"The total passion for the total height"
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentPollWhat should the government do about ailing financial institutions? Nothing, except to back off and get out—as any Objectivist knows, intervention is treating the disease with the disease 84% Intervene judiciously—enough to avert a catastrophe that is otherwise imminent 3% Intervene massively—as it's doing 3% Nationalize the whole economy and be done with it. Bring on the USSA! 1% Something else (specify) 9% Total votes: 76
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
Of fish and regulation. Submitted by Mark Hubbard on Sat, 2007-11-17 03:22.
Here's a question I'm struggling with. I love eating seafood and fish, however, it seems conclusive, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, that many fish stocks are becoming over-fished, and risk being lost to us altogether. Thus, I am in the position that if I want to go on eating my fish, long term, then I would have to be in the camp of supporting regulation of the affected fisheries so that they can recover, and given that fishermen worldwide seem ill disposed toward placing limits upon themselves, then some type of central agency/cies, yes, governments, need to be involved. If I stick to my libertarian principles, then no regulation, thus ultimately, no fish?
(I am aware of a counter argument to the effect of fish can be farmed, however, I would have two objections to that: 1) a wild salmon, for example, tastes better than a farmed one, so I don't want to end up stuck with farmed fish only, 2) given the size of the fisheries involved, then the size of the farms required would be enormous, surely (although this latter is not the best of arguments, so I'll stick to arguing (1)).
( categories: )
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
Mark
It's very important NOT to grant the sods that the exhaustion of a "resource" is an evil at all, let alone the lesser of two. It may be a misfortune, but then again probably not, since usually the imminent demise of a resource catalyses the discovery and exploitation of an alternative. IF folk are free to discover and exploit. Denying freedom IS an evil.
Additional point: this
Additional point: this particular issue (not just fish, but resources in general) is my Archille's heel when arguing with the Left, and those advocating controlled economies. It means in reasoning against them I am forced into a position of showing that the loss of freedom under controlled economies is the bigger of the two evils. Self evident to me, but very hard to argue, nonetheless, with people who do not understand the primary importance of property rights and individual freedom, and how 'happiness' arises from these a priori foundations.
Elijah, I agree. That was
Elijah, I agree. That was the nature of my conundrum, I don't support regulation, but I was also not prepared in my mind to face up to the price of this, which may well be no fish to eat. And I love food.
Was hoping for a miracle, as ever, and am thus reminded same don't exist in 'reality', at least, existing only by coincidence, not design.
Of course, folk shouldn't be
Of course, folk shouldn't be eating fish in the first place. So many girly-men here still ... Smiling
Only between very red steaks, plus don't forget seafood includes lots of manly oysters. It perturbs me to admit, though, that I can't eat my fish, then have them to, but your reply is obvious, and the wisdom of the first sentence can't be argued with. I also now know the price of my freedom has possibly another price to be paid.
Going to start banging fishermen heads together in the meantime though.
Mark
what about the shareholders of, say, Sanford, listed on the NZ Stock Exchange?
Those chaps have put money up for the shares and expect a profit in return for that investment.
Do we simply say "oh well, stiff bickies, we have just decided to ban your activity and too bad you have lost all your money"?
Them's the breaks.
You can't extol freedom when it suits and eschew it when it doesn't. But I would have thought that those whose livelihood this is, in the absence of improper state intervention, would figure out a way among themselves to avoid destroying their livelihoods. If they can't, tough. It's not govt's job to protect fish, unless they're someone's property.
It's tricky because establishing property rights over things that move around so much, and in the water at that, is ... well, tricky.
But yes, farming - and the ending of stupid RMA impediments thereto - should be an option.
Of course, folk shouldn't be eating fish in the first place. So many girly-men here still ...
Mark
Gosh
...ummmmm...a SOLO-ist suggesting regulation of a capitalist profitmaking undertaking...gosh...
*FAINTS*