From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Subject: Re: What, if anything, is a wetland? (WAS Re: Why Bush does not want to sign at Rio?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:22:38 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Jul21.192627.22543@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<TSF.92Jul22125430@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Jul22.225011.16443@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Jul22.225011.16443@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
   The point is *not* that no changes to the material resources are
   allowed to remain after the "lease" on them runs out (you die, for
   instance). 

Corporations and universities never die, so you'll need criteria other
than that to decide when the lease expires.  Furthermore, you can't
enforce laws against me if I'm dead, so if the lease only expires when
I'm dead then it won't motivate me to clean up after myself.

   The point *is* that such changes as remain have to be those
   agreed by the community to either:

	   1) have no effect on your neighbours, far and wide
	   or
	   2) be considered to have beneficial effects by those affected.

   So, if making the keyboard is an act of zero impact, you can do
   whatever it as much as you like. If not, you'd better get those
   affected to agree to it. 

What does this have to do with the lease?  Suppose I lease some land for
50 years, and grow food on it, and suppose that having a field is
considered by the community to be worse than having a forest.  At the
end of the 50 years, I replant the field with natural growth, and turn
it over to someone else.  Then he clears off all the things I just
planted, and for the next 50 years it looks like a field again.
What's the point?

We need to make a distinction between things that people get because
they have a right to it, and things they get because they are lucky.
Being able to look at my property and get the pleasure of seeing a
forest instead of a field is something they get because they're lucky.
You seem to be throwing everything in to the set of things they have a
right to.

   Not much different from now, except that making this explicit, instead
   of giving more legal carte blanche on the basis of ownership, would
   perhaps lead to more attention being given to these considerations.

In the current system you don't get carte blanche because of
ownership.  If you make changes to your property that affect the next
guy's property without his consent, then you are liable.  It sounds
like what you're proposing is identical to a libertarian scheme,
except that stupid things happen each time the lease expires.

	   (i) identifying those affected more accurately (which in turn
		   implies identifying the effects of actions more accurately)

This is what the court system is supposed to do.  If it isn't working,
we need to fix it instead of making something entirely new that has a
new set of bugs.

	  (ii) being more just in seeking their approval. "Just"
		   in this case simply means literal democracy - one person,
		   one vote, the rich not getting more of a say than the poor
		   in whether or not some action is a good one.

There hasn't been any voting in your proposal so far, so I don't see
what they would be voting for.  Making changes seems to require
unanimous consent.  But if one person is harmed in the current system,
they're supposed to be able to sue.  So I still don't see any
advatages of your scheme over a properly-debugged version of the
current scheme.

Tim


--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
Newsgroups: talk.environment