3 ms·
The "owner of the fish" is mankind in common, of course. Generally, the owner's interest is defended by the government of a given territory. But the government
by syrrim 9y ago
The "owner of the fish" is mankind in common, of course. Generally, the owner's interest is defended by the government of a given territory. But the government is not always the best steward of the long term sustainability of the land or its resources. This is for the same reason as before: it is very easy to measure short term success, but difficult to measure long term success. And even when you can predict long term success, many people will argue that you shouldn't take it into account.
- mdpopescu 9y agoYou're just begging for a tragedy of the commons, which is a tragedy for a reason. I am an anarchist (the capitalist sort, not the weird "we're really liberals" socialist one) and I don't want the government to defend my anything. In any case, who defends what was not in question; I was just pointing out that sustainability is not an issue in a (truly) capitalist society, because the owner of a resource can always decide to limit consumption.