Saturday, February 24, 2007
An earlier version of the gaia brain idea
The Gaia Brain Paradigm: Democratic ownership and free market management of natural resource wealth.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Respect of public property rights lagging acceptance of private property rights
Across centuries of development, we have established a social / political / legal framework that embodies a strong respect for private property rights. We expect that those who take or damage or degrade the value of private property will be made to pay some compensation to the owner.
We do NOT have the same political and legal protection of public property rights. Industries may pollute the air and water beyond what most people would say is acceptable (and businesses may sell products the normal use of which results in pollution), but they are not required to pay compensation to the people at large when they degrade the quality and value of that which belongs to all of us. This lack of protection can be understood in light of the fact that citizens have yet to demand that these rights be respected.
If we were to pay attention to public property rights in the same way that we attend to private property rights (if we were to require compensation be paid when damage is done or value taken), we could solve many of the world's most vexing problems. For example, where clean water is scarce, we could charge a substantial fee to those who take it or degrade its quality in pursuit of profit. This will make it less profitable to deplete or pollute water supplies.
Smaller problems can be addressed, too. Where noise is excessive, we can charge a fee in proportion to the intensity and duration of noise created by human activity. Where most people say that sources of artificial light (street lighting, car dealerships, advertising signs, fast-food restaurants, etc.) have become so widespread that we have lost too much of the view of the stars at night, a fee can be charged to those who cause light pollution. The fee can be made just high enough to ensure that there is a balance between the number of people who say we have too much light pollution and the number who say we have too little outdoor lighting. A system of random surveys can reveal whether there is a balance and, if not, it can show in which direction the error lies.
Who really owns the view of the stars? We all do. To the extent that some people or some corporations would act in ways that deprive us of that which is ours, they should be made to pay compensation. This is the conclusion of a radical view of property rights that insists on bringing public property rights into the equation.
Respect of public property rights will mean that those who take or degrade natural resource wealth in pursuit of profit will have more incentive to use this common inheritance efficiently. Corporations always want to save money, so if they're required to pay a fee, they will strive to reduce impacts on the environment. Efficiency in use of resources is a key factor in determining whether a society can achieve sustainability.
We have a large and still growing global population. Adapting to scarcity is a challenge that our civilization must face for decades to come.
Many problems in the world today are caused by abject poverty. If people have a modest income that represents their share of natural wealth, they could do for themselves the things that have traditionally been done by charities or through government programs, (or that have not been done at all, as the case may be).
Government programs aimed at helping the poor often have unintended harmful consequences. If we respect public property rights along with private property rights, we can reduce pollution, preserve natural resources, and end abject poverty--without onerous government programs which can create a disincentive to seek opportunities for productive, income-generating activities. Any policy that dampens people's interest in seeking gainful employment degrades a society's capacity to produce wealth.
Respect
for public property rights and accounting for the value of natural resources
would profoundly change our economy and society. We would see a transformation of society
from something that resembles a cancer on the Earth (humans consuming beyond
what is sustainable, jeopardizing the health of the planetary
system) to something that looks more like a healthy nervous system for the planet.
Fees incorporated into the price mix will inform us about environmental costs.
A more accurate price signal will cause our behavior to change in ways that
promote environmental health and sustainability.
(This post was censored from something called "Free Republic", and I was banned. Free in name only, I would say.)
If our Presidential selection process isn't working well, let's change it. Who would you want to have as President, if you could ask anyone? Walter Cronkite thought that we need new thinking in this area. He put out a survey asking this question. We missed our opportunity to draft him.
(We should get Jon Stewart or Doris Kearns Goodwin in that office.)
#JonStewartForPresident
We do NOT have the same political and legal protection of public property rights. Industries may pollute the air and water beyond what most people would say is acceptable (and businesses may sell products the normal use of which results in pollution), but they are not required to pay compensation to the people at large when they degrade the quality and value of that which belongs to all of us. This lack of protection can be understood in light of the fact that citizens have yet to demand that these rights be respected.
If we were to pay attention to public property rights in the same way that we attend to private property rights (if we were to require compensation be paid when damage is done or value taken), we could solve many of the world's most vexing problems. For example, where clean water is scarce, we could charge a substantial fee to those who take it or degrade its quality in pursuit of profit. This will make it less profitable to deplete or pollute water supplies.
Smaller problems can be addressed, too. Where noise is excessive, we can charge a fee in proportion to the intensity and duration of noise created by human activity. Where most people say that sources of artificial light (street lighting, car dealerships, advertising signs, fast-food restaurants, etc.) have become so widespread that we have lost too much of the view of the stars at night, a fee can be charged to those who cause light pollution. The fee can be made just high enough to ensure that there is a balance between the number of people who say we have too much light pollution and the number who say we have too little outdoor lighting. A system of random surveys can reveal whether there is a balance and, if not, it can show in which direction the error lies.
Who really owns the view of the stars? We all do. To the extent that some people or some corporations would act in ways that deprive us of that which is ours, they should be made to pay compensation. This is the conclusion of a radical view of property rights that insists on bringing public property rights into the equation.
Respect of public property rights will mean that those who take or degrade natural resource wealth in pursuit of profit will have more incentive to use this common inheritance efficiently. Corporations always want to save money, so if they're required to pay a fee, they will strive to reduce impacts on the environment. Efficiency in use of resources is a key factor in determining whether a society can achieve sustainability.
We have a large and still growing global population. Adapting to scarcity is a challenge that our civilization must face for decades to come.
Many problems in the world today are caused by abject poverty. If people have a modest income that represents their share of natural wealth, they could do for themselves the things that have traditionally been done by charities or through government programs, (or that have not been done at all, as the case may be).
Government programs aimed at helping the poor often have unintended harmful consequences. If we respect public property rights along with private property rights, we can reduce pollution, preserve natural resources, and end abject poverty--without onerous government programs which can create a disincentive to seek opportunities for productive, income-generating activities. Any policy that dampens people's interest in seeking gainful employment degrades a society's capacity to produce wealth.
(This post was censored from something called "Free Republic", and I was banned. Free in name only, I would say.)
Walter Cronkite for President - Should we only consider those who promote themselves, or should we look for someone who most all Americans would say might be a good or great president?
If our Presidential selection process isn't working well, let's change it. Who would you want to have as President, if you could ask anyone? Walter Cronkite thought that we need new thinking in this area. He put out a survey asking this question. We missed our opportunity to draft him.
(We should get Jon Stewart or Doris Kearns Goodwin in that office.)
#JonStewartForPresident
What kind of world shall we leave for our children?
Civilization is not working well. It is not at all clear that human society as we know it is sustainable. On the contrary, we appear to be headed for a collapse more severe in its consequences than any previous collapse of civilization. If we allow this collapse to occur, it will be more severe because, unlike the collapse of previous civilizations, this will not be an event that impacts a particular location or region. It will be truly global in extent. And it will happen in the context of modern technology that has multiplied our capacity to intensively exploit and devastate the environment that sustains us. The destructive power of weapons that will be available to those who will fight over the dwindling resources defies description.
What could we do to avoid a global collapse? One theory says that we must learn to live in accord with moral principle as a life-sustaining strategy. The vitality of our civilization and the lives of many people depend on our right action.
Compensation should be paid when damage is done to property or when value is taken from that which is owned by others. So what could possibly justify the complete neglect of public property rights that has polluters fouling the air and water without any requirement that they pay a fee to the people, as compensation for the damage done? Considering the transformation of society that would result from such compensatory payment (from unsustainable to sustainable; from a system where extreme poverty and disparity are endemic to something more egalitarian), perhaps we should start calling the putting of pollution without appropriate compensation (and other forms of uncompensated externalities)... we should call this what it is: a crime against humanity.
There is no way to justify this neglect. But we can understand the historical context within which it exists. We have not yet become convinced as a society that we must take account of the effects of economic activity in a way that causes the adverse impacts to be reflected in economic terms. We have not yet learned that harmful effects caused by industry and caused by economic activity generally must be felt in economic terms, so that causing harmful effects results in real and proportional costs to those who produce the harm. We have not yet learned, as a society, that pollution costs and resource depletion costs must be felt by industries on the financial bottom line. When we develop this understanding, we will make industries account for externalities, so harmful practices will no longer be profitable to industry. [We will no longer be inclined to portray corporations as evil or malicious, because their pursuit of their own interest (their pursuit of profit) will cause them to do things that promote (rather than conflict with) the interests of the larger society.]
When one person or corporation pollutes, all the rest of us must refrain from polluting to a proportional degree, to ensure that we do not exceed some acceptable limit to overall levels of pollution (to be defined by the people at large). One polluter's actions constrain the actions of all others. (Or, we must give up the idea that the community at large, through the instrument of government, can and must establish overall limits on levels of contaminants in our air and water).
One polluter putting contaminants into the air changes the atmosphere so that it becomes less able to receive similar unwanted material from any and every other person or industry. (Again, assuming that we intend to enforce overall limits.) When a polluter acts so as to reduce the value of the atmosphere to all of us, property rights doctrine requires that some compensation be paid to those who suffer the diminished value. In other words, principle dictates that polluters must pay a fee to the people at large when they foul our air or water, (or when they spoil our view of the night sky, or cause some other environmental change that offends the people at large).
The same principle applies to the taking and depletion of natural resources: When one actor depletes the resource base, all the rest of us must take proportionately less from that resource base.
The twin scourges of poverty and environmental degradation can be eliminated or (in the case of environmental degradation) can be brought to levels where they are no longer threatening the existence and sustainability of civilization. This will happen when we learn to apply our principles of fairness and just compensation to the realm of the Commons--when we learn to respect public property rights along with private property rights.
We must charge fees (or require purchase of permits at auction) when industries impose adverse environmental impacts. Appropriate limits on pollution and resource depletion will mean a sustainable society. Sharing of fee proceeds will mean an end to extreme poverty throughout the world. Moral principles provide a foundation for a sustainable and just civilization.
Natural law requires equal sharing of natural wealth
Diet choice is a moral choice
What could we do to avoid a global collapse? One theory says that we must learn to live in accord with moral principle as a life-sustaining strategy. The vitality of our civilization and the lives of many people depend on our right action.
Compensation should be paid when damage is done to property or when value is taken from that which is owned by others. So what could possibly justify the complete neglect of public property rights that has polluters fouling the air and water without any requirement that they pay a fee to the people, as compensation for the damage done? Considering the transformation of society that would result from such compensatory payment (from unsustainable to sustainable; from a system where extreme poverty and disparity are endemic to something more egalitarian), perhaps we should start calling the putting of pollution without appropriate compensation (and other forms of uncompensated externalities)... we should call this what it is: a crime against humanity.
There is no way to justify this neglect. But we can understand the historical context within which it exists. We have not yet become convinced as a society that we must take account of the effects of economic activity in a way that causes the adverse impacts to be reflected in economic terms. We have not yet learned that harmful effects caused by industry and caused by economic activity generally must be felt in economic terms, so that causing harmful effects results in real and proportional costs to those who produce the harm. We have not yet learned, as a society, that pollution costs and resource depletion costs must be felt by industries on the financial bottom line. When we develop this understanding, we will make industries account for externalities, so harmful practices will no longer be profitable to industry. [We will no longer be inclined to portray corporations as evil or malicious, because their pursuit of their own interest (their pursuit of profit) will cause them to do things that promote (rather than conflict with) the interests of the larger society.]
When one person or corporation pollutes, all the rest of us must refrain from polluting to a proportional degree, to ensure that we do not exceed some acceptable limit to overall levels of pollution (to be defined by the people at large). One polluter's actions constrain the actions of all others. (Or, we must give up the idea that the community at large, through the instrument of government, can and must establish overall limits on levels of contaminants in our air and water).
One polluter putting contaminants into the air changes the atmosphere so that it becomes less able to receive similar unwanted material from any and every other person or industry. (Again, assuming that we intend to enforce overall limits.) When a polluter acts so as to reduce the value of the atmosphere to all of us, property rights doctrine requires that some compensation be paid to those who suffer the diminished value. In other words, principle dictates that polluters must pay a fee to the people at large when they foul our air or water, (or when they spoil our view of the night sky, or cause some other environmental change that offends the people at large).
The same principle applies to the taking and depletion of natural resources: When one actor depletes the resource base, all the rest of us must take proportionately less from that resource base.
The twin scourges of poverty and environmental degradation can be eliminated or (in the case of environmental degradation) can be brought to levels where they are no longer threatening the existence and sustainability of civilization. This will happen when we learn to apply our principles of fairness and just compensation to the realm of the Commons--when we learn to respect public property rights along with private property rights.
We must charge fees (or require purchase of permits at auction) when industries impose adverse environmental impacts. Appropriate limits on pollution and resource depletion will mean a sustainable society. Sharing of fee proceeds will mean an end to extreme poverty throughout the world. Moral principles provide a foundation for a sustainable and just civilization.
Natural law requires equal sharing of natural wealth
Diet choice is a moral choice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)