|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 12:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Leon,
Yeah, the Road to Serfdom was an early work, written in the '40s. Basically Hayek's main objective was just to refute the notion that fascism was some sort of a capitalist reaction to communism, and show that fascism and socialism are really just slightly different versions of the same thing.
Anyway, you're right that he is more moderate than other libertarian thinkers, and made more compromises (as evidenced by the quotes you provided above). In his later writings he is more critical of the welfare state, but still maintained that certain things could be done by the state to benefit the public using non-coercive means. I don't really agree him on that front (since it all still has to come from taxation), and I'm a lot more sympathetic to thinkers like Rothbard when it comes to social welfare. But Hayek's writings on free banking etc. are still very important and interesting.
Here's another blurb from a later book (Constitution of Liberty), where he discusses the change from old socialism to the more incremental socialism of the welfare state, if you're interested:
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayekwelfarestate.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Visitorq, I have a question, and I'm actually curious as to your answer: how would you solve the tragedy of the commons? It's quite clear that our fisheries are collapsing on a global scale; how would you address this? Personally, I think we need a lot more government intervention in that area if there's going to be any chance of fish being a food option in our old age. Do you really think that the problem would resolve itself without government intervention? I focus specifically on fisheries here, but the question could extend to the environment at large. Is there a libertarian solution, or would the approach be to just say that our fisheries are doomed anyway? |
Tragedy of the commons is an interesting issue. Here's what Mises wrote about it back in the '40s:
| Quote: |
| If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is utilized without any regard to the disadvantages resulting. Those who are in a position to appropriate to themselves the returns � lumber and game of the forests, fish of the water areas, and mineral deposits of the subsoil � do not bother about the later effects of their mode of exploitation. For them the erosion of the soil, the depletion of the exhaustible resources and other impairments of the future utilization are external costs not entering into their calculation of input and output. They cut down the trees without any regard for fresh shoots or reforestation. In hunting and fishing they do not shrink from methods preventing the repopulation of the hunting and fishing grounds. |
http://mises.org/daily/4653
So presumably the libertarian solution would be to privatize the ocean. Whether you think that would be more effective than the currently ineffective system that we have at present (or a theoretical system more heavily enforced by government) is up to you. I'm certainly no expert on this topic, but a more detailed discussion can be found here.
Here's a sample:
| Quote: |
Privatizing the Ocean
The same general logic applies to aquatic resources, including fish. In principle, the problem of overfishing could be easily solved if "chunks" of ocean were transferred into private property. Rather than having a meeting of 48 governments to determine "the" quota, the owner(s) of each chunk of ocean could set an individual policy for that chunk.
To be sure, there would be logistical difficulties in privatizing the oceans. For example, if it turned out to be too costly to sink large nets deep enough into the water at the property lines, then the fish could easily swim from one owner's property into another's. The situation would be analogous to one on land before ranchers developed barbed-wire fencing.
In such a scenario, one solution might be for entrepreneurs to buy many adjacent chunks in order to own an enormous volume of ocean water, so that the owner(s) of any consolidated property could expect to reap most of the benefits from limiting the amount of fishing that could take place on its surface.
Alternatively, it might make more sense to establish property rights in the sea creatures themselves, analogous to branding of cattle. To track their swimming property, the owners might use radio collars (for whales and large fish) or coat the schools of smaller fish with a harmless radioactive substance.
For someone who has never heard such proposals, these suggestions sound farfetched. But there is quite a voluminous literature on the topic, for example here and here. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Property Rights and Fishery Conservation
| Quote: |
[F]ishery economists had diagnosed the problem and explained how property rights in fisheries could solve the problem. Specifically by recognizing property rights in a percentage of the catch for a given species (or, in some cases, by recognizing rights in fishing territories), the "race to catch" could be eliminated and fishing crews could be given an incentive to husband the resource. The creation of property rights in the underlying resource aligns the incentives of those who work in the fishery with the health of the fishery. As owners of a share in the catch year-after-year, the fishers have a stake in ensuring there are more fish tomorrow than there are today.
The benefits of such a system are not merely theoretical. They have now been confirmed through extensive empirical research. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okay, so I think we're all on the same page that private stewardship works best. The problem I see is that many people would still argue that this spanks of government intrusion. I recently read a story about federal funding being cut for fisheries management that essentially did just what we're talking about (allotting quotas to individual commercial fishermen). The GOP justification for cutting the funding was spearheaded in large part by pressure from recreational fishermen complaining about government restrictions. I guess what I'm getting at is that in this regard (fishery management specifically), I think we need more government involvement of one kind or another; this government involvement is probably best in the form of stressing stewardship and helping to facilitate that stewardship, but regardless, there will need to be more government intervention in order to make it happen (which I'm pretty much 100% sure it won't). Are you willing to accept greater government intrusion in the short-term if it means a long-term, largely private solution to the problem? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:28 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Right, so we allow any conglomerate to buy the ocean.
WalMart now owns the ocean...
You and I as free market capitalists are free to compete with WalMart for the...ohh...ownership of the ocean? :/
So I can buy up another conglomerate that will then... buy WalMart out of the ocean?
But wait...who is WalMart buying the ocean from in the first place?
The retardedry here comes pretty close to an apex.
Now, if we want to do this, all we have to do is get rid of government.
Oh nononononono, it's much more nuanced.
The States get rid of government, see? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:34 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Right, so we allow any conglomerate to buy the ocean.
WalMart now owns the ocean...
You and I as free market capitalists are free to compete with WalMart for the...ohh...ownership of the ocean? :/
So I can buy up another conglomerate that will then... buy WalMart out of the ocean?
But wait...who is WalMart buying the ocean from in the first place?
The retardedry here comes pretty close to an apex.
Now, if we want to do this, all we have to do is get rid of government.
Oh nononononono, it's much more nuanced.
The States get rid of government, see? |
Thanks for contributing to the conversation. Iceland, hotbed of conservatism that it is, actually has a system like the one we're talking about and it functions extremely well. Knee-jerk opposition to thoughtful policy proposals does nothing to solve problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Okay, so I think we're all on the same page that private stewardship works best. The problem I see is that many people would still argue that this spanks of government intrusion. I recently read a story about federal funding being cut for fisheries management that essentially did just what we're talking about (allotting quotas to individual commercial fishermen). The GOP justification for cutting the funding was spearheaded in large part by pressure from recreational fishermen complaining about government restrictions. I guess what I'm getting at is that in this regard (fishery management specifically), I think we need more government involvement of one kind or another; this government involvement is probably best in the form of stressing stewardship and helping to facilitate that stewardship, but regardless, there will need to be more government intervention in order to make it happen (which I'm pretty much 100% sure it won't). Are you willing to accept greater government intrusion in the short-term if it means a long-term, largely private solution to the problem? |
I'm not sure I follow. By government intrusion and stressing stewardship, do you just mean enforcing property right? Because if that's the case, then that is actually the correct role of government.
Anyway, the main issue I think is territorial, ie. getting other nations' governments to recognize private ownership. I especially see this issue flaring up between Asian countries like China and Japan. Private organizations with members from each country would probably have to be formed, and recognized by governments, for such a thing to work. No easy task. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Okay, so I think we're all on the same page that private stewardship works best. The problem I see is that many people would still argue that this spanks of government intrusion. I recently read a story about federal funding being cut for fisheries management that essentially did just what we're talking about (allotting quotas to individual commercial fishermen). The GOP justification for cutting the funding was spearheaded in large part by pressure from recreational fishermen complaining about government restrictions. I guess what I'm getting at is that in this regard (fishery management specifically), I think we need more government involvement of one kind or another; this government involvement is probably best in the form of stressing stewardship and helping to facilitate that stewardship, but regardless, there will need to be more government intervention in order to make it happen (which I'm pretty much 100% sure it won't). Are you willing to accept greater government intrusion in the short-term if it means a long-term, largely private solution to the problem? |
I'm not sure I follow. By government intrusion and stressing stewardship, do you just mean enforcing property right? Because if that's the case, then that is actually the correct role of government.
Anyway, the main issue I think is territorial, ie. getting other nations' governments to recognize private ownership. I especially see this issue flaring up between Asian countries like China and Japan. Private organizations with members from each country would probably have to be formed, and recognized by governments, for such a thing to work. No easy task. |
Let's focus on the domestic level, first off, for the purpose of simplification. If you are to allot given plots or quotas to fishermen (which don't currently exist), it requires government intrusion to, in essence, create property rights to begin with. For example, my native New Englan | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
