Poaching, Wildlife, Fishing rights, Commons

[Joynewyeary]

Unless there is some reason to distrust these news sources, it would seem that the following is a bit of reality:

From Google cache of:

www.antarcticconnection.com/ antarctic/news/2003/082603poachers.shtml

SYDNEY, Australia (AP)

In what has become Australia's longest sea chase, the unarmed Australians Customs' Southern Supporter has followed the Viarsa for three weeks and 6,800 kilometers (4,225 miles) after sighting it allegedly poaching the rare and expensive [Patagonian]toothfish in Australian waters.

[The fish is] also known as the Chilean sea bass [...]

A boatload can be worth U.S.$2 million [...] the fish's flaky white flesh is prized in restaurants in Japan, the United States, Canada and the European Union.

Australia estimates more than 2,000 metric tons (2,200 short tons) are poached each month. Australian boats are limited to 2,815 metric tons (3,100 short tons) each year.

How do the principles of Objectivism apply here? Is the concept of "poaching in Australian waters" valid or invalid? (I'm not looking for a plain "yes" or "no" assertion. Don't answer unless you're going to explain your answer.)

From Google cache of:

www.sharktrust.org/cgi/main.asp?newsfirst=668

NT Fisheries Minister Kon Vatskalis said he was shocked by photographs -- published by the Northern Territory News last Saturday -- showing an illegal fishing boat about 3.5km off the NT coastline.

"If people come so close to the shore, it means they have no fear of being detected and no fear of being arrested," he said.

Is a single fishing boat within 3.5 km of a country's coastline a threat to national security? It seems doubtful. Yet, if 3.5 km is shockingly close, then presumably the actual legal boundary line lies further out to sea. Is there no legitimate basis for government interest in this issue?

[AisA]

Is there no legitimate basis for government interest in this issue?

Unless an issue involves the protection or identification of individual rights, including property rights, I see no proper role for government involvement at all.

Since fish in the ocean are not anyone's property, the relative scarcity or abundance of any particular species is none of the government's business.

[BurgessLau]

How do the principles of Objectivism apply here?  Is the concept of "poaching in Australian waters" valid or invalid?

In the first place, "poaching in Australian waters" is not a concept. It is a part of a proposition describing reality (or not).

Perhaps you are asking whether the concept "poaching" applies to property which a government claims as its own (both for security purposes and, perhaps, for the purpose of protecting the "environment")?

If so, then my question would be: Do you mean legally, under current laws? Or do you mean under a laissez-faire Australian government, one applying objective philosophical principles?

(I'm not looking for a plain "yes" or "no" assertion.  Don't answer unless you're going to explain your answer.)

I am unsure where you are "coming from." If you would explain why this poaching issue is an issue important enough to your life to discuss over other problems, you might get fuller, more focused responses. In other words, your purpose in asking this particular question would help set the context for replies.

[Joynewyeary]

In the first place, "poaching in Australian waters" is not a concept. It is a part of a proposition describing reality (or not).

Are you saying that the word "poaching" is purely descriptive?

Suppose a newspaper article or editorial described Mumia Abu-Jamal as a "political prisoner." Suppose an Objectivist objected to that description on the grounds that "political prisoner" is an invalid concept under American law. Would you object to the Objectivist's objection?

Perhaps you are asking whether the concept "poaching" applies to property which a government claims as its own (both for security purposes and, perhaps, for the purpose of protecting the "environment")?

What justification do you have for suggesting that the government's opposition to IUU fishing has something to do with "security purposes"? Wouldn't it be foolish for an unarmed government vessel to follow a vessel that is a genuine security threat for three weeks and 6,800 kilometers?

If so, then my question would be: Do you mean legally, under current laws?

Since this is not a law forum and since I specifically asked "How do the principles of Objectivism apply here?", why do you ask that question?

I am unsure where you are "coming from." If you would explain why this poaching issue is an issue important enough to your life to discuss over other problems,

you might get fuller, more focused responses. In other words, your purpose in asking this particular question would help set the context for replies.

The purpose is to see how Objectivism applies to reality. I suppose it is more directly practical to ask how I can legally minimize my own taxes than it is to ask how governments should be financed. If I asked how governments should be financed, would you ask me to explain why the issue is important?

[DavidOdden]

Is the concept of "poaching in Australian waters" valid or invalid?

It would help if you learned something about Objectivism first. You don't understand "concept"; to get to the crux of the question, Australia does not own those coastal waters. Government ownership is rightfully limited to just that which is required to perform proper government functions, namely defense and dispensing of justice. A fishing boat is not a national security threat (if it is a fishing boat, which in this case it obviously is). There is nothing at all shocking about a boat being 3.5 miles from shore, or even 100 feet. Closer than than, you should worry about running aground, depending. National security is a red herring.

[BurgessLau]

Are you saying that the word "poaching" is purely descriptive?

No, "poaching" is a concept. However, "poaching in Australian waters" is not a concept. Do you know what a concept is? If not, you might start by looking at the entry for "Concepts" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. The point is that, within the philosophy of Objectivism, a concept is a mental entity that, among other characteristics, has a single word identifying it.

Suppose a newspaper article or editorial described Mumia Abu-Jamal as a "political prisoner."  Suppose an Objectivist objected to that description on the grounds that "political prisoner" is an invalid concept under American law.  Would you object to the Objectivist's objection?

Yes. "Political prisoner" is not a concept. Whether it is a valid or invalid idea of some other kind, I don't know. Further, once you talk about a specialized science, such as law, you are outside the domain of philosophy, and into either philosophy of law or law itself as a specialized science.

What justification do you have for suggesting that the government's opposition to IUU fishing has something to do with "security purposes"?

I made no such suggestion. Did you notice I used the word "perhaps" when trying to figure out what you were talking about.

Wouldn't it be foolish for an unarmed government vessel to follow a vessel that is a genuine security threat for three weeks and 6,800 kilometers?

All other factors being equal, it sure would. However, I am not a naval specialist. What other factors were involved? For example, was the vessel following at a very great distance? Was it capable of much higher speed that the vessel it was following? Were other vessels involved? Were Australian air force planes also involved? Submarines?

On the other hand, if that vessel was a "genuine security threat," why didn't the government destroy it?

Since this is not a law forum and since I specifically asked "How do the principles of Objectivism apply here?", why do you ask that question?

For the same reason I asked most of the other questions: To determine the context.

Do you understand what a philosophy is -- and is not? A philosophy, by definition, does not have immediate, direct answers to specialized questions about particular situations at particular times. Armed with a philosophy, one can begin the sometimes long process of understanding the context and applying the specialized sciences, if necessary, to resolving a particular problem. Philosophy provides general guidance, not particular advice about the details of life. For example, philosophy doesn't address the issue of security limits or the issue of how much fat to eat in one's diet.

One way you could specify the context is by telling your readers whether you are referring to the particular conditions in Australia, as it is now, or as the conditions would be in a laissez-faire society.

The purpose is to see how Objectivism applies to reality.

Okay, thank you for now specifying your purpose. Does that mean you are testing Objectivism, to see whether or not it is valid, at least in its political branch?

I suppose it is more directly practical to ask how I can legally minimize my own taxes than it is to ask how governments should be financed.  If I asked how governments should be financed, would you ask me to explain why the issue is important?

I would. I always benefit from knowing a person's context. I would ask myself this: Of the thousands of questions he could ask about a philosophy, why is he asking this one? Is it because this question is more important to him than any other in his life? If so, why?

By asking such questions, and others, I sometimes find that there is some other, more fundamental question nagging at him. It makes more sense to address the fundamental question than the derivative questions that grow from that root. This process saves time in the long run, and it brings greater clarity on more issues.

[konerko14]

This is slightly off topic but I figured it was close enough to put in this thread.

Should there be laws protecting endangered species? The governments objective should be to protect human rights, so it would make sense that there shouldnt be any such laws protecting endangered species. Or am I missing some knowledge as to why there are these laws?

[DavidOdden]

Should there be laws protecting endangered species?

No.

[konerko14]

No.

Thats what I thought. Thanks.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Should there be laws protecting endangered species?

I think Odden's straight "no" answer is incomplete. There shouldn't be laws protecting endangered species vis a vis private property. For example, a law that forbids you killing a certain variety of bird found on your property.

There is however, a legitimate reason for governments to make laws restricting access to natural resources which ARE NOT on private property. The oceans surrounding Australia are not private property, nor are the fish caught there private property UNTIL they are caught. The Australian government has to act as a surrogate property owner to protect the fish populations and to prevent them from being overfished to extinction.

Normally, there is no worry about a private resource being dangerously destroyed because it is against the interest of a property owner to destroy his own property. But in the case of non-private natural resources, there is no such inhibition and the "tradegy of the commons" usually results. This is where the government can legitimately step in and protect the species.

Edited August 1, 2006 by Vladimir Berkov

[JASKN]

I'm pretty sure the purpose of a government is only to protect private property, not all land everywhere, even land not claimed by individuals.

[softwareNerd]

W.r.t. to fishing, the government's role is to establish the details of a system that will recognize the property rights of fishermen. Then, the government's role is to protect those rights. Rather than protecting what is non-private, the government creates laws that determine what is private and then protects only what is private. It is the property owners who are protected by government, not the fish.

[Vladimir Berkov]

W.r.t. to fishing, the government's role is to establish the details of a system that will recognize the property rights of fishermen. Then, the government's role is to protect those rights. Rather than protecting what is non-private, the government creates laws that determine what is private and then protects only what is private. It is the property owners who are protected by government, not the fish.

And when properly constructed, that is just what the sort of laws at issue do. It prevents one fisherman/company/nation from destroying the ability of all fisherman to fish. There might be quotas for each fisherman, limited "seasons" in which the fish may be caught, etc. The goal, which I don't think anybody really disputes, is not to protect the toothfish as such but to protect the livelyhoods of the fishermen who fish the toothfish by preventing the resource from being destroyed.

[DavidOdden]

The oceans surrounding Australia are not private property, nor are the fish caught there private property UNTIL they are caught. The Australian government has to act as a surrogate property owner to protect the fish populations and to prevent them from being overfished to extinction.

What??! How does that have anything to do with the function of government? What you're saying is that the government should act to prevent fish from becoming property -- because the government is to prevent man from laying claim to things that them become property? I can't begin to guess how that is the business of the government.

[Vladimir Berkov]

What??! How does that have anything to do with the function of government? What you're saying is that the government should act to prevent fish from becoming property -- because the government is to prevent man from laying claim to things that them become property? I can't begin to guess how that is the business of the government.

No, what I am saying is that the fish as they exist in the ocean CAN'T be property by definition. An individual, corporation or even government can't "own" the fish not because of some legal statute but because of sheer impracticality.

Thus there are really only two options. Either the government exercises no control over the fishing and the fish get fished to extinction and the fishing industry dies, OR the government exercises some control over the fishing which allows the fish populations to survive and the fishing industry to exist.

Perhaps it is conceivable that the fish in the ocean could become ownable as private property, but it would essentially require a complete restructuring of maritime law, ocean boundaries, international treaties and the like to where oceans, as non-governmental space would cease to exist and all ocean would be governed by some country to where individual tracts of ocean could be dividied and owned by individuals or corporations. I wouldn't bet on something like that happening anytime soon, or ever.

[Inspector]

And when properly constructed, that is just what the sort of laws at issue do. It prevents one fisherman/company/nation from destroying the ability of all fisherman to fish. There might be quotas for each fisherman, limited "seasons" in which the fish may be caught, etc. The goal, which I don't think anybody really disputes, is not to protect the toothfish as such but to protect the livelyhoods of the fishermen who fish the toothfish by preventing the resource from being destroyed.

I disagree. The government's role is not to preserve the "jobs" of any given fishermen. I.E. it is specifically not what you said: "[to prevent] one fisherman/company/nation from destroying the ability of all fisherman to fish" The "ability to fish" is not a right unless they posess a right to the fish or the land that the fish are on.

The fish properly belong to those who can fish them, and this is most emphatically not what governments should be preventing.

Thus there are really only two options. Either the government exercises no control over the fishing and the fish get fished to extinction and the fishing industry dies, OR the government exercises some control over the fishing which allows the fish populations to survive and the fishing industry to exist.

It is not the job of a Capitalist government to concern itself with the question of what industry exists and which one goes out of business. It is to protect property rights. "Protecting" industries is a socialist concept. No "industry" has the right to exist, much less at the expense of the rights of those who would, through their success, drive it out of business.

If someone is concerned with fish going extinct, then they need to capture some and start a fish farm. Fish do not have the right to exist, nor does a "fishing industry."

[Vladimir Berkov]

The fish properly belong to those who can fish them, and this is most emphatically not what governments should be preventing.

It is not the job of a Capitalist government to concern itself with the question of what industry exists and which one goes out of business. It is to protect property rights. "Protecting" industries is a socialist concept. No "industry" has the right to exist, much less at the expense of the rights of those who would, through their success, drive it out of business.

I think you are confusing two issues. The issue is not whether government should protect some individual industry from competition/destruction (which I agree is not a valid purpose of government) but whether a government should exercise control over resources which cannot be owned as private property yet are important, perhaps even essential for human survival.

I don't think you would dispute the inability of any private entity to "own" the fish or ocean territories we are talking about here. Thus we are left with the fact that there is a valuable, useful commodity which exists in the wild without a rightful owner, but with many people who wish to exploit it.

Nor do I think you would dispute the result of such a combination absent some government intervention. Private fisherman would have little personal incentive to conserve the fish in the ocean. Not only is there a "tragedy of the commons" situation here but there is also a "prisoner's dillema." The most likely result is fish species being fished into uselessness or even extinction. And once they are gone it is uncertain if they could ever return.

Nor do I think you would dispute the valid claim a government has as to sovereignty over areas of ocean surrounding its borders. Since there can be no private property ownership, you have sovereignty without countervailing private property interests. Therefore there exists only a governmental interest in the region in question.

The government can then, state how such a resource in its control may be used. It might state that no fishing is allowed at all. The government is not mandated to allow private enterprise to exploit government-owned regions for private gain. Therefore the only remaining question is what the government WISHES to be done with the region. The only equitable solution, I think, is for the government to act as the surrogate private-property owner for the region. That is, to find some way to act as a proxy such that the resource can be exploited by private enterprise for the benefit of the nation but nevertheless controlled as to simulate the instinct towards preservation a real private property owner would feel towards his valuable resource.

If someone is concerned with fish going extinct, then they need to capture some and start a fish farm. Fish do not have the right to exist, nor does a "fishing industry."

Fish farms cause a whole new range of problems, considering they usually exist on coasts or streams which are not private property, plus many fish cannot be farmed, other fish are inferior or even unhealthy if farmed, etc. I think it is foolish to state that the existance of consumable species in the oceans is unimportant.

[Dismuke]

If someone is concerned with fish going extinct, then they need to capture some and start a fish farm. Fish do not have the right to exist, nor does a "fishing industry."

The difficulty is that not all fish which have economic value are able to exist and be grown in captivity.

The problem with the ocean is the fact that there are no property rights to speak of - and, as a result, the proper exploitation of the natural resources of the ocean is not done nearly as efficiently or up to its full potential as would be the case if capitalism were to become operative with private individuals and corporations being able to "homestead" and eventually acquire title to the fishing and mineral rights over certain geographical areas much in the same way that property rights were acquired in the unowned land in the Old West.

Question: Why is the timberland in America not irresponsibly cut down and depleted in the name of making a quick buck? The answer is because much of it exists as private property and, therefore, the owners have every incentive in the world to make their decisions based on the long term benefit. Imagine, however, if there was just a huge forest with no property rights and anyone who wanted to could just come in and chop down as many trees as they could haul away. What incentive would there be for such people to selectively harvest? There would actually be a disincentive - that which you don't chop down and grab, someone else will.

That is the situation which exists in the oceans - and I agree with Vladimir that the potential for things such as over fishing is a problem. But I disagree that the solution is some form of government regulation. The solution is property rights.

I also think that there does exist some amount of very limited governmental role when it comes to wildlife on private property - specifically, in the area of identifying individual property rights to wildlife and to have an objective system in place to prevent disputes between individuals from arising.

Property rights to a wild animal are a bit different than the property rights to domesticated animals. Basically, your chickens, goats, cats, dogs, etc are created by your effort - i.e. they are the offspring of the parents that you bought, fed and took care of. In that sense, your property rights to them are similar to your property rights to the manufactured goods that you create.

The property rights you acquire to a wild animal, however, are more similar to the rights that the original homesteaders acquired to the land in open wilderness. One is not creating property but rather acquiring title to that which was previously non-property. The homesteader could not simply go out and make and arbitrarily assert that he owned all land within whatever boundaries his whims of fancy decided to lay claim to. There was an objective process involved - the government would only recognize claims of a certain size and title would be given only after a person had actually put his labor and effort into the property for a certain period of time. Such a process basically prevented whoever happened to be able to afford the strongest private army from being able to go out and arbitrarily grab whatever amount of land they had the ability to keep people off of by force. If land existed in larger quantities than there was any economic need for, then the whole issue would be moot - nobody would care how much any given person grabs. But since it does have a value, there has to be an objective process by which a large number of people can establish claim to a limited amount of land in a wilderness where property rights did not previously exist.

A similar situation exists with wild animals. In the vast majority of instances, wild animals have zero economic value and nobody would have any objections, for example, to a person acquiring ownership in as many rats, cockroaches, ants and squirrels as he wishes to. But there are some wild animals that do have an economic value - not as domesticated animals but as wild animals.

For example, there are many areas of the country where people rent their property out to people who hunt for such things as wild turkeys and deer - and, as such, the existence of the wild animals on the property makes it an economic asset which has a positive impact on the value of the property. Unlike domesticated animals and rights to such things as plants and minerals, deer and wild turkey are not fixed to boundaries of any given plot of land. And unlike domesticated animals, their upkeep is not something which is the result of the investment and effort of the property owner. On that basis, wild animals do not exist as property per se. Any property rights one can potentially claim to a wild animal exist only so long as the animal remains on one's property. Once the animal wanders off to someone else's property, one no longer has any potential claim to it and one has no right to demand that it be returned as one would, for example, if one's branded cattle crossed a downed fence onto a neighbor's property.

The difficulty with economically valuable wildlife such as deer and wild turkeys is the fact that they are an economically valuable resource which, by its very nature, is not fixed to any given piece of private land but rather is transient and is, therefore, is an asset that is potentially shared by a great many individual property owners.

Suppose I own 1/4 of the land in a 20 square mile forest populated with deer and I somehow convince McDonald's to make me a supplier of a new experimental McVenison Burger. Let's say that over the course of a six month period, all of the deer in that 20 square mile forest will eventually wonder across my property at least once. Now, suppose I were to capture and kill every deer that crossed my property line in order to fulfill my contract with McDonalds and, in doing so, I deplete all or most of the deer population in that given forest. Assuming that the other 3/4 of the landowners in the forest valued the existence of deer on their property and/or derived an economic benefit from renting out hunting rights on their property, my actions have had an adverse impact on the enjoyment and economic value of my neighbors' property.

Do I have a right to hunt wild animals on my property? Sure. Do I have a right to seize the temporary, natural passage of such animals across my property as an opportunity to grab the totality of this economic resource for myself and deplete the population on surrounding property? I don't think so - especially considering that I own but a rather small minority of the range of land over which the animals naturally roam.

For that reason, I do think it is valid for there to be some sort of legal process by which ownership to scarce supplies of naturally transient resources such as wild animals can be acquired in order to protect the rights of and prevent disputes arising between various property owners each of whom has a valid claim to a shared supply of that particular resource. For that reason, I don't have any particular objection to some form of bag limits and/or hunting seasons on specific economically valuable transient wildlife as a means of protecting the rights of all impacted property owners so long as they are applied for the sole purpose and only to the degree that is necessary to avoid such disputes.

[Inspector]

I don't think you would dispute the inability of any private entity to "own" the fish or ocean territories we are talking about here.

I do dispute that. As soon as they fish those fish, they most certainly do own them. If you're concerned about who owns the sea area in which the fish dwell, then see Ayn Rand's article on the ownership of airwaves. The fish should properly belong to those who can fish them, not to "the government."

The proper way to deal with nobody owning the fish is to establish ownership of them, not to place the government in the position of perpetual nanny.

The important part of the solution is that these rights be given to those who are first and most efficacious in their exploitation of the resource. The concern of extinction is a red herring, IMO; (pun intended) this is about who may rightfully claim the unowned and how they might claim it, and that point can and should be fully considered without any concern for how that rightful owner "might someday" deplete the resource in question.

Thoughts like that are socialist in nature.

[Inspector]

Do I have a right to hunt wild animals on my property? Sure. Do I have a right to seize the temporary, natural passage of such animals across my property as an opportunity to grab the totality of this economic resource for myself and deplete the population on surrounding property? I don't think so - especially considering that I own but a rather small minority of the range of land over which the animals naturally roam.

I don't know if I agree with that. I think that if someone wants to claim a right to such deer, the burden is on him to do something to prevent them from wandering onto the property of others. It's up to him to acquire a larger lot of property or to put up a fence that will hold and control the deer. Absent that sort of action, just what claim does he rightfully have on the wandering deer once they wander off his property?

[Vladimir Berkov]

I do dispute that. As soon as they fish those fish, they most certainly do own them. If you're concerned about who owns the sea area in which the fish dwell, then see Ayn Rand's article on the ownership of airwaves. The fish should properly belong to those who can fish them, not to "the government."

I have no problem at all with Rand's proposal for how to distribute ownership of the airwaves, but her idea is irrevelant to this ocean fishing problem because the oceans and the fish, unlike the airwaves, cannot easily be divided and sold to private parties.

There is no way that the oceans surrounding a nation can ever become "real" property in the same sense that land property can be. A nation simply cannot allow an individual to own a segment of its offshore waters to the extent that it can bar others from trespassing.

Thus the only possible way that it can divide the ocean is by selling rights (fishing, mineral, etc) to a certain segment to the highest bidder.

With mineral rights, this is a perfect solution. Mineral rights exist in one place, once you own the rights to a certain mineral deposit you can be assured that they won't disappear or move to a neighbor's area where you will be unable to extract them.

With fishing, the problem is that as Dismuke said, wildlife can be transient. That is why strictly geographic division of rights (IE a fisherman can fish all he wants within a certain area) won't work. Fish populations will likely straddle property-rights division lines. The same problem with overfishing you would have with no government system would still occur, as fishermen would fish all they could when they did find fish on their property because if they did not, in all likelyhood the fish would end up somewhere else and someone else will catch them anyway. With fish, the additional problem is that most of the time nobody is really sure where the fish are in the first place. That is one of the challenges of fishing. Estimates of fish populations, locations and seasonal movements are just that, estimates. And they can change from year to year, or even day to day. There is no possible way that the government can auction off property rights in something so nebulous.

The proper way to deal with nobody owning the fish is to establish ownership of them, not to place the government in the position of perpetual nanny.

I understand this is your position, the problem is that you have been unable to show me any concrete way the government can ever establish ownership of ocean fish as private property. If you can figure out some way, I would be glad to hear it. I can't think of any.

I think it is just hard for Objectivists to accept that there are some things which by their nature, are difficult if not impossible to be owned as private property and must be held in stewardship by the government in some manner. The general rule should certainly be private property ownership, but where private property ownership is impossible, that is where there may be a need for government action.

[ggdwill]

Dismuke,

Alot of good observations and it was very well written, but I'm going to have to go with Inspector on this one.

I think that his point that the burden lies on the person who wishes to retain the value of the wildlife needs to do something - other than get the government involved - if he wants to prevent the wildlife population from being depleted. Just because he may be doing it for selfish economic reasons does not make him any different from a pious environmentalist if he's willing to use the force of government. Like Inspector said, this land owner should assume responsibility for the maintenance of his own property and build a fence.

I've been having a conversation with a friend offline about the property status of things like air and water, and I think the same principle applies. I came to the same conclusion that Inspector did regarding wildlife. My friend keeps insisting that by polluting this "common property" you may very well be violating the property rights of individual property owners - who will be affected by the pollution you create. He believes that if the property belongs to him, then he should be able to demand that your air or water remain at a certain level of cleanliness, no matter how irrational his judgement. I agree with this, but what he and I disagree on is that this right to be irrational - to assert any whim you'd like concering your property - goes both ways.

He maintains that because unpolluted air and water is the natural state of things, that entitles him to governmental protection from me in the form of pollution controls and/or quotas - or else his rights will be violated. What I've been saying is that if he has the right to that whim, what prevents me from casually deciding that I don't like "his" air, regardless of the fact that it might possess identical properties to "my" air. After all, even if they are identical, they are distinct. Thus, I could very well demand that in order to prevent his air from coming into my environment, he must build some kind of dome to contain it.

What he is doing is recognizing the common, wandering nature of certain phenomena and simutaneously treating it as his own in an attempt to justify oversight of it's use by the government. He can't have it both ways. Either it is his property, and if he wishes to preserve it, he must recognize it's transient nature and attempt to contain as large a portion as he desires, or he must allow it to remain transient - with all of the "threats" to his physical or economic or whatever type of well-being that entails.

If he doesn't contain it and once it has wandered onto another's property he has no right to complain to the government if that person does something to it that he doesn't like - no matter how indirectly "harmful" it may be. Otherwise where does it end? Should someone be taken to court because their neighbor believes that if he hadn't mined the coal on his land, there was a chance that, over thousands of years, tectonic plate movement could have pushed it over to his? Or since human sight is dependent upon the movement of light across space, should someone be punished for altering his property because that will alter the way light travels across space and affects his neighbor's view?

Grant

[ggdwill]

I think it is just hard for Objectivists to accept that there are some things which by their nature, are difficult if not impossible to be owned as private property and must be held in stewardship by the government in some manner. The general rule should certainly be private property ownership, but where private property ownership is impossible, that is where there may be a need for government action.

I'm an Objectivist and it's not hard for me to accept. I realize that there are certain things that no one individual can own. That's exactly why I don't think that a group of individuals (a government) can own it either. It's simply not within mankind's ability yet. Certain things like air, and water, and even wildlife to an extent, are - at least at this point - indomitable. People are free to do whatever they want to them, but they will suffer the consequences; not only from the reaction of nature itself, but also from other people.

Notice that I said "at least at this point". There is nothing preventing the development of technology and measuring devices that would give humans the ability to cordon off vast chunks of the atmosphere and the ocean. People should be free to do this, but like I said, they will suffer the conquences. Not only would it be extremely expensive to create physical barriers in these places, but it would hinder the well-being of the very things you're attempting to profit from. Also, it would be extremely expensive to consistently patrol and enforce the legal barriers given their three-dimensional shape as well as their vast size - not to mention the millions of "infractions" that would occur on a daily basis.

If a majority of the indsutries in an economy decide that they will recklessly pollute the air or the water, not only will they suffer from the affects of ozone depletion, acid rain, etc, but people will eventually take their resouces away from them. The most practical way would be to boycott them and make them go bankrupt, but a more bizarre, although still plausible, method would be to claim their own sections of air through the creation of self-contained domes. This will eventually require the companies to change their ways since if there's no "free" air to pollute, there's no where to put the pollution.

If a number of fishermen in the ocean recklessly fish the marine populations to extinction, they will likely starve (since I'm sure alot of those guys eat some of what they catch) if they don't go bankrupt first. But even if they did do this, who's rights would they be violating? All those would-be fishermen who never got around to actually catching all of the fish they claimed to be deprived of?

The ocean and the atmosphere, and the lifeforms that populate them, aren't privately owned because they couldn't be, it's because they simply don't need to be. People have proven to be rational enough to share these arenas of competition without the need for government oversight.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Ggdwill, I think the issue you have come across is somewhat different. The idea of "common property" as you have described is more of the idea of communal property, which indeed does have the negative implications you described. A situation in which everyone owns the air and nobody owns the air is untenable.

The situation regarding the fish is different. It isn't an example of communal ownership but rather of government oversight, which need not create a private right of remedy.

For example, government control over pollution of the air need not be based on the irrational whim of individual air-breathers. It is based on the reason of educated scientists, economists, etc. Individuals still do not own "air" as such, and thus have no rights which have a legal remedy. For instance, if the government decides 0.01% pollution is acceptable you can't sue the government because if your air has 0.001% pollution or even 1% pollution.

It is perfectly reasonable to have government control without people's irrational whims having to be taken into account. For instance, can a person sue the government because of his irrational whim that the B2 bomber should be painted pink? Or that he thinks the Lincoln Memorial should have a statue of Jeff Davis instead?

[Inspector]

Thus the only possible way that it can divide the ocean is by selling rights (fishing, mineral, etc) to a certain segment to the highest bidder.

Yes, or to whoever taps it first, as in the homestead.

With fishing, the problem is that as Dismuke said, wildlife can be transient.

But that is the buyer's problem. If fish are transient, then the buyer must purchase a sufficiently large area of ocean fishing rights to ensure that the fish population he intends to exploit is actually entirely his.

I think it is just hard for Objectivists to accept that there are some things which by their nature, are difficult if not impossible to be owned as private property and must be held in stewardship by the government in some manner. The general rule should certainly be private property ownership, but where private property ownership is impossible, that is where there may be a need for government action.

I think you have the wrong approach here. What I most emphatically will not accept is that if something cannot be privately owned, that it must therefore be subject to government stewardship. If it is impossible to be owned as private property, then the government has no more right than anyone else to control it. It would properly be controlled by whoever could control it, to whatever extent they could control it.

The tragedy of the commons is not enough to make me embrace government interventionism. If something is metaphysically common, and tragedies will occur without government control, then so be it. Let them occur.

You seem to be under the false impression that a Laissez-Faire government is only allowed to exist when its inaction can be "justified" by a positive economic outcome. This is false. The justification for Laissez-Faire is moral: that the government has no right to stop men from acting if they do not violate the rights of other men.

The implication of this is clear: if there exists a commons in which no right of ownership is possible to be established, then it belongs to no man. Any man may use it, exploit it, or ruin it and no other man's rights have been violated. The government, properly may not act to intervene.

But I must ask you in turn to concretize what you have proposed. What is an example of something that cannot be made private?

Edited August 1, 2006 by Inspector