3 ms·

You appear to argue that a western concept of property rights is essential to guaranteeing some sort of magical, responsible custodianship of earth / space. Yo

by justsee 14y ago

You appear to argue that a western concept of property rights is essential to guaranteeing some sort of magical, responsible custodianship of earth / space. You use the Great Pacific Garbage Patch as your first example, which has nothing to do with absence of private ownership of the seas and everything to do with industrialisation, a throwaway consumer culture, and the ability of corporations to avoid the cost and consequences of environmental externalities. I get a sense you're actually arguing the tragedy of the commons, and asserting that total private ownership is the solution to the tragedy. But ownership in itself does nothing to enforce good behaviour on bad actors. You need societal rules that are enforced, and they can be enforced in any situation, regardless of whether the situation is private or commons property. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't support your argument either. You use personal experience related to garbage cleanups to assert that pollution only really occurs in common property areas. Yet some of the worst environmental disasters and cleanup sites are on private property operated by mining and chemical companies. The dirtiest, most polluted locations are often urban areas in cities where private ownership is highly concentrated. Some of the cleanest areas in cities are commons areas, such as public parks. You imply that Africa's poverty is as a result of traditional "communal lands" systems, when in reality the first world simply steals Africa's wealth through financial and military force to bump up Western living standards. An alternate scenario where Africa had a private property rights tradition would have done little to stop more powerful nations from seizing their resources by various means. Finally, there's a certain irony in your position, when it could be argued that private property rights narrow the focus and encourage self-interest whereas a more traditional 'communal' view of the land has been associated with a broader and deeper connection with the land, and a healthier sense of custodianship.

ChrisNorstrom 14y ago
"I get a sense you're actually arguing the tragedy of the commons" Above all yes. One can only be punished if one has broken a law, a law can only exist if someone cared to argue in its favor and have it created, the motivation to care exists only when the interests of someone are threatened. It doesn't work like that 100% of the time but it's a consistent basic rule of humanity. "the first world simply steals Africa's wealth" Simply steals it? The wealth of an entire continent? That's unsubstantiated rhetoric used to simplify a complex problem to American viewers. Many African nations have mineral deposits, land, even diamonds. But don't have wealth because they lack the ingredients to harness the power of their natural resources. Historians have studied America for a long time to try to determine how out of all the world's nations, the West has dominated. It's influence, it's money, it's language, it's ideas, inventions, and culture are everywhere. Why not China? Why not Europe? Historians boiled it down to more or less 5 things. With Land Ownership being one of the most important things that leads towards a democracy and free market. Advancement in Science, freedom of expression & religion, follow afterward. Even countries that are growing in power and influence are doing so by mimicking the values that got the West where it is. Land ownership + Freedom of expression + consumerism + free markets + Scientific, educational, and technological advancements. Land ownership and democracy go hand in hand. "Up to 90% of sub-Saharan Africa's land area is currently untitled. Without legal owners, this land falls to the state, which makes it easy to lease to foreign investors". The whole point of a democracy is to make it difficult for dictators to make massive decisions affecting an entire country. Without land ownership in Africa all you have to do is bribe one or two officials to get massive amounts of land. If Africa had stronger land ownership rights this would not be possible. Land would be sold by the owner with it's owner benefiting from the sale. Thus giving locals power and the ability to accrue wealth. Instead the people of a land work to maintain and live off of it but can lose it through no fault of their own due to a decision by someone they don't even know. "a more traditional 'communal' view of the land has been associated with a broader and deeper connection with the land, and a healthier sense of custodianship." You're thinking of the Native Americans from hundreds of years ago before the industrial revolution and consumerism. That doesn't work anymore, Neither in country nor continent. The poorest countries in the world use the communal land system. And it's that system that keeps them poor. They can't build or sell anything because they don't own anything to begin with.

by justsee 14y ago

ChrisNorstrom 14y ago

"I get a sense you're actually arguing the tragedy of the commons" Above all yes. One can only be punished if one has broken a law, a law can only exist if someone cared to argue in its favor and have it created, the motivation to care exists only when the interests of someone are threatened. It doesn't work like that 100% of the time but it's a consistent basic rule of humanity. "the first world simply steals Africa's wealth" Simply steals it? The wealth of an entire continent? That's unsubstantiated rhetoric used to simplify a complex problem to American viewers. Many African nations have mineral deposits, land, even diamonds. But don't have wealth because they lack the ingredients to harness the power of their natural resources. Historians have studied America for a long time to try to determine how out of all the world's nations, the West has dominated. It's influence, it's money, it's language, it's ideas, inventions, and culture are everywhere. Why not China? Why not Europe? Historians boiled it down to more or less 5 things. With Land Ownership being one of the most important things that leads towards a democracy and free market. Advancement in Science, freedom of expression & religion, follow afterward. Even countries that are growing in power and influence are doing so by mimicking the values that got the West where it is. Land ownership + Freedom of expression + consumerism + free markets + Scientific, educational, and technological advancements. Land ownership and democracy go hand in hand. "Up to 90% of sub-Saharan Africa's land area is currently untitled. Without legal owners, this land falls to the state, which makes it easy to lease to foreign investors". The whole point of a democracy is to make it difficult for dictators to make massive decisions affecting an entire country. Without land ownership in Africa all you have to do is bribe one or two officials to get massive amounts of land. If Africa had stronger land ownership rights this would not be possible. Land would be sold by the owner with it's owner benefiting from the sale. Thus giving locals power and the ability to accrue wealth. Instead the people of a land work to maintain and live off of it but can lose it through no fault of their own due to a decision by someone they don't even know. "a more traditional 'communal' view of the land has been associated with a broader and deeper connection with the land, and a healthier sense of custodianship." You're thinking of the Native Americans from hundreds of years ago before the industrial revolution and consumerism. That doesn't work anymore, Neither in country nor continent. The poorest countries in the world use the communal land system. And it's that system that keeps them poor. They can't build or sell anything because they don't own anything to begin with.