From: tilley@leads15.UUCP (Tom Tilley)
Subject: Re: Markets Only...What a Concept!
Reply-To: tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 17:49:25 GMT

In article <C1AzBw.C2H@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.194409.9141@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>>If the impacted "resource" is a natural commons (meaning that privatization
>>is not a reasonable option) such as an ecosystem or the atmosphere, 
>
>... Even if you could somehow justify such commoness, why does it follow that
>the government (rather than the users of the resource) ought to centrally plan
>the use of those resources?  

If the users of the commons regulate the commons, then they are (for that
purpose) acting as a government (example: housing associations).  Further,
such associations would tend to have the force of the civil government
behind them (such as a housing association does in enforcing its by-laws).
Of course, since everyone breathes, it would be hard to distinguish the "air
association" from a form of global government!

I never said it (government) should centrally plan the use of the commons.
I did say it should regulate the use of the commons.

The stock market is regulated by the SEC.  Setting aside for the moment the
issue of whether you agree with this regulation or not, do you seriously
believe that the regulation of the stock market means that we have central
planning of the stock market?

>>then the
>>remaining choices are to ignore the impact, or allow the government to
>>regulate the use of the commons as a public trust.
>
>Oh, are you so closed-minded that you can't think of any others?

I've covered:

    Privitization
    Regulation
    Neglect

If you posit that other choices exist than the three I've outlined, then
naming them is your responsibility, not mine.

>>I can find no meaningful sense in which any individual "owns" a portion of
>>the atmosphere as property.
>
>If the air in a certain region (say, a city) can absorb N units of gas X per
>day safely, then why not simply make that a tradable right just like water 
>rights and oil rights are?  ...

The capacity of the air in a given region to absorb impact varies greatly
from day to day depending upon the weather (N is a variable, not a constant).

What is "N"?  What is "safely"?  What other air-quality values should we
seek to guarantee for this commons (example: being able to see for more than
100 yards along I-5 in Burbank)?  This is beginning to sound like a "political
process".

Of course, this presupposes the use of the atmosphere as a dump.  You note
that dumping rights can be traded.  Compare this to a landfill.  One can
sell dumping rights to a landfill.  The difference is that someone also owns
the actual landfill, whereas the atmosphere is a commons.  The act of my
dumping garbage into a landfill does not fill your house with garbage.  The
act of my dumping garbage into the atmosphere does fill the air around you
(and your house) with garbage.

This proposal does not address my point about the atmosphere being a commons
not reasonably privatized: it merely addresses dumping rights into that
commons.  Since, under this notion the atmosphere itself remains a commons,
I as a user of the commons would prefer that dumping rights to it not be
made a form of property.

>>If something has not been privatized (such as an ecosystem), then it is a
>>commons.  
>
>How do you define "ecosystem" in this context?  Why is it valuable?  To whom?

From "The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition":

    ecosystem - n. An ecological community together with its physical
    environment, considered as a unit.

The pieces of the unit are interdependent, so the sum in this case is
greater than the parts.

Valuable to society (as a common interest).

>Besides, what about property which can quite easily be privatized (like 
>a forest for example)? 

What about it?  I am not objecting to the existence of property.  I am also
not objecting to commons impact (with some of my examples of commons impact,
I have deliberately used the first person pronoun to communicate my
recognition that some commons impact is inevitable).  I am objecting to
the notion that one person's impact to a commons is a private decision that
is of no legitimate concern to others.

Your example was probably not quite what you intended: a forest is an
ecosystem, not a bunch of trees standing together (hence the concern over
the ancient forest).  Try: "tree farm".

>>... Further, in 1983 the CA supreme court (in Audibon Society v. Superior Court
>>of Alpine County, Feb. 1983) found the "public trust doctrine" to co-exist
>>with the "appropriative rights" doctrine.  
>
>Just because a court did or didn't make some ruling doesn't mean that it was
>correct.

Of course, the public trust doctrine does sound quite similar to the "natural
commons" that I've been going on about.  Also, it is part of CA water law
(the context was an answer to your objection to Alan's use of examples from
Victorian England regarding prevention of cholera).  Further, it does give
you a reference of an outside writing with similar themes to what I've been
posting.

I do agree that a court's ruling does not "make right".  It does, however,
make a statement about the law (the context in which I mentioned it was the
description of CA water law).

>>...   The decision was that the Water Resources Board should
>>have considered the public trust value of these streams (and of Mono Lake)
>>before granting appropriative rights to Los Angeles.
>
>And what is that value?  

According to the CA legislature, quite a lot.  The state, in 1989, put up
$60,000,000 for LA to use to build a replacement water source for the Mono
Basin water (AB 444?).  The conditions were:

    + The water had to be replacement for Mono Basin water.
    + The application for the money  had to be a joint application by
      DWP and the Committee to Save Mono Lake.
    + If the money went unclaimed, the pot would diminish over time (it
      is now worth $44 million, with DWP continuing to ignore the money).


Tom.
#--------------------------------------------------#
| Tom Tilley                                       |
| Internet : tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com   |
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:08:27 GMT
Subject: The Real "Right to Life"
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA