I not only “get” the problem, I’ve understood it in depth for 3 decades. During which time I found that while most PEOPLE are like me, this does not matter when those people are organized into a corporation.

You tell me the courts have limited YOUR right to sue for damages to air, water, environment in general, but do you understand the practical difficulties inherent in collecting the necessary data for a lawsuit? In holding a corporation that is not actually incorporated in YOUR country liable for problems it is creating for you by actions somewhere else? This is not even remotely practical for individuals to address. You want to set Greenpeace vs the Corporations in a court of law? Given the nature of the legal system any case at all will run the better part of a decade.

No, even if I accept that your intentions are good, your solution is not practical in terms of the actual behaviours that some corporations engage in. It is not feasible in terms of the costs to the society and the risks to the future either. If you HAVE corporations you have to HAVE government to control them. If you can hold the individual people in the corporation responsible as opposed to dealing with the fictional entity you’re closer, but the true balance of power so favours the folks who are bent enough to sell their children down the river for a few hundred K extra in the profit report, that it is impossible for individuals to make a great difference in the outcome.

Private property rights are absolute.
In what Universe? It isn’t the case anywhere on this planet. Moreover, it isn’t the case unless there’s a government to protect those rights. You can’t eliminate the use of force by wishing. It’s there. It is part of being human. We are not civilized by nature, we LEARN to be civilized.

This isn’t, on my side, a debate about what an ideal society would look like. It is what we do NOW, with what we have NOW that interests me. People are hard to govern, even when they agree to it as they do here in New Zealand… and ideals, while attractive in the abstract, are usually impossible to actually implement. I didn’t come here to “eco-masturbate” and if you were paying attention you’d have noticed that the Green party is doing a heck of a lot more to deal with the problem of the commons than you are with your ideological prattling about private property being “the answer”.

What is it that YOU are doing to fix the problem? Oh, you’re coming over HERE to tell US that we should reorganize the government and the legal system of the planet so that private ownership of the air, and water and ecosystem will allow private lawsuits to be brought against multinational corporations by individuals and this will stop the abuses… And you call what WE do masturbation? !!

Your reality check just bounced… your account is overdrawn.

BJ

Let’s just try have civil discussion from here onwards okay?

Would you be able to answer my earlier questions to you eredwen?

I cannot speak for him but I think LUke’s point was that in the face of linear logic, your replies consisted mainly of ad hominem attacks, as opposed to an explanation of why what you believe was correct and moral. It also included the use of speech marks, as if that negated arguments. As in, SW’s “morality” is that…

Clever.

Your quotation that you attribute to Luke on money was actually me. You act as if quoting is actually a form of proving something is wrong. It’s not. Can you show me why what I say about money is incorrect? And can you also explain what gives you the moral right to force your views on what one can do with one’s own property on others?

I certainly came here to exchange ideas and to show that there was an alternative to the traditional view taken by environmentalists - a policy that would actually improve the environment. Commenting and stating a belief can hardly be ‘point scoring’, it’s just the flow on of truly believing something.

Also, thanks for the tips about personal conduct. But so far no one really seems to be ignoring what I or LS84 says.

I was aware immediately of Is84’s :

1. serious “right wing” leanings.

2. desire to tell me what to do (control my behaviour.)
Examples: “Don’t get divisive on this … don’t generalise for other people … don’t phrase it as negatively as just ‘looking for profits’… Once again, no need to get personal”… etc etc

3. touching belief in the virtues of “money” and “private property” …
I quote: “Money is, if anything, one of the most beautiful symbols in the world - a symbol of mutual consent, as opposed to a symbol of the robber baron capitalist.” … and … “you shouldn’t enforce the idea of preserving the environment on other people. That’s why we need absolute property rights.”

I have persevered in trying to communicate, (and to look for some common ground, from where we could have an interesting echange of ideas, rather than a point scoring “debate”.) I get the impression that Is84 did not come here for that reason.

I hope you have learnt someting from the exchange Is84.
One thing you possibly will have noticed is that there are intelligent, well educated and informed people on this blog and among the Greens, and they are concerned with some serious challenges for life on this planet (human made and here now or “just around the corner”.)
We are here to echange ideas on these mattters and NOT to play games (”point scoring” and “oneupmanship” for example.)

If you choose to stay, whether or not you get ignored will depend on how you conduct yourself.

eredwen

Exactly - you’re starting to get the problem. Rivers, oceans, these things are just said to be owned publicly, all together, so no one protects them. When pollution effects my air I should be able to sue. When someone dumps toxic waste in my river I should be able to sue. But I’m not allowed to own the rivers, or the oceans.

“My problem here isn’t that we disagree totally, but that you are missing two very key points. You cannot trust the market or individuals with the responsibility for the commons or with long term responsibility for the welfare of the society. You understand the tragedy of the commons, your answer is that everything should be privately owned. This might work if it were possible, but as I note above, there are several areas where ownership by individuals is simply not a reasonable concept.”

Exactly, you can’t trust individuals to look after the commons. So don’t make them the commons - make them an individuals own property. The concepts you talked of aboce can of course be privately owned. It was the courts - the judicial branch of government - that upheld the ability of companies to pollute the air as a matter of policy in the public interest. Once again, an example of the government saying they know better and denying our absolute rights to own property.

“You look to private ownership but while understanding that something bad will happen long after I’m gone is motivating for ME, it is not even on the radar for the board of directors of a publicly held corporation who are interested in maximizing their profit report for the next quarter. ”

Firstly I would say that most people are like you. They do care. And the public at large does care - so they wouldn’t want pollution to occur in this case. Even if they did, it would often economically not be the right move to make. THe costs of environmental pollution are huge. You have to be making some huge profits to justify it. And if you are, then fine. It’s their land. What’s the problem?

“That means I put the environment ahead of private property rights. I haven’t said there aren’t any private property rights, just that there are limits to them. As to all things.

You can’t put the environment ahead of property rights without property rights in the first place. With property rights you can do what you want with your own property - and for you that’s caring for it. Great.

Private property rights are absolute. You say there’s a limit to them. There is at the moment - and it’s causing the very problems you cite.

Like I said earlier (please read the earlier comments), I never slagged you guys off. Others on the blog may have, but don’t accuse me of something I haven’t done. I am not responsible for what other people write.

‘Eredwen, don’t feed the trolls’. How does that help anything? Why not say what YOU think about all these topics, rather than try to shut down discussion.

Like I said, you won’t listen and you DON’T have a clue. Who “owns” the atmosphere? Who “owns” the river? Who “owns” the ocean? Who “owns” the planet? You make individual property rights your God and you worship at the altar of unfettered right to do whatever you will with what you own, but you can’t admit the damage that is done by corporate individuals in the name of mammon.

My problem here isn’t that we disagree totally, but that you are missing two very key points. You cannot trust the market or individuals with the responsibility for the commons or with long term responsibility for the welfare of the society. You understand the tragedy of the commons, your answer is that everything should be privately owned. This might work if it were possible, but as I note above, there are several areas where ownership by individuals is simply not a reasonable concept.

You look to private ownership but while understanding that something bad will happen long after I’m gone is motivating for ME, it is not even on the radar for the board of directors of a publicly held corporation who are interested in maximizing their profit report for the next quarter.

You’ll find that I don’t resist change a lot at all. Most greens are quite happy with change. Want to try a new drug for Cancer? OK.. Private property is fine with us… but as a means of dealing with the problems of the next seven generations, it has limits. So does every other system of government. Which is why we have this hybrid of parliamentary democracy and private ownership and social engineering all together.

Some of it works better than other parts. None of it is perfect for everything, and as a Green I have basically decided to vote for and work for my children. That means I put the environment ahead of private property rights. I haven’t said there aren’t any private property rights, just that there are limits to them. As to all things.

BJ

Your issue over land and the environment is easy to clear up. THe problem at the moment is that private companies are able to pollute publicly owned lands - rivers, seas, etc., because no one takes responsibility for it. In this respect I like the environmental movement because in a way they uphold property rights - just collectively owned property. But the problem is they will never do it as successfully as individuals who own the land. If someone dumps rubbish on my land I find out who it is and complain to authorities. If someone dumps garbage in a park, most, myself included, don’t do anything.

- SW soulmate of Duncan Bain

- LS84 fellow blogger with SW at teenagepundit

They post here pretending to be polite and then slag us off over at their site