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.)

A Biological Model for Politics and Economics

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