: : : There's nothing profitable, either in the short-term or the long-term, in poisoning a water hole IN a free market.
: : What nonsense. I suppose there's nothing 'profitable' in commiting genocide either. But that didn't stop Belgian capitalists from killing ten million Congolese, did it? Nor did it stop businessmen, rachenrs and rubber companies from killing off 84% of the Brazilian Indians.
: Hmm. Congo, a free market? Brazil, a free market? Maybe you should go study some economics.
No, you should go read some history. I'm not talking about either of these countries today. I'm talking about, for example, the Congo Free State, hailed when it was set up in 1884 as a model of capitalist development. Actually, it was capitalism taken to teh extreme. One man, and a corporation started in his name, owned an entire country as their private property. The results of that, involving the deaths of 10 million inhabitants, are well known. Brazil, too, was most definitely a free market in the early part of this century. If you can cite me some examples of collective owenrship or things like minimum-wage laws I'd be glad to hear them. Corportaions were essentially the only law out in the upper Amazon area. What we have in America is soft-core capitalism, hamstrung by humanitarian reforsm and laws, and thank God for that, because we are only democratic insofar s our laws are anti-capitalist. What they have in countries liek South Korea or El Salvador is real, naked, 'hard' capitalism- the type of system where the laws invariably favor capitalists over workers.
: : Georges Bank Fishery was run into the ground by overfishing by PRIVATE fishermen. Which would explain why cod's suddenly become so expensive. The same thing is happening today with the swordfish. One thing's for certain, leave a resource open to private capitalist exploitation, and it'sll be gone in the blink of an eye.
: I don't know of this particular case, so please point me in the direction of more info. I can't wait to find out the ways in which the fish market was not free from government intervention and distortion.
So when you pass alws to conserve the fish, suddenly, magically they all disappear? If you blieve that, I hve a bridge I could sell you...
: Not that that kind of evidence would convince an ideologue like yourself. But, there's always hope...
: : : A publicly-owned water-hole, on the other hand, since it belongs to everybody, belongs to nobody and therefore can often be poisoned without recriminations.
: : Yes, so that would explain why those societies which lived in a sustainable manner with their envoronment (Pygmies, San, etc) invariably showed COMMUNAL ownership and usage of the land.
: No one is saying that a relatively small community can't manage a resource AS a community. That is what corporations do when they privately own and manage a resource. Essentially, the Pygmies were acting as a corporation which privately owned and used the land.
WHAT? That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. The Pygmies used the land for teh common good. Corporations use their resources for profit. That's the most fundamental distinction in existence.
: : :If the market in water-holes were free, rather than constrained by social government ownership of the water-holes, they would be privately owned and better taken care of.
: : Fantasy, illusion, nonsense.
: ...and yet, supported by all the facts of history and economics. Funny, that.
You really ought to read some history and economics. If you did, you wouldn't say ridiculous things like 'socialism invariably leads to tyranny'. Are you just ignoring all the many examples of democratic communist or socialist governments?