From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Markets Only...What a Concept!
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 10:47:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.194409.9141@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> tilley@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <C13Jx6.F6H@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In message <38511105@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGow
>>en) writes:
>>>Brian Yoder writes:
>>>>But how much is that impact "worth"?  Who decide how much an acres of forest
>>>>is worth?  Greenpeace?  Earth First? Users of lumber?  Backpackers?  Timber
>>>>companies?  My point here is that the kind of system you seem to be advocating
>>>>is NOT a way of informing the market...it is a way of putting the market
>>>>under the control of a political process.

>The market already operates within the context of a political process.

Of course it does.  The question is whether the choices in the market will be 
made by a political process, or if the political system merely serves as a
level playing field on which the various buyers and sellers can make their
own choices.

>The value of money is greatly impacted by the actions of the central banks.

Indeed, that's why I'm opposed to central banks and governemnt currency!
(Just for fun, have a look at the adjusted value of US currency since 1789...
it is roughly flat for over 100 years and the just when the central banking
system was instituted, it started rising at an exponential rate.  Funny that.

>Some forms of property (such as the copyright) exist because a political
>process has defined them.

No.  Rights exist prior to law...laws may recognize a right or may delimit
it, but they exist because of the nature of human beings and the needs they
have for successful social relationships.

>>>Issues about the long-range health of ecosystems and the biosphere *must*
>>>be handled by a political process, and cannot be left up to market processes.

>>Why?  Because you don't believe that property rights are unalienable?  ...

>If the impacted "resource" is a natural commons (meaning that privatization
>is not a reasonable option) such as an ecosystem or the atmosphere, 

What's so unreasonable about privatiging these?

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?  Where does it stop?  Isn't everything a resource?
Isn't this a call for universal government control?

>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?

Besdies, why can't atmospheric usage rights be privatized?

>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?  It's very simple, as long as you can prove some
kind of harm legally (something hard to do even for environmentalists).

>>Of course if you deny that these are true then you'll have to explain how an 
>>unalienable rights can be subordinated to government control, ...

>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?

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

>I fail to see why anyone has to "explain" how non-existant 
>property can be subordinated to government control.  

>>Unacceptable to whom?  Just because you and your friends don't like the way 
>>others use property that THEY own is no justification for you to force them to
>>do as you would like them to.

>If your use of property affects a natural commons, then why should I not
>concern myself with the impact on the commons?  It appears to be your
>argument (please correct me if I'm wrong) that any resource can either be
>privatized, or the impact on the resource can be ignored.  

Or more directly, that any resource important enough to have substantial
value can be privatized, or its use can be evaluated with regard to the
protection of individual rights (e.g. even if you can't privatize a
river, killing 100 people by dumping poison in their water is still 
a crime.).

>It is my
>contention that there are resources which exist as a natural commons
>(such as an ecosystem).  As one member of the public that uses this
>commons, I fail to understand why I should be asked to ignore impacts
>to it.

If your definition of "ecosystem" is as broad as I suspect it is, you would
deem to be demanding infinite power to rule over others.

>>Are you holding up Victorian England as the ideal society?  I believe that in
>>Victorian England, the government owned the water supply, ...

>My understanding of CA water law (I'm not a lawyer) is that the state of
>CA owns all surface water, whereas agencies and individuals own the right
>to use the water.  If they don't use their right, they lose it to someone
>else (appropriative water rights).  I also understand that much of the
>western US operates on this principle.

That's generally correct.

>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.

>The specific case regarded Mono
>Lake, where LA was diverting the flow of the streams feeding Mono Lake into
>the Owens River.  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?  

--Brian

Newsgroups: ca.environment