the owners of the land that the elephants are on. Be it a village, a ranch, a farm, a refuge, whatever. They are the owners of the elephants. And if they want to kill them all to make elephant leg umbrella holders, they can, and there is no regulation to stop them. Do me a favor, stop telling me how to post until you understand the very basics of economics. Because you don't. You haven't noticed that yet. Until you do, your posts are nothing more than well written, yet poorly thought out ravings. How's that for condescending? You know what doesn't convey YOUR point very well, the sickening holier than thou attitude you try to expouse. It makes you sound like a, well, a prissypants... wasn't that your nickname a while back? Here's the deal: I don't owe you or your kids anything. Society doesn't owe you or your kids anything. I have no duty to you. You have no right to say I do. Talk amongst yourselves. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5782 Registered: 1-2003 |
I won't share any more disrespect with you publicly. I am sorry I criticized you. I wish you hadn't spoken to me that way. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 531 Registered: 6-2004 |
mj, regulations are regulations, regardless of what you want to call them. in one country the regulation forbids all killing of elephants. in the other, the regulation is that the elephants are the property of the villages. if it was unregulated, the elephants would be owned by no one. without laws (another name for regulations) how would we enforce property rights? sorry, but those elephant and fish examples are not examples of non-regulation. they're just examples of different types of regulation than we're used to in the U.S. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1694 Registered: 1-2003 |
Maple, They are exapmles or PRIVATIZATION, and private property rights. Without laws property rights are enforced with guns, swords, knives, whatever. If something is mine, I enforce my property rights by not letting you take it, maybe I lock it up, maybe I fught for it. Thats how. In the elephant killing countries, the government gave up ALL responsibility for the elephants. They didn't give them to the locals. The locals took it upon themselves to care and protect their assett, and they did it out of a profit motive. Call it what you will. I regulate my property with locks on my front door. That has nothing to do with government. Is that a regulation too? | ||
| D. Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5529 Registered: 4-1998  |
Michael, I think you're reading an attitude into Tom's posts that really isn't there. He's simply trying to have a good debate. Maybe stick to the issues. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 532 Registered: 6-2004 |
Michael, we can po-tay-toe and po-tah-toe this all day, but here's the quote from your original source:
Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but how did the local villagers get a "form of local ownership" unless it was established by law in those countries? And if it was, isn't that a regulation? Giving ownership rights to villages and allowing them to sell licenses? It's privatization, no doubt. But that doesn't mean it's unregulated. That's why the dilemma of the commons isn't occurring there. Because hunting is regulated by villages who own the elephants, under the law of those countries. |
