From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Keywords: Pollution, Volunteerism, Environment
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:16:19 GMT
            <19737@fritz.filenet.com>
            <1992Aug25.130826@wsl.dec.com>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <1992Aug25.130826@wsl.dec.com>
 by gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil):

: In article <19737@fritz.filenet.com>, asylvain@felix.filenet.com 
:     (The Chipmunk) writes:

:|> So why would someone own the bay, destroy it, then expect to make any
:|> money from it?  Answer: in general, they wouldn't.  It would be cutting
:|> their own throat.  Most folks don't like doing that.
:
: If they don't like cutting their own throats then why do lumber companies
: clear cut?

For the most part, they are clear-cutting "public" forest lands.  This
isn't exactly cutting their own throat, at least not short-term.

It's like telling people not to litter.  Most folks will throw trash in
the trash-can at home, because it's their property and they have a
selfish vested interest in keeping it clean.

When they go to a "public" park, they're less interested.  You might be
able to convince them, intellectually, that it's "their" property, and
that if "everybody" littered we'd all eventually drown in the stuff.
But emotionally, and this is what determines peoples' actions, it still
belongs to "those" people, so they don't care.

Needless to say, ownership doesn't prevent littering.  But you can bet
that the owners of Disneyland and Magic Mountain maintain a full-time
staff of people who's only duty is to clean up after visitors.  These
places are immaculate compared to nearly any "public" park you can find.

: Why do companies that want to pollute move to Mexico, Taiwan,
: etc. ?

Companies move to other countries for plenty of reasons, cheap labor
probably being the highest priority.  Other reasons include getting out
from under restrictive regulations, many of which have nothing to do 
with the product.  Certainly pollution regulations probably count among 
these.

I doubt that companies sit down and say, "Damn, we wanna pollute.  Where
can we go where they'll let us pollute?"

However, the situation in other countries is the same as here, only with
less external regulations.  They can destroy resources which do not
belong to anyone, without fear of interference.

The solution with other countries is the same as here.  Sell/give the
resources to people/groups who have a vested interest in the resource,
either by virtue of being "environmental," or by virtue of having a
selfish interest in maintaining the value of the resource.

Anyone who pollutes someone else's property can more easily be made to 
pay for the clean-up efforts, than for property which de facto belongs
to no one.  This makes pollution less cost-effective.

:|> Again, why a single group?  Why not parcel it out the way pieces of real
:|> estate has historically been parceled out to ranchers in the past?

: Which has done what to the land that the cattle graze on?  Do you understand
: the traditional fight between cattle ranchers, and other ranchers?

Ranchers also graze on public lands, at tax-subsidized rates, so bring-
ing in this particular example does nothing to support your point.

The point is, without direct ownership of a resource, NOBODY really
gives a damn WHAT happens to it.  Nobody, that is, except for a few
vocal groups, whose effectiveness may be limited.  However, WITH direct 
ownership, now at least the owner cares.  The vocal groups should have a 
lot less to worry about.

The whole idea is to make the "system" self-correcting.  The only way to
do that is to set things up such that the participants WANT to make it
self-correcting.  The only way to do THAT is to make in their selfish
interest to do so.  And the only way to do THAT is make people OWN what
they use, instead of keeping it "public."

: George

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Tax reform means "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind
the tree."   -- Russell Long