Sell the Whales

[Kitfox]

I thought this article was pretty interesting. What do you guys think?

www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/walker4.html

The author of the article links to this organization's website:

www.perc.org/

Have any of you heard of that organization? What do you think of it?

[Whiskey Jack]

INteresting Kit, thanks for posting a thread about this.
Now for my ramble.....

....Sigh......if this is merely a essay to get a reaction, well, I understand that, but if this is a true movement than I have a few problems with it.
I've always been intrigued by the idea that the market and conservation/preservation should go hand in hand, if we make a piece of land and all that it contains worth "x" amount of dollars in this society, it is a language that we all seem to understand, whereas by simply stating this area must be preserved because it is a biological hotspot with endemic species, this may not make the most sense to folks. But, therein lies the problem, how much is biological diversity worth? How can a price be attached to the howl of a wolf or the bends in a river, what price tag should be placed on an eagle soaring, or the web of an endangered spider? There is a great book out there called "The Song of the Meadowlark" by Eggert (I don't remember the first name), and for those interested inthis subject I highly recommed it. For myself though, our materialistic/economy based mindset is one of the main problems behind all our environmnetal woes to begin with, and I do not think a solution rests in merely altering a preception by placeing a dollar ammount upon a herd of bison, but I cannot argue against the fact that it would reach a whole group of people out there that may have turned a deaf ear on the plight of the bison, and finally they might could understand a part of why the bison is "valuable" to society. I must say thought that without understanding that a bison is "valuable" to society merely by it's existance, there can never be a true cultural and value laden push to believe in preservation 100%.

[Kitfox]

I'm afraid that, no matter what system we adapt, there will never be a mindset for 100% preservation. I wish there could be, and it's a good goal to shoot for as an ideal, but I don't think it's possible.

I believe that what this author was arguing wasn't necesarily that there is a price to put on wildlife and nature. I mean, you're right - you can't really put a price on such things. We understand that because we love wildlife. I also love music, and I could say that you can't put a price on Bach, or Mozart, or classic singers and songwriters in American history and their music. But, we put prices on these things all the time - on their music, even on the artists. I think that history has shown us that this has actually increased the love for them and been more productive for the music and the the artists. Let's say that, hypothetically, the state owned music. There would be no money to make off music so we'd see little advances in music. Those who did keep making music, out of a love for it, wouldn't be able to sell their music which would not only limit them in making further music, but it would make their music hard to come by because stores wouldn't carry it. Classic music, from Mozart for example, would be hard to come by - you couldn't buy it. Perhaps you could get it for free from the state, but generally when things are produced by the state they are of lower quality than those produced by the market. These are just a few examples of what might happen if music, although it is a priceless thing, didn't have a price put on it.

I understand there are some fundamental differences between music and nature, but I'm just trying to make the point that even though we might see something as priceless in one sense, in terms of the market there is always a price that can be put on something.

I think this author has some great points - I do believe that if the market would work hand in hand with preservation great things could happen. Perhaps it shouldn't be solely controlled by the market, but it's interesting to think of what might happen if it were. Either way, I don't see any such movement catching on and having any significant influence on the way we handle preservation and conservation any time soon.

[Whiskey Jack]

Good points Kit.

I do see a movement such as this catching on, I have no time table for it, but things are changing. There is now a new type of Environmental Economist that is making a name for themselves, and man, they have some interesting and good ideas. One of the main ones that I agree with is having a more pronounced environmental ethics aspect within all buisness program at a university. It makes sense to do this because many buisnesses and buisness type ethics have detrimental effects on the environment in infinite ways. If construction companies knew more on the plight of our water tables, perhaps they would work harder to protect them, if lumber producers all took in to account biological history of the trees they cut, it would economically make more sense to harvest the fastest growing and more common trees, instead of some of the rare hardwoods that are currently being used, if cities knew of the economic impact a pristine stretch of river or untouched section of grassland would have on the ecotourism industry for their bottomline, perhaps things could begin to work better and wildlands would become part of any city blueprint due to their aesthetic and economic value.

I would be a fool not to say that this truly sounds like a good idea, but it scares me at the same time. It seems like common sense to project that it is only a matter of time before economics learns how to profit better from conservation/preservation, and in some ways may make it into a parody of itself. Can't you see National Parks becoming paved over with asphalt and made into a type of amusement park because it would draw more people in? Can't you see public lands charging you 5 bucks to take a hike in and waych birds because the economists realized the power of ecotourism and try to exploit it (which is already happening in some areas)?

If we start down this path, when would it end? If history teaches us anything, the dollar will over power any moral value and the privatley owned whale pod will go to the highest bidder, losing its inherent value as a living thing, and becoming a valuable commodity to exploit.

[Kitfox]

It scares me, too, Crow. But, let's face it, what we're doing now isn't working. We have small success stories every now and then, but overall the state of our environment and our wildlife is getting worse. I wish the state could do a good job to protect them, but it doesn't seem they can. The state doesn't have have the will or the reason to do so.

But, individuals do have the will. Look at the conference we went to last weekend. Never before have I been around so many people who cared about wildlife and wanted to protect it. They work for the state now, but that's because it is, currently, the best venue for them to work in. If the market were to become involved, I'm sure many of these people would choose to work with such organizations.

As far as the examples you pointed out, I'm sure you're right. Those things would happen - sometimes to lesser extents, sometimes to greater extents. However, I think that in a broad and general sense the contributions to our wildlife and environment would be greater than what we'd lose.

As for charging for bird watching and turning national forests (which, if this system were to catch on, would no longer be called national forests) into amusement parks, well, that's not necesarily a completely bad thing. The people who own this property would have one primary goal - to make money. In order to make money they may decide that making their land a tourist attraction would be the best option. And, in order for their tourist attraction to be successful they would have to preserve its beauty, keep the wildlife healthy, happy, and diverse, keep it from looking too much like an amusement park. So, while their goal would be to make money, as a result of that their goal would also be to preserve the land and its animals. As far as it being a shame to have to pay to get into a place to see natural beauty, well, think of all the tax money that is being spent unsuccesfully on such projects now. Well, you wouldn't have that tax money to pay, and instead you'd just be paying it directly to the land owners - you'd essentially be paying them to keep the land beautiful so you can continue to enjoy it. Personally I wouldn't mind putting out a bit of cash to preserve something that I enjoy.

You mentioned that the mighty dollar will always overcome a sense of morality. Well, I wouldn't say always, but I get your point, and I agree. History has shown us that. History, however, has shown us something else - that a desire for power will overcome a sense of morality. In the hands of the market, you have the money to worry about, in the hands of the government, you have the power to worry about. Fortunately, in American history, we've sided with the market - and it works (better).

[Whiskey Jack]

Having National Parks become privatized, to me, is a very bad thing. If that does occur, how many would fall below the "bottomline" and be sold off to increase revenue? It could be a disaster. As it stands now they are ultimatley protected in most regards, and even if there are loopholes in that protection, it would be better then potentially having a park be completley lost if it fell into the wrong hands.
For every one good example of protecting lands through private property (i.e. the Ted Turner method) there are a hundred bad. The land belongs to the public, not one person, and in that sense we have a say in what goes on. If it turns to private property, our voice would no longer matter.

And I know we have argued over the market being a good/bad thing before, and I tell you, it is great to talk about stuff like that with somebody, especially a friend. So with that, i'll say this. There are a couple of big problems for me with the market and capitalist ideals in general......two terms, Zero-sum Game and Monopolies. Capitalism states: If you want it and are willing to work for it, you can get it. This sounds great and all, but its the term "zero-sum game" that gets to me the most, because if there are a lot of people that want it just as bad as you do, then it truly doesn't matter any more. We all can't win the game, instead, a handful of people reach the top and all the rest of us live in illusion. Which leads us into what capitalism can do.......those at the top can all win by reaching an agreement and creating a monopoly. Capitalism indavertantly strives to create the ideal company, yet if that company truly becomes the most ideal, it will beging to own everything through monopolies. This seems to be the finish line in the Capitalism game, and when you cross it and own everything in your particular market, there no longer is any competition left, and Capitalism metamorphizes into something else, which, it seems to have wanted to do all along. Perfect capitalism becomes a tyranny of sorts and the world is owned by one mega-corperation.

That is my problem with the market-based world. It devours itself eventually.

[Kitfox]

*finally gets to replying to this - and writes a novel*

You bring up some good points here. First, you discussed what would happen if, say, a national park fell into the wrong hands. Say an idiot capitalist who cares nothing of the will of the people. It could be destroyed, or sold, or worse. This is a real concern.

Unfortunately, we have that same concern with the government. Right now, we have a government that keeps itself fairly in check because we, the people, still have some amount of say in things. Because of that, we have a bit of insurance in the protection of state land - as long as the people want it protected.

Governments, however, have a way of growing, and with that growth comes more power to the government and less to the people. It's happened with the United States government and virtually every government in world history. So, eventually, the people's will won't matter much, and you're left with a big problem. What happens if someone akin to George Dubbaya Bush comes into office? Bye bye national parks, bye bye endangered species act, bye bye nature and animal welfare.

So really, we're left with the same risk. Now, with government ownership of land it's not an immediate risk, rather, it's a future unavoidable risk. With private ownership it's an immediate risk, but the risk is less. Why is the risk less? Because companies are more likely to listen to people (in other words, the consumers) because they have something to gain by it. Government has less to gain by listening to the people, because the people have to listen to the government - they have no other place to turn to and nowhere else to go to get the services that a government offers. A government is, in principle, a forced Monopoly. The only way to change this is by revolution, which is almost always bloody and violent, and it doesn't usually happen until things get really really bad first.

----------------------

You brought up some other points that expressed negative feelings towards capitalism. They were good points, but fortunately they were based on theory that's not grounded in sound economics. The main concern you had was in the formation of monopolies in a free capitalist market (which is interesting since I just demonstrated how the government is a monopoly).

First let me point out that not all monopolies are bad. There are some monopolies that are actually beneficial to the consumer. Let's think of an operating system for a computer. And try not to think Microsoft here cause nobody likes Microsoft. ~_^ So anyway, there's a company that produces operating systems. Everyone likes this operating system, and other software companies make products for this operating system because it's easy to program for and everyone likes it. Nobody wants another operating system because all the software is for this one and it's easy to use. Everyone is happy. This is a good monopoly.

Now, yes, it's easy for a good monopoly to turn bad. Now you can think Microsoft. Say this operating system manufacturer got greedy, as companies will often do. They start overcharging for their products, thinking that people don't have a choice but to buy them, and they do other annoying things like make it so that only software of their brand will work with their operating system. People stop being happy with this operating system. It's a bad monopoly.

*continued in next post - apparently this was too long and I couldn't post it all at once*

[Kitfox]

*Part 2!!!*

Well, Joe, who happens to be well educated in programming, notices that people aren't very happy with this operating system anymore. Joe, who is lucky enough to live in a capitalist society, decides to capitalize on that company's mistake. He makes his own operating system. People say, wow, look, another operating system...I'd love to use that operating system - if only it had some good software for it. "What's that?" say the software companies, and their ears twitch a little. "Are you saying there's money to be made by publishing to Joe's operating system? I'll do it!" Of course some of the software companies have signed contracts with the first operating system manufacturer which doesn't allow them to publish for anyone else. Sucks for them. They miss out on this opportunity where others will excel.*

So, with time, Joe's Operating System becomes the next big thing. The first operating system isn't so hot anymore. Maybe Joe's Operating System will take over as a beneficial monopoly after several years, maybe not. Maybe it will become greedy like the first operating system brand did. If it does, it will fail in the same way. A bad monopoly doesn't stay in business for too long, the people won't allow it.

*What's that you say!? What if all the software companies team up with the bad operating system monopoly in order to scam and control the people!? They've all got to the top, right? They've got the money! They can do it! Well, maybe for a little while. But Joe will create his operating system, and Susan, Paul, Jeff, and Jane will create new software, and then all the software companies and the operating system company will stick their tail between their legs and say, "Sorry, give us another chance!" Fortunately, it generally won't come to this. Companies know the principles of economics, and they know that not giving the people what they want is a bad choice, so usually they won't do it. If they do, they'll fail, and a better company who will give the people what they want will take its place.

So, there is another scenario where a bad monopoly might arise, and this one is a bit harder to take care of. This scenario arises when a company controls all of a resource that it is offering. Or, let us say, a group of companies controls a resource and they decide to team up. In this case, those groups of companies are acting as a single company, so for the purpose of staying simple I'll treat them as a single company. In our example, let's use the oil industry.

A company, whom I'll fictitiously name Elron, owns all the oil in the world because they plotted and schemed and bought it all. Now, before they owned all the oil they were selling the oil at decent prices. But now they own all the oil they figure they can raise prices and people will have no choice but to pay it, right? Wrong. People, no matter how much they need oil, can still only afford a certain amount of oil.

There is a curve you learn about in a good economics class, and it has a name, but I don't remember what the name is, so I'm going to call it the Supply & Demand Curve. There is a point on this curve where a company will maximize its profits. They do this buy selling the most of its product at the right price. Depending on the supply and demand of the product, the prices will be higher or lower. Competition will alter supply and demand and therefore alter the price.

Basically what this curve says is that they want to sell to as many people as they can at the highest price that those people will pay. They want to maximize their profits. Charging too much money will cause too many people to stop paying, and they will lower the prices. Charging too little will oversell the product and they won't be making the money that they can. This principle applies when competition exists, and also when there is no competition - such as in a monopoly. When the prices get too high, people will stop buying the product, and the prices will lower again.

What if there are a few people who will pay ridiculous prices for oil, and the majority of the people get screwed because the company is maximizing its products on those few rich people? Well, just because rich people are rich doesn't mean they're stupid. They, too, aren't going to want to waste their money paying ridiculous prices on oil. In other words, a product is worth the same value to a person with money as it is to a person without much money. Therefore, rich people aren't necessarily going to pay any more for something that a poor person would.

People will sometimes say something like, "What if someone dams a river and owns all the water in the river and the people will go thirsty if they don't buy it and so they have to pay ridiculous prices and stuff!? Huh!? What if about that!? What do you think about that! Stick that in your pipe and schmoke it little libertarian man!" Actually, my dad said that to me when we were having this discussion, but in fewer words. Well, that situation is altogether ridiculous, and the chances of that happening are so small that I shouldn't even consider it, but I will. If that happens, the supply and demand curve will still apply. What about the people who can't afford the water, even on a curve? Well, that's where lovely things called churches and charities come in. Also, that's a reason why people move. If it looks like the cost of living is getting too high for you to afford, it's probably better that you move to somewhere where it's not so high.

The downside of capitalistic societies are this - some people will always have what other people won't. Some people will be poor, and some will be rich. People won't be equal.

The upside to it is this - The poor people in a capitalist society will be like the rich people in a non-capitalistic society. Take communist China for example. The rich people were considered lucky to have their own house and clothes with more than one shade of brown. They were fortunate if they survived an operation at a hospital because the quality of health care was so low. In a capitalist society, even the poor people are better off that the rich in a communist, socialist, or any other anti-capitalist society.

------------------------------------------

Well, that's my side of things. It's fun to argue about this stuff and all that, but I don't want people to start thinking I'm some know-it-all politician. I strongly believe that I'm right in this matter, and I'm rather passionate about it, but I'm not foolish enough to rule out the possibility that I'm wrong. I've been wrong about things before that I'm passionate about. =)

Also, it's important to note that any form of government or lack of is going to have some problems with it. There will always be "what ifs" and "but ifs". Unfortunately as long as man is imperfect their society will be imperfect. We just have to try and figure out which one will be the best. ^_^

That said, I await your reply!

- Kit

[Whiskey Jack]

Wow!!

Amazing stuff Kit! This may take a while to respond to, but rest assured, by brain is working overtime on it.