James, I wouldn't say that commons are the death knell of libertarianism certainly, but on a personal level it was the death knell of the emotional sympathy I have for libertarian purists which relegated it for me to the status a valuable critique of existing systems rather than an ends in of itself.
Also while intellectually libertarianism can see generally a possible commons solution (or if not solution mitigation) path I'd submit that when applied to the masses it dumbs very well down to "keep yur guberment hands outta mah fishin boat/trawler/factory trawler/drag netting ecology smashing refridgerated factory trawler). In fairness I acknowledge liberalism dumbs down to "ya wanna kill poor people" and conservatism dumbs down to "God/your country hates you unless you do what I say." as well.
Also, of course, the solution requires force, either by government or some impartial quasi-governmental agent indistinguishable from government in my mind. You don't keep non-compliant trawlers off the Grand Banks in mid December with signed paper but rather with very determined ships and people.
I'm not trying to snark mind, I deeply value libertarianism intellectually but it just can't, ya know, hook the heartstrings on this fisherman's grandson. Have there been any international fishing stocks that are being successfully managed by libertarian based solutions? I only have heard in passing about tuna which migrate in international waters and thus inhabit what'd be considered one of the great libertarian frontiers (seasteading!) and are being fished to commercial extinction. But then I don't follow international fish matters very closely anymore, it's painfully depressing.
Some things cannot be easily parceled out and owned Jason. Who owns the water table? Who owns the atmosphere? Who owns the North Atlantic Cod fishery? Mighty wars have been fought over epically smaller issues than questions such as those. It is a matter of unhappy (or arguably happy) fact some things are not practically possible to parcel out and own, at least not unless you involve the hand of the statists.
It seems to go two ways; either a government or near governmental entity says “we on behalf of the people own this fishery or this commons and we’re gonna restrict its free market use (by a variety of ways including permit ownership in some cases) or, as happened with the cod in the North Atlantic and as is happening with the international commercial tuna fishery, the governments are kept out (usually by being at loggerheads with other governments rather than free market principals mind) and the free market very efficiently strips the commons bare.
Now the Icelandic’s have government with its heavy foot on the fisheries but they also have cod. Heck, they even have the free market to a degree since the system they use is owned and traded fishing permits. The lefties groan “the permits let big evul companies get most of the fish” and the righties groan “the gummint is oppressing the masses by putting its statist paws on the market” but at the end of the day they still have fish and that’s not a small thing. At the rate things are going it might end up a luxury item.
My thirty two year old self remembers my nine year old self surveying a baked haddock captured by my Grandfather and prepared by my Grandmother, wrinkling up his little nose and groaning “we’re eating fish again?!?!” My thirty two year old self writhes at the recollection.
Speaking personally I'd say environmentalism and libertarianism is an excellent topic.
My witnessing firsthand the tragedy of the commons as a youth (the implosion of the North Atlantic Cod Fishery and the wave of economic devastation that swept away the communities of my childhood) was probably the singular event that put a stake through the heart of my most libertarian inclinations before I even knew what libertarianism was.
Oh and I've not been round much. Work is a madhouse right now and the site seems to be loading slow for me. Odd. I'm sorry I mostly missed Jasons rip on the GOP. I'd have loved to have been involved in that scrum.
At the League specifically at this point in time this is unfortunately true. But in general; different story there though the entire subject is likely irredeemably anecdotal.
At the very least try and do some reading comprehension and self awareness. For example, you're lumping Jason in with the GOP in the comments section of a post by him where he rips on the GOP most emphatically. I mean what are you thinking??
Mike, please stop lumping the libertarians in with the GOP. Some of ‘em are but Jason most emphatically isn't. The debate is hard enough as it is without ceding entire spectrums of political philosophy and groups of people to the other side.
It'd really help your arguement and our positions, Mike, if you could lose the profanity, up the content and generally improve your arguement. Beyond the fact that you're violating the commenting policy you're also making us liberals look bad. Your comment below this one was a lot better so it's obvious you're capable of actually debating and arguing rather than frothing and foaming.
Seriously though, please improve your game. I prefer my mouthbreathers on the right where they belong.
I'll quibble in another direction. While I agree that calling for assassination is not cool it should also be noted that Santorum is no Marat. He isn't consequential enough to warrant a glitter bomb let alone a knife in the bathtub.
That thread confused the hell outta me at the time. Bad language was bursting into floppy rainbow flowers between page refreshes and literally right after I'd chided the troll in question to stop trolling from the left. For one heady moment I thought I'd developed super powers. *sigh*
Well I'll be damned, I'm happy you're here Grant! The League now has a resident person who's against the enlightenment ideals based on criticisms from the left to contrast our dear Bob Cheeks who's against the enlightenment ideals based on criticisms from the right. I must confess, I feel a certain delight over this. Like finally acquiring the missing dish in a matching set.
I have no time at all today, alas, but a Republican party that broke up along either foreign policy lines (interventionist/noninterventionist) or even moreso over social policy (libertine/social con) would definitly produce a segment that would have considerable draw to right wingish Democrats I'd think.
My objection, Ward, is merely against the massive lunacy that is bound up in any fence like proposal. The ranch owner is welcome to waste his own private dollars putting up fences that the coyotes will merely evade, penetrate or subvert on his own dime. I have no interest in lending even a crumb of support to our governments doing the same ineffective, wasteful and pointless strategy on a grander and colossally more costly scale.
If we don't want illegal immigration then the only way to stop it is to either:
A) Accept higher prices on a vast slew of products and lower economic growth and target employers of illegal immigrants directly.
Or
B) Making illegal immigration legal by establishing some form of more open legal means for these workers to come here.
Everything else is just political posturing, hair splitting and snuffling after voters or pork.
I guess so? I mean if there's a limited need/demand for free charitably donated clothing then it makes sense that the best condition articles are sorted out and the rest are recycled. If there're people going cold/naked for lack of clothes then obviously nothing should be thrown out and it should all be passed along. It's somewhat ambigous from what you wrote as to which is the case here.
If the dude doesn't want people on his ranch why doesn't he fence it himself? Surely there isn't a zoning regulation preventing it? Why would a libertarian like you Ward want him to be turning to the gummint to fence his property?
Correction: One scenario where Germany gets away with something is if they get the IMF involved. If American and Asian bucks go into the bailout solution then to the extent that happens Germany has scored a coup (but it might still be worth the money to the Americans and Asians to avoid the global recession).
If Germany does bail them out then they're paying for it and they got nothing for free. If Germany doesn't bail them out then they're going to be utterly wrecked economically for the near future as their hyper strong currency plays Cain with their employment and as their banks take a pasting. And this is assuming that the newly non-unified periphary markets keep up free trade with Germany which is a BIG assumption to make and in my minds a foolish one. Germany hasn't gotten away with anything yet and I don't see a scenario where they do.
Unless it's banned I'll be drinking plum wine eagerly. God I love that stuff.
And even in the worst case scenario I don't see the whole country dying. Fukashima was a nasty mess but it didn't irradiate the whole country. I also still think that if their population density started really decreasing we'd see a change in their birthrates but only the future will tell us that.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “So, What Should I Write About?”
Thanks James, I thought as much. Yes, we do what we can with what we have.
"
James, I wouldn't say that commons are the death knell of libertarianism certainly, but on a personal level it was the death knell of the emotional sympathy I have for libertarian purists which relegated it for me to the status a valuable critique of existing systems rather than an ends in of itself.
Also while intellectually libertarianism can see generally a possible commons solution (or if not solution mitigation) path I'd submit that when applied to the masses it dumbs very well down to "keep yur guberment hands outta mah fishin boat/trawler/factory trawler/drag netting ecology smashing refridgerated factory trawler). In fairness I acknowledge liberalism dumbs down to "ya wanna kill poor people" and conservatism dumbs down to "God/your country hates you unless you do what I say." as well.
Also, of course, the solution requires force, either by government or some impartial quasi-governmental agent indistinguishable from government in my mind. You don't keep non-compliant trawlers off the Grand Banks in mid December with signed paper but rather with very determined ships and people.
I'm not trying to snark mind, I deeply value libertarianism intellectually but it just can't, ya know, hook the heartstrings on this fisherman's grandson. Have there been any international fishing stocks that are being successfully managed by libertarian based solutions? I only have heard in passing about tuna which migrate in international waters and thus inhabit what'd be considered one of the great libertarian frontiers (seasteading!) and are being fished to commercial extinction. But then I don't follow international fish matters very closely anymore, it's painfully depressing.
"
Incidentally, for the record, I'm a rabid supporter in (statist regulated!!) mostly open organ markets.
"
Some things cannot be easily parceled out and owned Jason. Who owns the water table? Who owns the atmosphere? Who owns the North Atlantic Cod fishery? Mighty wars have been fought over epically smaller issues than questions such as those. It is a matter of unhappy (or arguably happy) fact some things are not practically possible to parcel out and own, at least not unless you involve the hand of the statists.
It seems to go two ways; either a government or near governmental entity says “we on behalf of the people own this fishery or this commons and we’re gonna restrict its free market use (by a variety of ways including permit ownership in some cases) or, as happened with the cod in the North Atlantic and as is happening with the international commercial tuna fishery, the governments are kept out (usually by being at loggerheads with other governments rather than free market principals mind) and the free market very efficiently strips the commons bare.
Now the Icelandic’s have government with its heavy foot on the fisheries but they also have cod. Heck, they even have the free market to a degree since the system they use is owned and traded fishing permits. The lefties groan “the permits let big evul companies get most of the fish” and the righties groan “the gummint is oppressing the masses by putting its statist paws on the market” but at the end of the day they still have fish and that’s not a small thing. At the rate things are going it might end up a luxury item.
My thirty two year old self remembers my nine year old self surveying a baked haddock captured by my Grandfather and prepared by my Grandmother, wrinkling up his little nose and groaning “we’re eating fish again?!?!” My thirty two year old self writhes at the recollection.
"
Speaking personally I'd say environmentalism and libertarianism is an excellent topic.
My witnessing firsthand the tragedy of the commons as a youth (the implosion of the North Atlantic Cod Fishery and the wave of economic devastation that swept away the communities of my childhood) was probably the singular event that put a stake through the heart of my most libertarian inclinations before I even knew what libertarianism was.
Oh and I've not been round much. Work is a madhouse right now and the site seems to be loading slow for me. Odd. I'm sorry I mostly missed Jasons rip on the GOP. I'd have loved to have been involved in that scrum.
On “How Republican is That?”
At the League specifically at this point in time this is unfortunately true. But in general; different story there though the entire subject is likely irredeemably anecdotal.
"
At the very least try and do some reading comprehension and self awareness. For example, you're lumping Jason in with the GOP in the comments section of a post by him where he rips on the GOP most emphatically. I mean what are you thinking??
"
Mike, please stop lumping the libertarians in with the GOP. Some of ‘em are but Jason most emphatically isn't. The debate is hard enough as it is without ceding entire spectrums of political philosophy and groups of people to the other side.
"
It'd really help your arguement and our positions, Mike, if you could lose the profanity, up the content and generally improve your arguement. Beyond the fact that you're violating the commenting policy you're also making us liberals look bad. Your comment below this one was a lot better so it's obvious you're capable of actually debating and arguing rather than frothing and foaming.
Seriously though, please improve your game. I prefer my mouthbreathers on the right where they belong.
On “Boycotting the All-American Muslim”
Second Jaybirds decision. This was entirely beneath the comment floor. No arguement, just a pointless (and worse: boring) assertion.
On “There Can Be Only One! (in which I use Highlander to finally figure out the GOP)”
I'll quibble in another direction. While I agree that calling for assassination is not cool it should also be noted that Santorum is no Marat. He isn't consequential enough to warrant a glitter bomb let alone a knife in the bathtub.
On “And yet another sort of conscientious objection.”
Likewise, I physically winced. Thanks be that I've never had to experience something so personally devastating.
On “Crystal Cox vs. Jenkins vs. Georgia”
Agreed, good thoughts.
On “The Music of the Trolls”
That thread confused the hell outta me at the time. Bad language was bursting into floppy rainbow flowers between page refreshes and literally right after I'd chided the troll in question to stop trolling from the left. For one heady moment I thought I'd developed super powers. *sigh*
On “How the left can elevate the level of political discourse (and stop making a fool of itself)”
Well I'll be damned, I'm happy you're here Grant! The League now has a resident person who's against the enlightenment ideals based on criticisms from the left to contrast our dear Bob Cheeks who's against the enlightenment ideals based on criticisms from the right. I must confess, I feel a certain delight over this. Like finally acquiring the missing dish in a matching set.
On “22 Years Later”
I was 10... I don't even remember hearing about it. Too young myself.
On “Why Cain Was Never Going to be President – and Why Gingrich Won’t Be Either”
I have no time at all today, alas, but a Republican party that broke up along either foreign policy lines (interventionist/noninterventionist) or even moreso over social policy (libertine/social con) would definitly produce a segment that would have considerable draw to right wingish Democrats I'd think.
On “A World of His Making: Newt Gingrich and the Far-Right Mind”
My objection, Ward, is merely against the massive lunacy that is bound up in any fence like proposal. The ranch owner is welcome to waste his own private dollars putting up fences that the coyotes will merely evade, penetrate or subvert on his own dime. I have no interest in lending even a crumb of support to our governments doing the same ineffective, wasteful and pointless strategy on a grander and colossally more costly scale.
If we don't want illegal immigration then the only way to stop it is to either:
A) Accept higher prices on a vast slew of products and lower economic growth and target employers of illegal immigrants directly.
Or
B) Making illegal immigration legal by establishing some form of more open legal means for these workers to come here.
Everything else is just political posturing, hair splitting and snuffling after voters or pork.
On “No really, don’t buy this jacket.”
Maybe time use? Travel? I honestly don't know. Homes (number and location) perhaps?
"
I guess so? I mean if there's a limited need/demand for free charitably donated clothing then it makes sense that the best condition articles are sorted out and the rest are recycled. If there're people going cold/naked for lack of clothes then obviously nothing should be thrown out and it should all be passed along. It's somewhat ambigous from what you wrote as to which is the case here.
On “A World of His Making: Newt Gingrich and the Far-Right Mind”
If the dude doesn't want people on his ranch why doesn't he fence it himself? Surely there isn't a zoning regulation preventing it? Why would a libertarian like you Ward want him to be turning to the gummint to fence his property?
On “A Financial Marshall Plan”
Correction: One scenario where Germany gets away with something is if they get the IMF involved. If American and Asian bucks go into the bailout solution then to the extent that happens Germany has scored a coup (but it might still be worth the money to the Americans and Asians to avoid the global recession).
"
If Germany does bail them out then they're paying for it and they got nothing for free. If Germany doesn't bail them out then they're going to be utterly wrecked economically for the near future as their hyper strong currency plays Cain with their employment and as their banks take a pasting. And this is assuming that the newly non-unified periphary markets keep up free trade with Germany which is a BIG assumption to make and in my minds a foolish one. Germany hasn't gotten away with anything yet and I don't see a scenario where they do.
"
That's a one sided spin on it, utterly inaccurate since it ignores the periphery's half of this bargain.
"
Unless it's banned I'll be drinking plum wine eagerly. God I love that stuff.
And even in the worst case scenario I don't see the whole country dying. Fukashima was a nasty mess but it didn't irradiate the whole country. I also still think that if their population density started really decreasing we'd see a change in their birthrates but only the future will tell us that.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.