NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought the UN had given up on destroying its member nations' economies and instead had returned to its goal of focusing on preserving human rights with the Medical resolution. I guess I was wrong:

Oceanic Waste Dumping
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: All Businesses Proposed by: Giedi
Description: Simply put, we ask that all oceanic dumping of toxic wastes in both territorial and international waters be banned.

Sovereignty arguments over territorial water rights are irrelevant because there is no way to prevent toxic waste dumped in one region from contaminating waters in neighbouring nations.


Approvals: 150 (Stephland, Qaaolchoura, Het Vlaemsche Land, Greater Canadiana, Ubotxus, Gemfish, Welcome to Coneria, Baudrillard, Hill People, Trevland, Cherry Cola, Dwars, Longism, Zakros, Scyphia, Loashia, Illigitemate borrowing, Phuckestan, Karma Island, Beanbag Chairs, Spaticus Minions, Dionalka, The Basilicus, Goobergunchia, Zen, Sulon, Naleth, Lamoni, Himalya, New Imperial Prussia, Thunderground, Matt the Shrimp, The Bruce, Yaddaya, Hobotica, Radice, St Jordan, Prestopolis, JafaKri, Mesetania, West-Flandria, West - Europa, Binzer, Bookz, Raptorda, Rianisis, Futplex, NewTexas, _Myopia_, Pogaria, Jewrasia, 23donia, Mystical Duct Tape, Ariddia, Askalaria, New Hacktopia, Tomlandia, Popsland, Butthole, CoOpera, SloopySloppia, Power people, Toridonia, Tarrican, Super Tokyo, Mattabooloo, Veritus, P3pSy, Hallmark, Team Fabio, Nitwitium, Arkanarsk, Crescentfresh, Soviet Haaregrad, Guttentag, Pogue Mahone, Jhanvi, Pragmatic Idealists, Dragonmaster Anroca, CLU, La Habana, Majjiland, Jeanpy, Stommpygod, Stocktonia, The Lowcountry, Musical Beans, Hutsonia, Nimloth, Droogsylvania, Tempus Incognitum, Eredron, Mayberry Version 2, See-saw, SrrJamesLand, Final Shango, Wealthy Negroes, Darindin, Sanre, Phestland, Goostonia, Israel-Palestine, Vassfforcia, Dave420, Runaway Moose, Of portugal, Nicklandia, Nicherenshoshu, Whats it to you, Pacifiae, Alinna, Whoway, Austral Provinces, Communist Rebels, Flamed Moons, The Holy Graal, Arvina, Hampster Squared, Monotony, Danu, Frestonia, The Giant Serving Fork, Sovereign States, Lea-Monde, Lord Gamers Vengence, Alt-F4, Lisalia, Saint City, Jorg, Forentia, Kaolla, Dor Cirion, Cymryy, Skyria, Military Strength, The European U nion, Eaerlann, Grandmasland, Zu Darkness, Frankiia, Brokers, Tylerville, Unpopular Geeks, Free United Peoples, GGD, Parknarf, Delland, Griqualand, Amzbekistan, New Cyprus)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!


That's TWO resolutions to destroy the economies of nations out of the previous three. Is the UN trying to get people to quit?

You know, one would think someone who made as much of a stink about national economics as you do would have a better national economy.

You know, one would think someone who made as much of a stink about national economics as you do would have a better national economy.

My national economy is "frightening". I wasn't aware that it was possible to do better.

So are you going on record as saying companies should be allowed to dump toxic waste into our oceans?

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

I hardly think that banning toxic dumping into the ocean is going to crash the world economy.

So are you going on record as saying companies should be allowed to dump toxic waste into our oceans?

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

The owner of hte property can SUE the company for violating its property rights if the company dumps waste on the owner's land. However, it should just be sue-able, not prosecute-able.

Companies DO have hte right to dump toxic waste onto its own property as well as "international waters" which are not owned by anyone.

I hardly think that banning toxic dumping into the ocean is going to crash the world economy.

Note that the first line of the resolution is to improve the environment at the expense of industry.

So are you going on record as saying companies should be allowed to dump toxic waste into our oceans?

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

The owner of hte property can SUE the company for violating its property rights if the company dumps waste on the owner's land.

Companies DO have hte right to dump toxic waste onto its own property as well as "international waters" which are not owned by anyone.

It is our position that corporations should not be allowed to pollute excessively. Ocean dumping is excessive pollution in Goobergunchia, where a similar law pertaining to national waters is in effect.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

I don't think this proposal threatens the economy of any UN countries, since it doesn't require them to clean up the waters that have already be polluted, granted the businesses that do use the practice will have to find a new means of disposal. This is a reasonable trade off since it will help the fishing industry, and beaches that charge money for people to use them. Also this will cut down on the number of waste treatment plants that countries will need in order to provide clean water to their citizens.

Industry can take a few hits if need be, it'll survive and rebound. Isn't actually having some place to live in the future more imporant that making a few more dollars?

How about just blowing up the world?

Industry can take a few hits if need be, it'll survive and rebound. Isn't actually having some place to live in the future more imporant that making a few more dollars?

This can be adjusted for naturally. If people get tired of pollution eventually the industry will have to adapt.

When everyone was worried about coal shortages in the early 1900, industry switched to oil without government interference.

If you really think capitalism hurts the environment, I encourage you to take a deep breath in Smolensk or a nice drink out of the River Volga.

Global Market, the problem with your argument is that it ignores the idea of common goods. In some sense, international waters belong to nobody, but in another sense they belong to *everybody*. We all suffer if our oceans are polluted--just as we all suffer if our atmosphere is polluted. We agree that companies should have the right to polute public waters if they can get consent from *everyone* who has an interest in those waters--that is, the entire population of the world. We wish them luck.

We in Gurthark recognize that this resolution will likely do some damage to nations' economies. We think that the price will be well worth it.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

So are you going on record as saying companies should be allowed to dump toxic waste into our oceans?

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

The owner of hte property can SUE the company for violating its property rights if the company dumps waste on the owner's land.

Companies DO have hte right to dump toxic waste onto its own property as well as "international waters" which are not owned by anyone.

It is our position that corporations should not be allowed to pollute excessively. Ocean dumping is excessive pollution in Goobergunchia, where a similar law pertaining to national waters is in effect.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Of course your government can sue if the corporation produces land or sea that belongs to the government....

But a corporation is fundamentally free to pollute its own property as well as parts of nature that don't belong to anybody.

Industry can take a few hits if need be, it'll survive and rebound. Isn't actually having some place to live in the future more imporant that making a few more dollars?

This can be adjusted for naturally. If people get tired of pollution eventually the industry will have to adapt.

When everyone was worried about coal shortages in the early 1900, industry switched to oil without government interference.

If you really think capitalism hurts the environment, I encourage you to take a deep breath in Smolensk or a nice drink out of the River Volga.

[ooc: I don't even know where Smolensk is in RL, and Lord Evif won't know where the R. Volga is either.]

However, it may be too late for the environment once industry gets around to adapting.

Global Market, the problem with your argument is that it ignores the idea of common goods. In some sense, international waters belong to nobody, but in another sense they belong to *everybody*. We all suffer if our oceans are polluted--just as we all suffer if our atmosphere is polluted. We agree that companies should have the right to polute public waters if they can get consent from *everyone* who has an interest in those waters--that is, the entire population of the world. We wish them luck.

We in Gurthark recognize that this resolution will likely do some damage to nations' economies. We think that the price will be well worth it.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

I concur.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

So, you're saying when the icecaps melt and no one is informed about it because of the media blackout and two billion people die in the ensuing flooding, chaos, and starvation, it's okay because people made money and didn't feel like adjusting for it?

So, you're saying when most macroscopic sea life is extinct, it's okay because people made money and didn't feel like adjusting for it?

You have too much faith in greedy corporations. In 1900 the Corporations couldn't pay off the media to keep quiet about things but now they can because they're the same corporation. The enviromental abuses at the turn of the century were absolutely horrific in any rate anyway.

Industry doesn't adapt to us. Industry has us adapt instead.

Global Market, the problem with your argument is that it ignores the idea of common goods. In some sense, international waters belong to nobody, but in another sense they belong to *everybody*. We all suffer if our oceans are polluted--just as we all suffer if our atmosphere is polluted. We agree that companies should have the right to polute public waters if they can get consent from *everyone* who has an interest in those waters--that is, the entire population of the world. We wish them luck.

We in Gurthark recognize that this resolution will likely do some damage to nations' economies. We think that the price will be well worth it.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Since public goods are available to everbody, everybody should be allowed to use it as they wish then! I know that invites the Tragedy of the Commons, but that just encourages privatization, which is good.

To quote Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

The environment is LESS important than life, and if we didn't purchase life at the price of bondage, why should we purchase the environment at that price?

It is our position that corporations should not be allowed to pollute excessively. Ocean dumping is excessive pollution in Goobergunchia, where a similar law pertaining to national waters is in effect.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Of course your government can sue if the corporation produces land or sea that belongs to the government....

But a corporation is fundamentally free to pollute its own property as well as parts of nature that don't belong to anybody.

We have always viewed nature as a resource commonly held by the public.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

We were thinking that having a "frightening" economy was having one that was worse than "imploded." Sorry for our mistake. On the other hand, wouldn't it be nce to lower to a "powerhouse" or "thriving" economy so that there weren't so many bums in your country? It must be irritating for the rich.

We believe the small burden placed on our companies to keep the oceans clean is far better than one day paying to colonize another planet or undertaking vast clean-up projects in order to survive.

The environment is LESS important than life, and if we didn't purchase life at the price of bondage, why should we purchase the environment at that price?

If we destroy the environment, we might not have life in the future....

We believe the small burden placed on our companies to keep the oceans clean is far better than one day paying to colonize another planet or undertaking vast clean-up projects in order to survive.

I'll say.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

So, you're saying when the icecaps melt and no one is informed about it because of the media blackout and two billion people die in the ensuing flooding, chaos, and starvation, it's okay because people made money and didn't feel like adjusting for it?

Rather extreme scenario. Global warming certainly exists but it isn't a threat in the next few decades.

So, you're saying when most macroscopic sea life is extinct, it's okay because people made money and didn't feel like adjusting for it?

If people like seafood they will protect waters.

You have too much faith in greedy corporations.

A corporation can't be greedy. It's a free association of individuals (namely stockholders). It's sole purpose is to represent the interests of the stockholders. Just like government represents the interest of its citizens. Corporations are far more democratic and responsible than most governments in the world.

In 1900 the Corporations couldn't pay off the media to keep quiet about things but now they can because they're the same corporation.

No they really aren't. Turner Networks doesn't own many factories ... In addition, there are MANY different media outlets, so, um, yes...

The enviromental abuses at the turn of the century were absolutely horrific in any rate anyway.

Yet, now our quality of life is far higher than any other period in history.

Industry doesn't adapt to us. Industry has us adapt instead.

It works both ways. Industry and people both have to adapt to changing times.

If we destroy the environment, we might not have life in the future....

Key word is future. People have been worrying about imminent environmental disaster for decades now.

Back in teh seventies, the fad was global cooling. Now, it's global warming. In other words, you aren't even sure what type of environmental disaster will befall us. Please don't be so vague.

What I'm trying to say is "let's cross that bridge when we come to it."

If we destroy the environment, we might not have life in the future....

Key word is future. People have been worrying about imminent environmental disaster for decades now.

Back in teh seventies, the fad was global cooling. Now, it's global warming. In other words, you aren't even sure what type of environmental disaster will befall us. Please don't be so vague.

What I'm trying to say is "let's cross that bridge when we come to it."

Since public goods are available to everbody, everybody should be allowed to use it as they wish then!

No; when people share property, that does not mean any of them can dispose of it as he or she likes, acting singly.

I know that invites the Tragedy of the Commons, but that just encourages privatization, which is good.

There are three ways to handle the tragedy of the commons:

1. Allow the commons to be depleted (the Tragedy)
2. Give up on the idea of the commons and privatize everything (your vision)
3. Allow government to do one of its primary jobs--the protection of the commons, to make sure nobody takes or destroys more than their fair share (our vision)


To quote Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

The environment is LESS important than life, and if we didn't purchase life at the price of bondage, why should we purchase the environment at that price?

There's an odd idea, common among many hard-core libertarians, that the complement of "bondage" is "anarchy." We're not talking about the right to self-governance, here. We're talking about the right to poison our common property.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

So, you're saying when the icecaps melt and no one is informed about it because of the media blackout and two billion people die in the ensuing flooding, chaos, and starvation, it's okay because people made money and didn't feel like adjusting for it?

Rather extreme scenario. Global warming certainly exists but it isn't a threat in the next few decades.

So, you're saying when most macroscopic sea life is extinct, it's okay because people made money and didn't feel like adjusting for it?

If people like seafood they will protect waters.

You have too much faith in greedy corporations.

A corporation can't be greedy. It's a free association of individuals (namely stockholders). It's sole purpose is to represent the interests of the stockholders. Just like government represents the interest of its citizens. Corporations are far more democratic and responsible than most governments in the world.

1. If global warming is not stopped within the next few decades, I fear it may be irreversible.

2. We want to protect waters...by passing this resolution!

[ooc: 3. *cough*Enron*cough*]

What I'm trying to say is "let's cross that bridge when we come to it."

See point #1.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

You're being a professional worrier. These worries are just as unfounded as worries such as "If we don't burn the Fourth and Fifth Amendments terrorists will take over America."

We have a basic philosophical disagreement. I believe that the environment is a public resource which should be protected from pollution. Apparently the representative from the Global Market believes that corporations should be free to despoil the environment.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

How selfishness (or greed if you will) is the tool for saving the environment:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/environ/selfish.htm

And this is from the Atlantic Monthly, a very well-renowned scholarly journal with no real political bias.

We have a basic philosophical disagreement. I believe that the environment is a public resource which should be protected from pollution. Apparently the representative from the Global Market believes that corporations should be free to despoil the environment.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

You can still sue corporations for polluting on your territory.

The same thing that gives the corporations the right to pollute their property gives you the right to sue them for polluting your property.

The free market has consistently been healthier for hte environment then command economies ever were. Former West Germany is far cleaner than Former East Germany.

-------------------------------------------

There are really FOUR means of appropriating public goods:

Market
The Market solution is based on modifying the "cost/benefit" equation so that the benefit to the individual exceeds the cost. The main problem with this approach is that is simply not feasible for many public goods.

Community
Community solutions are based on the idea that members of the community can develop common understandings that they will act together. Of course, this relies on trust which is not practical in many communities. The main problem, however, is that this solution requires that people be altruistic rather than egoistic, which is, practically, not very realistic.

Contract
Contract solutions are based on the concept that individuals can recognize that human weaknesses include the problem of free-riding and defection and therefore may make contracts between themselves to severely punish such actions. The problem is that someone must enforce these contracts and therefore a police agency must be established. This, of course, is the beginnings of government and we know where that will lead us!

Hierarchy
This concept requires that an hierarchical organization exist with enough power at the top to enforce the needed cooperation. Of course, we are talking about government here as Hobbes described it in his works.

This leads to three main methods of solving the Tragedy of the Commons:

Privatization (Directly Tying Reward With Cost), Ostracism (If everyone in the Commons knows each other), and Coercion (Physical force or the threat thereof).

Ostracism while in theory the best option doesn't work. There are almost 300 million Americans... you would be hard pressed to get to know all of them. That leaves privatization and coercion. In real life, it is usually a combination of the two.

Privatization is the system of freedom. Systems that have leaned towards privatization rather than coercion have retained their freedom and benefitted the environment as well.

Coercion is using the government to do your dirty work. There are basically two ways for coercion to work:

Force (Violence)
Fraud (Propaganda)

Neither are desirable.

Industry can take a few hits if need be, it'll survive and rebound. Isn't actually having some place to live in the future more imporant that making a few more dollars?

This can be adjusted for naturally. If people get tired of pollution eventually the industry will have to adapt.



Yes the people get tired of pollution go to the government, which the people created to protect themselves, the government passes laws and things are changed.

If the pollution is coming from outside the country the people go to their country which goes to the un with a bunch of other nations which have the same problem and pass a law to prevent pollution.

So your complaint with this is? The people forced the corporation to adapt.

And I would like you to point to a single functioning Laissez-Faire system.

We have a basic philosophical disagreement. I believe that the environment is a public resource which should be protected from pollution. Apparently the representative from the Global Market believes that corporations should be free to despoil the environment.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

You can still sue corporations for polluting on your territory.

The same thing that gives the corporations the right to pollute their property gives you the right to sue them for polluting your property.

By which time it is a bit late as the environment has already been spoilt. Also many companies will still pollute as the fines they will face are less than the amount they save by dumping waste in the sea.

The free market has consistently been healthier for hte environment then command economies ever were. Former West Germany is far cleaner than Former East Germany.

Which is why the most developed capitalist nations pollute far more than anyone else. Scandinavia used to have more "socialist" governments and as a result the quality of the environment was far greater than most of Western Europe. Indeed much of the damage to the environment in Scandinavian nations has been caused by other more capitalist nations such as the UK and Germany. For this reason environmental resolutions should not consider things like national sovereignty. Since one irresponsible nation affects everyone else, laws must be enforced internationally by the UN

-------------------------------------------

There are really FOUR means of appropriating public goods:

Market
The Market solution is based on modifying the "cost/benefit" equation so that the benefit to the individual exceeds the cost. The main problem with this approach is that is simply not feasible for many public goods.

Community
Community solutions are based on the idea that members of the community can develop common understandings that they will act together. Of course, this relies on trust which is not practical in many communities. The main problem, however, is that this solution requires that people be altruistic rather than egoistic, which is, practically, not very realistic.

Contract
Contract solutions are based on the concept that individuals can recognize that human weaknesses include the problem of free-riding and defection and therefore may make contracts between themselves to severely punish such actions. The problem is that someone must enforce these contracts and therefore a police agency must be established. This, of course, is the beginnings of government and we know where that will lead us!

Hierarchy
This concept requires that an hierarchical organization exist with enough power at the top to enforce the needed cooperation. Of course, we are talking about government here as Hobbes described it in his works.

As you can NONE of these solutions are very desirable. The market, however, is the least undesirable of the four.

Not really. As nasty as government is, it at least has some accountability. Corporations are not accountable to anyone and cause by far the most damage because they are motivated entirely by profit, therefore if it is cheaper for them, or if they can make money from damaging the environment they will do it. If a government is unwilling to limit business it too will become corrupted. Clearly the most desirable option in the short term is a government (or international organisation) that imposes sufficient restrictions on the market and is accountable to the people.

The other solution is as always that everyone dies, though there are problems with the implementation of this.

Corporations are accountable to their shareholders.

While the market certainly has flaws, there is no reason to expect the state to do any better. Empirically, the state has done worse.

http://www.magnolia.net/~leonf/sd/xvp-7.html

And as I posted earlier there are two solutions to the Tragedy of the Commons:

The Market (Privatization)
The State (Coercion)

Most real-life systems are a combination of the two. But the most successful systems ... from both an environmental and a economic standpoint ... have been market-based system, using the state only when absolutely necessary.

In addition, government is our biggest polluter, so saying that they know how to handle pollution the best isn't logical.

Corporations are accountable to their shareholders.

While the market certainly has flaws, there is no reason to expect the state to do any better. Empirically, the state has done worse.

http://www.magnolia.net/~leonf/sd/xvp-7.html

And as I posted earlier there are two solutions to the Tragedy of the Commons:

The Market (Privatization)
The State (Coercion)

Most real-life systems are a combination of the two. But the most successful systems ... from both an environmental and a economic standpoint ... have been market-based system, using the state only when absolutely necessary.

In addition, government is our biggest polluter, so saying that they know how to handle pollution the best isn't logical.

Government corrupted by power and capitalism is of course a bad thing (though no worse than large corporations). A government that distances itself from corporate power and is accountable to the people has great potential to do good

edit: As for being accountable to shareholders, that is true but shareholders only want to get rich, they do not care if the environment is destroyed in the process so I do not see what your point is.

Corporations are accountable to their shareholders.

While the market certainly has flaws, there is no reason to expect the state to do any better. Empirically, the state has done worse.

http://www.magnolia.net/~leonf/sd/xvp-7.html

And as I posted earlier there are two solutions to the Tragedy of the Commons:

The Market (Privatization)
The State (Coercion)

Most real-life systems are a combination of the two. But the most successful systems ... from both an environmental and a economic standpoint ... have been market-based system, using the state only when absolutely necessary.

In addition, government is our biggest polluter, so saying that they know how to handle pollution the best isn't logical.

Government corrupted by power and capitalism is of course a bad thing (though no worse than large corporations). A government that distances itself from corporate power and is accountable to the people has great potential to do good

Of course. Any organization that is 100% free of corruption has teh potential to do good, regardless of whether it is a corproation or a state.

However, in the real world that doesn't happen.

And large governments are FAR worse than large corporations... they have a 20th century body count of 200 million. I doubt corproations have a body count of even 2 million and that's using your very absuive definitions of what a corporation-caused death is.

Corporations are accountable to their shareholders.

And most shareholders couldn't care any less about the environment, as long as they're getting paid and making money off their investment.

Isn't it obvious by now that someone has to take command and say "ENOUGH!" to our rampant destruction of the planet? Human happiness and economic prosperity are noble goals, but not if it means we'll have no planet on which to live in a thousand years.

Corporations are accountable to their shareholders.

And most shareholders couldn't care any less about the environment, as long as they're getting paid and making money off their investment.

Isn't it obvious by now that someone has to take command and say "ENOUGH!" to our rampant destruction of the planet? Human happiness and economic prosperity are noble goals, but not if it means we'll have no planet on which to live in a thousand years.

In a thousand years we'll have technology beyond your wildest dreams. The chance of environmental damage then is nil. If we stick to capitalism that is. As an interesting side note, only about 35% of Americans vote whereas over 50% own stock. Corporations are more representative than teh government is.

Classic tragedy of the commons. Legislation is nessecary.

Corporations are accountable to their shareholders.

And most shareholders couldn't care any less about the environment, as long as they're getting paid and making money off their investment.

Isn't it obvious by now that someone has to take command and say "ENOUGH!" to our rampant destruction of the planet? Human happiness and economic prosperity are noble goals, but not if it means we'll have no planet on which to live in a thousand years.

In a thousand years we'll have technology beyond your wildest dreams. The chance of environmental damage then is nil. If we stick to capitalism that is. As an interesting side note, only about 35% of Americans vote whereas over 50% own stock. Corporations are more representative than teh government is.

What people have always said, and it's never necessarily been the case. No thanks, I'd rather not put stock in some freak plan that won't be around until it's too late and probably won't be implemented anyway - I think action now is more beneficial.

Also, the perceived hopelessness of voting in a democratic government (ie "your vote doesn't matter) dissuades many. It would dissuade shareholding, too, except you can get money for that.

Classic tragedy of the commons. Legislation is nessecary.

This entire debate has been ABOUT the Tragedy of the Commons. I ask again... what makes you think that State Coercion will work better than Privatization?

Corporations are accountable to their shareholders.

And most shareholders couldn't care any less about the environment, as long as they're getting paid and making money off their investment.

Isn't it obvious by now that someone has to take command and say "ENOUGH!" to our rampant destruction of the planet? Human happiness and economic prosperity are noble goals, but not if it means we'll have no planet on which to live in a thousand years.

In a thousand years we'll have technology beyond your wildest dreams. The chance of environmental damage then is nil. If we stick to capitalism that is. As an interesting side note, only about 35% of Americans vote whereas over 50% own stock. Corporations are more representative than teh government is.

What people have always said, and it's never necessarily been the case. No thanks, I'd rather not put stock in some freak plan that won't be around until it's too late and probably won't be implemented anyway - I think action now is more beneficial.

Also, the perceived hopelessness of voting in a democratic government (ie "your vote doesn't matter) dissuades many. It would dissuade shareholding, too, except you can get money for that.

People have always said "environment is in danger NOW!" This has never been the case either. Back in the 70s, global cooling was the fad. Now it's global warming.

Corporations are accountable to their shareholders.

And most shareholders couldn't care any less about the environment, as long as they're getting paid and making money off their investment.

Isn't it obvious by now that someone has to take command and say "ENOUGH!" to our rampant destruction of the planet? Human happiness and economic prosperity are noble goals, but not if it means we'll have no planet on which to live in a thousand years.

In a thousand years we'll have technology beyond your wildest dreams. The chance of environmental damage then is nil. If we stick to capitalism that is. As an interesting side note, only about 35% of Americans vote whereas over 50% own stock. Corporations are more representative than teh government is.

I'd like to know where you got that information. According to the US Census buraeu %60 of the US citizens voted in the 2000 election.

I would also like to point out that the citizens who own stock through mutual funds have no power over the companies actions. Also this does not help public power over private business.

Classic tragedy of the commons. Legislation is nessecary.

This entire debate has been ABOUT the Tragedy of the Commons. I ask again... what makes you think that State Coercion will work better than Privatization?

Privatization does nothing to remedy the problem- each firm will continue to exploit the enviroment until such a time as it is no longer profitable, which may or may not lead to irreperrable damage. Legislation ensures this will not occur; since the outcome is unsure through privatizatrion, it is prudent to 'hedge your bets' and protect at least a modicum of the enviroment.

Market has not as of yet been an effective method of reducing enviromental damage, while state mandate clearly has.

That's why it's private business.

And my stats were from TIME.

Classic tragedy of the commons. Legislation is nessecary.

This entire debate has been ABOUT the Tragedy of the Commons. I ask again... what makes you think that State Coercion will work better than Privatization?

Privatization does nothing to remedy the problem- each firm will continue to exploit the enviroment until such a time as it is no longer profitable, which may or may not lead to irreperrable damage. Legislation ensures this will not occur; since the outcome is unsure through privatizatrion, it is prudent to 'hedge your bets' and protect at least a modicum of the enviroment.

Market has not as of yet been an effective method of reducing enviromental damage, while state mandate clearly has.

Yet our environment is far cleaner than Russia's, ja? Market might not be 100% effective, but it is certainly more effective than Coercion. Some legislation might be useful if it is lawsuit-based and not prosecution-based. But the balance should favor the market over the state even if it isn't absolutely market.

Corporations are accountable to their shareholders.

And most shareholders couldn't care any less about the environment, as long as they're getting paid and making money off their investment.

Isn't it obvious by now that someone has to take command and say "ENOUGH!" to our rampant destruction of the planet? Human happiness and economic prosperity are noble goals, but not if it means we'll have no planet on which to live in a thousand years.

In a thousand years we'll have technology beyond your wildest dreams. The chance of environmental damage then is nil. If we stick to capitalism that is. As an interesting side note, only about 35% of Americans vote whereas over 50% own stock. Corporations are more representative than teh government is.

What people have always said, and it's never necessarily been the case. No thanks, I'd rather not put stock in some freak plan that won't be around until it's too late and probably won't be implemented anyway - I think action now is more beneficial.

Also, the perceived hopelessness of voting in a democratic government (ie "your vote doesn't matter) dissuades many. It would dissuade shareholding, too, except you can get money for that.

People have always said "environment is in danger NOW!" This has never been the case either. Back in the 70s, global cooling was the fad. Now it's global warming.

Nuclear waste. Toxic waste. Carcinogens in our air, water, and even food products. How can you possibly not think these are problems?

The overdependence on technology doesn't help our plight, either. Overuse of antibiotics is breeding new, nasty strains of bacteria. Viruses get "smarter" every day. To say nothing of the fact that modern man, in the wilderness, is essentially helpless.

In the words of S.R. Prozak, "humans are nothing more than apes run amok with technology until we prove otherwise". Stop destroying. Continue to do so, and you are nothing more than an animal. We humans alone have the power to reverse the destruction we have wrought.

We might have more carcinogens now, but cancer was basically a death sentence a few centuries ago. RIght now our cancer survival rate is pretty high. Nonmelanoma skin cancer has a less than 0.5% death rate, even though occurances are much more frequent now.

We might have more carcinogens now, but cancer was basically a death sentence a few centuries ago. RIght now our cancer survival rate is pretty high. Nonmelanoma skin cancer has a less than 0.5% death rate, even though occurances are much more frequent now.

I presume these stats are for "developed" countries.

Yet our environment is far cleaner than Russia's, ja? Market might not be 100% effective, but it is certainly more effective than Coercion. Some legislation might be useful if it is lawsuit-based and not prosecution-based. But the balance should favor the market over the state even if it isn't absolutely market.

Yet our environment is far cleaner than Russia's, ja? Market might not be 100% effective, but it is certainly more effective than Coercion.[/quote]

That's an irrational statement. Consider the enviroment say Norway for example, which is generally cleaner than your own, despite it's anti-market tradition. I don't think there is any real correlation between interventionist state policies and enivroment except when state policies have a clear reprecussion on the enviroment (forced expansion of industry, for example).

Again, assuming that enviroment is an important resource, and assuming that firms, through tragedy of the commons rationale, will not nessecarily preserve the enviroment, it seems prudent to use pro-enviromental measures to ensure a viable future.

First of all, Norway has a different and smaller economy than ours, so it might be cleaner. Norway still leans towards the market over the state. It is still classified as a market economy not a planned economy.

The US Agriculutral subsidies force farmers to oversaturate their land with fertilizer and practice unsustainable methods. They are one of the largest causes of agricultural pollution in the United States.

The US Endangered Species Act is extremely irrational... basically it says if you find an endangered species you are legally obligated to protect it but you don't actaully own it. If we applied this to art, you can imagine First Draft Mona Lisas just disappering everywhere, huh? If we like them so much we should PAY people to take care of them, not punish them.

The whole point of privatization is to TIE BENEFITS DIRECTLY INTO COSTS. In other words, you now have to pay to use the commons.

First of all, Norway has a different and smaller economy than ours, so it might be cleaner. Norway still leans towards the market over the state. It is still classified as a market economy not a planned economy.

The US Agriculutral subsidies force farmers to oversaturate their land with fertilizer and practice unsustainable methods. They are one of the largest causes of agricultural pollution in the United States.

The US Endangered Species Act is extremely irrational... basically it says if you find an endangered species you are legally obligated to protect it but you don't actaully own it. If we applied this to art, you can imagine First Draft Mona Lisas just disappering everywhere, huh? If we like them so much we should PAY people to take care of them, not punish them.

The whole point of privatization is to TIE BENEFITS DIRECTLY INTO COSTS. In other words, you now have to pay to use the commons.

RE: Norway, I agree, I was just pointing out that more market does not equal more clean, as you seemed to be indicating earlier. I agree with you on agricultural subsidization as well, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject.

I'm not sure if tieing benefits into costs really applies here, unless the government artificially raises the costs to punitive levels (which is just another form of coercive control, correct?). I believe the argument supporting enivromental legislation is that the long term sustainability and secondary benefits of a healthy enviroment are far greater than the market value of the exploitable resources within these enviroments; this demands some kind of market control.

Always with the property, the global market. It never fails.

Always with the property, the global market. It never fails.

That's why it's inalienable.

Always with the property, the global market. It never fails.

That's why it's inalienable.

Inalienable is the wrong word, TGM. Absolute or universal would be more accurate.

The whole point of privatization is to TIE BENEFITS DIRECTLY INTO COSTS.
The costs of pollution can't be tied directly to the benefits of polluting by market forces, which is precisely the problem. Market forces not only don't punish polluters, they require pollution; businesses act to minimize costs, and if it's cheaper to dump waste in the ocean than to deal with it in a less damaging way, guess where it goes.

Civil suits aren't an adequate remedy for coping with pollution. For one thing, the threat of lawsuits may not prevent the damage; firms may be inclined to gamble on that account. For another, legal remedies may be difficult for victims to pursue against large corporations with legal staffs. For another, corporations may not have enough assets to cover their liability; in fact, it is a common practice in business to "compartmentalize" corporations through ownership heirarchies, so that no unit actually exposed to liability has any assets to cover damages.

Also, the damage of pollution is often diffused over large areas and long periods of time. How practical is it for millions of people who've suffered cumulative degradation of their environment over centuries to sue hundreds of corporations, some of which no longer exist? And the nature of the damage may make it difficult to sue anyone. How does one prove that one's health is .02% worse because of this pollutant, .01% worse because of that pollutant - or how does one decide which victims of cancer get compensated by which polluters, and which are simply shit out of luck because they would have got cancer anyway?

The claim that the oceans are free for anyone to defecate in as they choose, merely because their nature and the course of history has preserved them from private ownership, is fatuous, on a par with the claims of conquistadors on tracts of land whose inhabitants had neglected to procure title to the land from European potentates. Should some terrorist group be inclined to poison all the oceans, would we allow them to do so, merely on account of the fact that we ourselves do not claim to own them?

The concept of ownership can't very well be applied to oceans in any case. We may speak of ownership of navigational rights in a particular area, or mineral rights to the sea floor, but beyond that, what is it that is owned? The fish? Will we fence them in? The water? Shall we put it in tanks? If the ocean were divided up among owners, and each was allowed to pollute its own territory at will, would some form of magical force prevent the waste dumped in one place from circulating to all places? Private ownership cannot protect the oceans.

Power is Money and Greed is Good. Who cares about the earth. I live in luxury and have many enormously rich friends. We won't be here in 1000 years, so why concern ourselves.

Classic tragedy of the commons. Legislation is nessecary.

This entire debate has been ABOUT the Tragedy of the Commons. I ask again... what makes you think that State Coercion will work better than Privatization?


We believe that Governments (or state coercion) is better suited to handle protection of the environment because of several reasons. (1) Governments aren't driven by profits. (2) Governments have more money. (3) Governments have more resources and manpower. (4) Governments have access to better technologies (5) Governments can control the market economy. (6) Governments are representative of the culture and beliefs of the nation.

TGM, you have constantly proposed that the more of a laissez-faire style economy we have the better off we'll be. Yet the closest thing we came to a laissez faire economy back in the 19 and early 20th centuries was rejected by the people. The workers refused to work in the conditions and demanded stronger government control.

The only way possible to maintain a laissez-faire economy would have been government intervention, which is completely against the system.

Simply put it doesn't work.

One clear problem with deregulated industry is the short-term approach to cost-benefit analysis in market-driven economies by most businesses. The fact is, in the long-term, serious pollution of the environment most often results in a negative netback to the polluting companies. The fact that this does not drive the decision making of polluting companies demonstrates the failure of the pure laissez-faire approach and the need for governmental regulation on some level.

Another problem is in the lack of a common language between decision makers. Each business within each industry is free to define "cost" in its own way. "Cost" may or may not include long-term health costs resulting from pollution, the destruction of unrelated industries (fishing, enviro-tourism, etc.) caused by pollution, clean-up costs, etc. Until there is an agreed-upon definition of cost in this regard it's difficult to see how the market can effectively "price in" the issue.

The Nation of Jorg exports its toxic waste to third world countries. No need to dump it in our precious oceans...

Since public goods are available to everbody, everybody should be allowed to use it as they wish then!

Why should everyone be able to use it as they see fit?


I know that invites the Tragedy of the Commons, but that just encourages privatization, which is good.
Why is privitization good?


To quote Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"
The environment is LESS important than life, and if we didn't purchase life at the price of bondage, why should we purchase the environment at that price?

Who's to say that life is more valuable than the environment? How do you seperate life from the environment. They are one in the same. People aren't above the environment. They are a part of it. Destroy one and you destroy the other.

You make a lot of statements, but don't back any of them up with any reasoning.

I'd like to know where you got that information. According to the US Census buraeu %60 of the US citizens voted in the 2000 election.

You can't be serious. That was a joke, right? Now who is making up facts? No one in their right mind would believe that, even if the census bureau did say it. 60% of Americans voting?! Probably 60% of Americans couldn't vote even if they wanted to, being too young, in prison, a convicted felon, or in a psychiactric hospital. Not even if you just considered Americans who were registered to vote would you approach a number that high. At most, the polls register somewhere in the 30% range among just those Americans who are registered to vote. 60%... :lol: :lol: :lol: ....I can't breathe...too funny...

This has been an OOC post.

Using a small disclaimer to state OOC posts is a registered trademark of Goobergunchia.

This has been an OOC post.

Using a small disclaimer to state OOC posts is a registered trademark of Goobergunchia.

Don't forget to read the fine print.

I'd like to know where you got that information. According to the US Census buraeu %60 of the US citizens voted in the 2000 election.

You can't be serious. That was a joke, right? Now who is making up facts? No one in their right mind would believe that, even if the census bureau did say it. 60% of Americans voting?! Probably 60% of Americans couldn't vote even if they wanted to, being too young, in prison, a convicted felon, or in a psychiactric hospital. Not even if you just considered Americans who were registered to vote would you approach a number that high. At most, the polls register somewhere in the 30% range among just those Americans who are registered to vote. 60%... :lol: :lol: :lol: ....I can't breathe...too funny...

This has been an OOC post.

Using a small disclaimer to state OOC posts is a registered trademark of Goobergunchia.

60% Voting age citizens. Its irrelevant to include anyothers.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf

Now it is true that the US has one of the lowest voting rates of mature democracies.

Like I said...no one can truly believe that. If the cencus bureau is stating that, then they are using "fuzzy" math. Americans don't vote. Especialy not in those numbers. That would mean that some 200 million people voted in 2000.

This has been an OOC post.

[size=1]The use of a small disclaimer for OOC posts is a registered trademark of Goobergunchia[/size

Like I said...no one can truly believe that. If the cencus bureau is stating that, then they are using "fuzzy" math. Americans don't vote. Especialy not in those numbers. That would mean that some 200 million people voted in 2000.

This has been an OOC post.

The use of a small disclaimer for OOC posts is a registered trademark of Goobergunchia

Thanks for the acknowledgement.

According to the Almanac of American Politics 2002, 51% of the voting age population (106,913,005/209,128,094) voted in the 2000 election.

This has been an OOC post.