Free Market Question

[schweicks88]

Under a Ron Paul free market, how would he tackle the issue of common pool resources. Sure privatization, internalization, the legal system, and the Coase theorem can be private solutions for small-scale commons, but how can these work for larger-scale common pool resources. I am referring to commons like fishing in seas or oceans, or drilling from oil pools. It seems to me that the competition of free market systems would remedy common pool resources only after its too late. How would Ron Paul or another free market advocate solve this issue?

 

[NaT805]

Ron paul would let the free-market solve that issue.

 

[Brassmouth]

I, for one, am in favor of privatizing the oceans. Perhaps among a large coalition of private owners. Don't ask for details; I haven't thought this issue through very well, admittedly. However, I can say with somewhat certainty it wouldn't be any worse than the commons system.

 

[Conza88]

I, for one, am in favor of privatizing the oceans. Perhaps among a large coalition of private owners. Don't ask for details; I haven't thought this issue through very well, admittedly. However, I can say with somewhat certainty it wouldn't be any worse than the commons system.

Yep yep. Walter Block does a good lecture on that... privatizing the commons, oceans etc. Rothbard touches on it aswell. Will try find for you if you want

 

[Fox McCloud]

theoretically the first person to "be there" owns it all--as Mises pointed out the first person to dip his net into the ocean owned it all.

of course that person is long dead and has been for thousands of years...so I think it something that must be done gradually.

There's one commons, however, that belongs to the US Government, if you were to follow this example, and that's the moon; we were the first to put a person on the moon (and well, our flag is there too ), so if the moon was ever to be auctioned off to private individuals, the US government would technically have to be the one to do it.

 

[Conza88]

theoretically the first person to "be there" owns it all--as Mises pointed out the first person to dip his net into the ocean owned it all.

of course that person is long dead and has been for thousands of years...so I think it something that must be done gradually.

There's one commons, however, that belongs to the US Government, if you were to follow this example, and that's the moon; we were the first to put a person on the moon (and well, our flag is there too ), so if the moon was ever to be auctioned off to private individuals, the US government would technically have to be the one to do it.

Nah ah... homesteading principle.. Got to mix your labor with it.

 

[FindLiberty]

Hey, did I just see you pee in my section of the lake? We were all drinkin' that water just a minute ago...

 

[Truth Warrior]

The Philosophy of Ownership
by Robert LeFevre
http://mises.org/books/ownership.pdf

 

[NaT805]

The Philosophy of Ownership
by Robert LeFevre
http://mises.org/books/ownership.pdf

yoink

 

[heavenlyboy34]

theoretically the first person to "be there" owns it all--as Mises pointed out the first person to dip his net into the ocean owned it all.

of course that person is long dead and has been for thousands of years...so I think it something that must be done gradually.

There's one commons, however, that belongs to the US Government, if you were to follow this example, and that's the moon; we were the first to put a person on the moon (and well, our flag is there too ), so if the moon was ever to be auctioned off to private individuals, the US government would technically have to be the one to do it.

Or WERE we? This reminds me of one of my favorite conspiracy theories...supposedly the moonscape images (like the ones you mention) were fake-a giant propaganda scheme to piss of the Soviets. I can't verify that, but I always found it a funny theory. (for a good Soviet space program satire, see "Oman Ra" by Vladamir Pelevin)

 

[Brassmouth]

Yep yep. Walter Block does a good lecture on that... privatizing the commons, oceans etc. Rothbard touches on it aswell. Will try find for you if you want

Sweet. It is a pretty interesting concept. If implemented it would wipe out whole "Tragedy of the Commons" thing the environmentalists keep crying about.

 

[schweicks88]

Yep yep. Walter Block does a good lecture on that... privatizing the commons, oceans etc. Rothbard touches on it aswell. Will try find for you if you want

Wouldn't privatizing the larger commons like oceans and seas promote corporatism and make it easier for, say, the NWO to achieve even greater control because they would have the $$$ it takes to buy it all. Not to mention the international conflicts that might arise

 

[reardenstone]

I, for one, am in favor of privatizing the oceans. Perhaps among a large coalition of private owners. Don't ask for details; I haven't thought this issue through very well, admittedly. However, I can say with somewhat certainty it wouldn't be any worse than the commons system.

I know I am jumping in here late in the game but here I go.
Georgism


Originally how could any of us have claimed to own land that was not originally purchased by us?

the answer is taxation and ownership via a new form of Georgism where we pay a small rent that is redistributed to everyone equally. Sort of like the Oil royalties in Alaska.

What you do with the land however is your business and your house can be any style or worth and not be taxed. Only the natural resource of the land is taxed.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

How many here enjoy hunting, fishing, or cutting firewood on public land?

How many here have to pay to hunt on private land or private fishing holes because no public areas are available?

I support some things being public resources.

 

[tmosley]

How many here enjoy hunting, fishing, or cutting firewood on public land?

How many here have to pay to hunt on private land or private fishing holes because no public areas are available?

I support some things being public resources.

What, you never been to a hunting lease before?

In general, the people who are able to defend something are the owners. Allow people to "homestead" at sea, defend it for a certain amount of time, mix their labor with the water (by fishing, drilling, or other means). It would be simplest to just allow free passage across those waters, perhaps charging a toll, if you have the ability to collect it. It wouldn't be any more difficult than the way land was allocated in the old west in the 1800's.

Let the free market decide.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

What, you never been to a hunting lease before?
.

I have. I didn't care for it.

Most of my friends who have visited me in the west, from the south, really like our public lands hunting.

Historically, private control of wildlife was having devastating effects on elk, bison, and many other of our big game animals, and that is why TR and Gifford Pinchot worked to establish the National Park and Forest systems.

Today, in the places where land is mostly leased for hunting, the deer are becoming horribly overpopulated, but many other species which have limited hunting benefit but are critical for good environmental health are struggling.

Meanwhile, in the west where public lands are allowed to really be wild, the ecology is more diverse, and while it may be harder to fill your tag, the experience is more complete.

 

[Mini-Me]

I know I am jumping in here late in the game but here I go.
Georgism


Originally how could any of us have claimed to own land that was not originally purchased by us?

the answer is taxation and ownership via a new form of Georgism where we pay a small rent that is redistributed to everyone equally. Sort of like the Oil royalties in Alaska.

What you do with the land however is your business and your house can be any style or worth and not be taxed. Only the natural resource of the land is taxed.

No way, Jose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

 

[tmosley]

I have. I didn't care for it.

Most of my friends who have visited me in the west, from the south, really like our public lands hunting.

Historically, private control of wildlife was having devastating effects on elk, bison, and many other of our big game animals, and that is why TR and Gifford Pinchot worked to establish the National Park and Forest systems.

Today, in the places where land is mostly leased for hunting, the deer are becoming horribly overpopulated, but many other species which have limited hunting benefit but are critical for good environmental health are struggling.

Meanwhile, in the west where public lands are allowed to really be wild, the ecology is more diverse, and while it may be harder to fill your tag, the experience is more complete.

Well, sucks to be you. I like only having to pay 39 cents for postage, but it is amorally subsidized by tax revenues, so I won't miss it.

If hunters want to hunt on national parks, let them buy the land and build a nature preserve. If they can't afford it, it means there are more important uses for that land.

 

[hotbrownsauce]

Good question, however I must say before I spend time pondering this question I believe there are bigger fish to fry first.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Check this out, Icymudpuppy: http://mises.org/journals/scholar/waterprivate.pdf