It is not true that Reason.tv dislikes any government regulation. Reason (and libertarians generally) approve of strong property rights, which (most but not all libertarians believe) requires government to enforce. Here they're just suggesting that a kind of property rights be applied to the sea as well.
Woo, I was scared that reason was going to offer some solution like, let the market work it out. I'm glad they offered this solution better. Its very clever, and works great in areas where no one can claim ownership, the seas. My state, Maryland, should look into this to boost its oyster population, which is at 1% of historical levels. Whales have better statistics than the MD oyster
i have read Chris Costello's reports, and it has been widely circulated - but there are economists who dispute the "tragedy of the commons," and divorcing sustainable fisheries from coastal economies IS devastating to cultures that have been dependant on fishing and associated economies. Explain to me how sectors management reduces government oversight - fishermen must now submit to 3 TIMES the amount of regulatory management - hail in, hail out, monitors at sea, monitors at docks -
No one owns the oceans so they are abused?? - answer - let MONSANTO OWN THE OCEANS - then fish can be patented and barcoded and Monsanto can charge you for looking at the ocean and being near it - sell shares of the ocean and float the ocean on the fte and assdac bla bla fuckin shit- SHIT - LEAVE MOTHER EARTH ALONE!
@Michopsychology I was speaking geographically about ownership. The idea would be to maintain and protect a specific area of the sea to encourage fish populations in the area. Yes, fish populations shift, just as some fields have good and bad crops from year to year.
What we need in all areas of conservation is for resources to be managed by Professionals, not politicians or environmental wackos. Case in point - the wackos won't allow forests to be managed intelligently. They insist on a hands off approach when responsible management calls for clearing underbrush and dead wood to prevent wildfires.
@averagejoe040 For that to happen all world governments would have to agree to lease vast tracts of ocean to private owners like they do with land. Right now the waters are "owned" by whatever country they're closest to within a certain distance, everything else is "international waters".
@sedatedlife18 I agree. That lease scheme may be a way to get someone besides government to manage fisheries. As the vid pointed out, there has been some success along this line. I really don't believe that will solve the whole problem. I honestly do not know what can solve this problem. There has to be some sort of economic incentive to behave responsibly. At present there is an economic incentive to do the opposite.
I am not in favor of government controls. Like the guy said. "The more government control, the worse the management". Nevertheless, this vid makes a very valid argument that some kind of management is needed.
Maybe more places should institute in-situ conservation that actually helps fish populations without any government control. If more people treated fish like livestock and reared them in specialized farms while, there would be more oceanic fish left AND any egg runoff will help to repopulate the oceans. This has done wonders in New Zealand.
The answer is simple; Not more Government, more private ownership... of the Oceans. Other than the fact that they're wet, how are they different from any other property?
Not to mention that the scientists are very disingenuous with their science. "Warmest decade in 600 years" is what they say about the 2000-2010. Gee, I wonder why they say 600 years....maybe because that was the beginning of the little ice age? And it was as warm or warmer in the mid evil warm period as it is right now?
But hey, maybe the mid evil warm period was due to man made camp fires right? Do some real research before you try and talk to me about this crap Collin
this is a vid link to a lecture given by Sallie Baliunas about greenhouse gas theory, it is one of many many lectures given by prominent scientists about man made climate change.
watch?v=NMc8XRw226A
This is a lecture given by John Christy a scientist that was part of the IPCC, about satallite records and temperature change.
This is 2 hours worth of information for you to absorb. But I doubt you'll even bother.
In these 2 vids, it gives evidence to support my previous statements, if you'd rather, I'll simply pull quotes from the material, so you don't have to watch it, but I suggest you do.
Also, if you have lectures or material you'd like me to look into, I'd be happy. I'll be taking a look at the previously linked material in your posts. I enjoy vigorous debate, but usually I find people on the other side, are unwilling to engage because of dogmatic beliefs.
@CollinMaessen So I'm a bit sceptic about your sources but I'll see in how far they are correct. Btw, could you provide timestamps for when they make their points that support the argument you are making here?
And also, please do not presume to know how I would act. I do follow up on peoples claims.
@Twiggy269 I just watched them and I have no idea where to start. There are so many errors and misrepresentations in those two presentations...
Like Sallie Baliuna using one temperature record from the sargasso sea and saying look it was warmer then, and comparing it to a worldwide temperature record...
Or the quote mine John Christy used for his argument that scientists predicted an ice age:
a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years
@CollinMaessen The report just said it could happen, they never said what kind of chance there is, just that the possibility exists. Making predictions wasn't even the goal of the document.
(for the full excerpt he qoute mined and the explanation see the following page and go to appendix a: ossfoundation. us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-cooling )
Why didn't ReasonTV question the validity of the assertions that the oceans are running out fish? And privatization... That seems to be Reason's de facto response to any situation. We get it already, everything must be owned in your eyes. It's starting to seem like a cop-out rather than a valid response.
It seems odd to me that Reason has completely disregarded multiple, high-level Second Amendment issues which have been heading to trial. I'm starting to question that "Libertarian" title.
I'm honestly a little confused. Doesn't reason TV dislike any government regulation? Why are they arguing for a different kind of government regulation?
@LionEatingMan I'm honestly confused by your comment. I was under the impression that ReasonTV dislikes illogical solutions to practical problems. I agree that if it's what works then why would we push for a system of all out freedom with obvious dire consequences?
Reason has turned into a bunch of statists. You argue against one form of government intervention in favor of another. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Who cares if species of fish go extinct, survival of the fittest is what makes this world great.
i get what your saying but we need some form of governance. we just have to find the right law or regulation and if this will work then its great. that means there will be fishing for years to come. As a hunter i welcome this. i don't know much about the way Sea Fishing is governed but if this will work better than the current then so be it. its not all about jobs, i mean without fish this people will be out of a job any way
They explained that, because nobody owns it, therefore everyone decides they do. If you can distribute the resources of the ocean to each who use it, therefore they will take better care of it. Putting limits on the overall yield is the only way to keep the replenishing resources up. It would be a difficult task to privatize a section of Ocean. How are you going to police your waters? How are you going to mark it? How would you know if someone uses your claim, and if so, prove it
@Michopsychology Why would somebody overfish their parcel, as your example presupposes? Also, fish and seafood tends to travel, so people would bid up the best fishing parcels, and have every incentive to improve the health and wellness of their parcel to increase its value.
@Michopsychology They would also be open to lawsuits from nearby owned ocean parcels. That would do a pretty good job of deterring somebody from polluting their water, as nearby waterspace owners would eventually find out and bring them to court. Technically, there is absolutely nothing that limits pollution of oceans right now besides the finger wagging of government, and often not even that.
In a catch share system, does a fisherman who does not fish get a share? Will the catch share system subsidize bad fishermen by good fishermen? Just askin.
@bingintheusa Not to my knowledge. If I understand correctly it is based off a percentage of usable resources. You keep what you catch, but the more you replenish the resource the more there is to catch. It's like how OPEC says you can only sell so much of your oil production. Problem there is that they cook the books making it seem like there is more so they can sell more. Either way it depends on openness and accountability to work.
People should try to own parts of the ocean so that they can manage the fish population themselves. Similar to the Coase Theorem. People will manage things better if there are property rights are established. The BP Oil Spill would be better managed had they been drilling in a part of the ocean that was privately owned. BP simply doesn't care much about cleaning the oil spill since they don't think they have much of an obligation for oceans owned by the commons.
@joepglass Actually, if you go to their website and do a search for "Gulf Oil spill", there are several articles about the spill. "The Making of an Oil Spill," "Fouling the Gulf---And Much More," and "Weighing the Benefits & Cost of Offshore Drilling." Those were among the first five results when I searched.
So, maybe you didn't spell "quiet" wrong and actually meant "quite."
@MooseOfReason I just found them aswell, thanks. Sorry for the typo, I do it all the time. I thought all of Reason's vlogs were being sent to me but I guess not. Sorry for the attack Reason!
You guys can sure make govt. regulation sound good when you want to. "The fish share method" = federal reserve of the sea when you follow it to its conclusion.
At first, I was skeptical of the "catch sharing" idea. Seemed pretty collectivist to me. But, after I thought about it, it made some sense. Fisheries cannot be expected to survive if we all just fish till our hearts content. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't like government control, but this is one thing that needs to be managed. The fishermen still have an incentive, just in a different way. Hell, there could even be market for the "shares".
The whale saving people need to take thier ships and hang out in North Korean waters and try stopping them from fishing. Lets see how dedicated they are to saving the oceans when their own lives are on the line. Creating a international fishing department is completly idiotic when we cannot even control what where and when nuclear weapons or drugs are going.
I'm confused about this video. It seems to be advocating less regulations and then advocates a different kind of regulation? Feel free to tell me if I'm right or wrong here.
Ideally, in a frictionless universe, we could privatize everything. But, the oceans are by nature "open". Thus, a compromise is needed. Rather than pursue total government regulation, they created a semi-private means of managing the resource.
Oh god.....This is the most pathetic Reason tv vid i've ever seen. Yeah, lets "Share" our catch...that doesn't sound like it should have a hammer and sickle as the logo.
(note sarcasm)
I love how all these enviro-freaks say everything is going to collapse in a "Matter of decades" our planet is going to be 110F with no fish or whales! And we will be under the water from all the melted polar ice! Give me a break.
@Twiggy269 There is a lot of alarmism out there in the environment corner. But if the scientists themselves say that they are worried and that the predictions are being matched or exceeded for climate change. Then you really need to listen to them, they don't say the word worry easily.
Btw, you're wrong on more than just this, the 1995 IPCC report that gave predictions for future weather is off tremendously, all predictions about temperature, ice melting, etc, are all off, there most certainly NOT being met, or exceeded. Sea levels are lowering, temps are cooling or remaining stable.
It was predominantly the media which was saying that, very few scientists said anything about cooling (note the word cooling, not ice age). A survey done by Peterson (2008) of peer reviewed papers from 1965 to 1979 found that 7 predicted cooling and 42 predicted global warming.
@CollinMaessen IPCC has several published reports, the 1995 one you mention is the second oldest. 2007 is the latest and the one I'm referring to.
If I only take sea level rise, and you claim sea levels have been dropping instead of rising, these are increasing along the upper range of the predictions by the IPCC. Please take a look at the report on the following website, where on page 37 they compare the sea level rise with the IPCC projections:
@CollinMaessen And about temperature. If you take a look at the latest graphs from NASA GISS you see that temperatures barely dropped (they levelled off) and are now rising again.
noaanews. noaa. gov/stories2010/20100415_marchstats. html (add ww at the front)
This is the reason they look at long periods (15 years+) for their projections and conclusions about climate change.
this is how we saved the American Bison after it was hunted to near extinction. People were allowed to own bison so they were protected and raised by their owners. In Africa, the natives were allowed to own the animals on their land. Guess when the poachers tried to take them, the villagers defended the animals because it was their property. Poachers didn't come back, populations exploded.
Once you let people own the animals, they have an incentive to protect and multiply them.
Right off the bat this video throws out oversimplifications and incorrect statements. The hunting of dolphins by Japan is NOT illegal and the dolphins they're hunting are not endangered. The whaling they do in the waters is technically legal as well since they are conducting their catches as scientific research (aimed towards the monitoring of whale species and eventual return to sustainable whaling). The minke whales are also not endangered in the least bit! This is mostly a cultural issue.
Keep in mind I'm not saying one side or the other is %100 right in this respect. The dolphin and whale meat does have the health-related issue of containing a large amount of mercury. However, the protesters don't seem to take a scientific route in their reasoning for the opposition. Most of what I see is like I said... oversimplification in the wrong-headed thinking that "all cetaceans" = "endangered"... also some mumbo-jumbo about whales being "graceful and magical creatures" or some crap.
about halfway through, i was all: hear the comes the "nutty" explanation of why. ( i am on youtube, and there are a ton of "lefties" on here.) then i remembered i was watching reason.tv. then was all: this is reason, it WILL make sense. then it came and i had a sigh of relief.....
Species going extinct has been happening looong before we came on the scene.
In the last 300 years Europe has made most of its large land mammals go extinct. Now we don't have to worry about some stupid aurochs running us down on the way to work. That is extinction working for us!
The catch-share solution recommended doesn't involve the provision of property rights, but the imposition of a superior system of government-run permits. Isn't that a statist as opposed to libertarian solution?
It does require less micro-management. You just have to check how many fish each fisherman brought when they get to the land, rather than measuring net sizes, speed of the boat, etc in surprise inspections. It also allows for more individual planning; fishermen are not forced to all go to the ocean when the govt says to.
So, I'd say it's a _more_ liberty-friendly solution.
@aidengregg It's more like a revision of an already statist system. But at least they showed the tragedy of the commons problem with the oceans. Personally I think that privatizing the oceans would keep fish populations in check and give the world a great new industry.
But, there is a practical limit to this problem, in that we cannot simply privatize the oceans. So, some compromise seems in order, and this at least respects the human nature component of a market based system.
@aidengregg Not really. Libertarianism is not the total absence of government it more the shrinking of government to its proper levels. The ocean that surrounds the US is under Federal jurisdiction so controlling how things are fished is something that the government has the proper authority to control.
This isn't on the same level as the government regulating salt in foods, or some of the other horse crap like that.
I agree with you that privatization sounds and would probably be a better solutions.
But there are some things you can't privatize: national ocean waters for example.
This reminds me of the irrigation share system out west. Sure, it's not a completely privatized system, but it's a good system that works to allow everyone enough water to grow crops.
To me, this would probably be the next best thing. And in a way, it is privatization: own a share, and you own a part of the whole.
Privatization would certainly be better, but at least this solution yields some positive results as well. Although I obviously support privatization, I'm also in support (to a lesser degree) of this solution, as it at least provides a good first step in the right direction.
@megagagnon1 That's because the bars, especially the hole in the wall places, are patronized by people who don't care about cleanliness as much as getting drunk. I've been in several bars with nice rest rooms.I would say that far more public restrooms are nasty than private restrooms, at least 90 percent of the time. Restrooms probably aren't the best example of the tragedy of the commons, as some public spaces do have cleaning staff. I would say a better example would be rainforest logging.
@aidengregg Yes, but in regards to natural resources which effect everyone, I think a government system run by the worlds top scientists in sustainable management is an appropriate solution.
@aidengregg I was thinking the same thing, but how do you define fish as property. Elephants were saved by property rights, they were owned, tracked, fenced, and protected instead of poached. But, you can't fence a fish. you could define sections of ocean as property, but you would not be able to control the in and out of the harvest.
@aidengregg That's because it conflicts with the social goal of conservation of fisheries. If left to the free market, fishing stocks will be depleted because the human population is continuing to grow and hence demand continues to grow while the fishing stock declines.
@aidengregg I don't remember ever hearing anyone at Reason claim that the libertarian platform should be applied universally. What do you see as more logical complete freedom coupled with drastic overfishing, or a proven system that promotes the repopulation of the oceans?
Actually, dolphins are pretty smart. They rival chimps. For example, they can recognize themselves in a mirror. Check out academic references on animal cognition. One book making a positive case for them is this:
indefenseofdolphins[dot]com
I don't agree with this author that dolphins are smart enough to have rights given that they are not so smart to have responsibilities. But they are relatively more deserving targets of moral concern, given their higher cognitive level.
The collapse of fisheries is a good thing. Economically, the message is: the commons is now completely ruined, go make some private property if you want to keep producing fish. So, it should give way to a whole new industry of aquaculture.
What pissed me off about that award is that FOOD INC. was shafted horribly. But no, we can't tell people about anything important, we have to unfairly judge Japanese people for killing fucking dolphins. THE ONLY REASON ANYBODY GIVES TWO FUCKS ABOUT DOLPHINS IS BECAUSE EVERYONE IS CONVINCED THEY'RE SO SMART. It's just not true. Reason is right here, if you let people farm animals their populations always increase. That's what brought the Bison back from certain doom, and I eat Bison all the time!
I agree with these protestors in their attempts to discourage people from consuming endangered whales. . . .however, I take issue wiht the greed assertion inasmuch as it sounds a bit too close to "Capitalism = Evil" and I fear that that may be what several of these folks truly feel. . .which is utter CRAP!
When ANYTHING immoral is done, profit is usually to blame? WOW! That guy sounds like a hardcore socialist. What ignorance! What profit was there being Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and all the other dictators and totalitarians killing people at will? Care to explain that, sir?
@whoo689 You've never heard Hitler talk about how the jews are ruining the economy and hording money? Almost every war comes down to economics. You think people are actually fighting wars for reasons of morality? Profit doesn't mean just over the counter exchanges of money. Maybe I'm just a stupid socialist. Ass.
@ryinski2 So basically Hitler was driven by a hatred of Jewish Capitalists. Not to mention, he put socialist goals ahead of the profit motive time and time again. There is a difference between wars being about economics and wars being about profit. Most things are about economics, but the point being made was that the profit motive alone leads to negative behaviors. Most of the people who voted for hitler put socialism above markets.
@ryinski2 You still haven't done a very good job of explaining how "profits" drove despotic regimes. You've done a good job of explaining how Hitler was anti captialist, anti libertarian, and anti freedom. True, you may find profits being made SOMEWHERE due to people doing bad things, but you'll usually find profit behind most widespread good things too. 90% of the good things that happen to me every day (such as my ability to eat and clothe myself) result thanks to profit motives.
@tkwelge Eat and clothe yourself?! Like this wouldn't happen in a system not based around profit? That's absurd. And I wasn't agreeing with the guy in the video, only disagreeing with how a generalizing comment was rebutted by a generalizing label of socialist. Profit and economics are not separate in my view, one is the micro, the other the macro. I don't believe the word profit has to mean monetary gain, it can be any gain. So yes, wars are about gain for one at the expense of another. Always.
@ryinski2 It might happen, but it would happen either by me having to feed and clothe myself by actually harvesting and weaving, or it would require some sort of organization compelling others to do these things for my benefit. Economics and profit surely are different, but related things. Economics is a social science and profit means a net gain over total costs. IN a loose sense EVERYTHING is about trying to achieve a net gain. I'm not sure what your point is.
@tkwelge Money is just a place holder for everything else that people want or need, whether money is used in the process is irrelevant. Wars and genocide etc. happen when group A feels that group B is a threat to what is "theirs". Call it greed instead of profit if that helps. The US doesn't get paid directly for killing Iraqis and taking their oil but there is prospective profitability in doing so. It's not direct profit but it absolutely turns into that. Money is a medium not a commodity.
@ryinski2 Okay, but you have made only a tenuous connection to the profit motive itself. People do indeed do things for the benefit of themselves. You are making such a meaningless point that it has been driven to the point of absurdity. Essentially your point is so bland that it simply amounts to "people do things because they are motivated to do things." I can't really disagree with you, but I fail to see the importance of you even mentioning these things.
@tkwelge You have yet to explain to me how the profit motive itself is behind "everything" evil. You have simply decided to define profit as anything that motivates people to do anything. I'm sorry, but the profit motive is actually something separate from other concepts of motivation.
And yes, money is a commodity. It has gains its value as a medium of exchange, but yes, it is still a commodity. Currencies change relative values to eachother and other commodities all of the time.
@whoo689 I'm not certain about your other references, but I can tell you many historians claim that Hitler started putting/starving/killing jews in concentration camps because there wasn't enough money to feed the German populous. it was an insane economic system developed by hitler which allowed this.
@tkwelge However, it is a good example of how ignorance (of the monetary system) could drive a man to become a mass murderer to protect their country. You're right that doesn't have to do with profit per se, but it addresses why it ultimately happened: Germany needed more money. Why are fisherman hunting dolphins and such? They need more money; government regulates the fish stocks so much that it has hurt business, and so they cleverly use other meat.
@2snipe1 They didn't need "more money" but more resources. Using violence to obtain goods and services doesn't count as obtaining "profit," as profit implies a voluntary exchange in which both individuals give up something that they desire less than what they obtain. The profit motive is the opposite of violence based obtainment of goods and services.
Personally, I'd hunt dolphins and such, because I don't care about them personally. I wonder if they are tasty...
Definition of "usually" aside, Hitler was beyond a shadow of a doubt profiting from his conquest. He expanded his rule into other countries. That alone gave him a significant boost in resources. Factor in killing Jews and his enemies and it all becomes clear. He wanted his group of people to benefit from tons of resources that wouldn't have to be shared with anyone else. Even if we don't look at the people he wanted around him, the man himself would've profited greatly.
@tkwelge You don't know what you're talking about. Profit has absolutely NOTHING to do with HOW it is obtained. Even going off it's basest dictionary definition, it's merely total earnings,less expenses. Nothing more. Try again.
It actually takes ENFORCEMENT....."Catch Share" is just Quota-based, and has already been shown (in "End of the line") that fishermen will blow off quotas....
The same way most drivers blow off speed limits, and set their own "natural speed limit".
Most environmentalists are trend-environmentalists, and only care about what's cool, regardless of the matter's science or economics, which is why they just protest sushi bars instead of push for new policies.
It's so stupid that the only reason they care about sea mammals is because they're cute. Sharks and plankton are more important to the ocean's eco system, but because plankton ain't sexy and because of Jaws, no one carres. If I had to choose between dolphins and sharks, fuck the dolphins.
About public bathrooms: actually the bathroom at the State Park where I went today was nice and clean, much more inviting than the bathroom at the gas station or a certain restaurant I've been to.
Well, that state park clean bathroom is probably a rarity. I've been to at least a few parks, and the bathrooms were kind of disgusting. Plus, gas stations don't actually have much incentive to keep their bathrooms that clean. For one thing, while they are privately-owned, most people who go to a gas station don't a) use the bathroom and b) could probably care less if it's not spic and span. They go for snacks, drinks, gasoline, etc. and clean bathroom is probably number 10 for them.
@SubmarinerAndroid As for that restaurant, it probably is just poorly managed, at least janitorially, and like with gas stations, you're going there for the main attraction (good hot food, in this case), not a bathroom. Hotels, OTOH, NEED to keep their bathrooms clean because no one wants to get a room with a dirty, smelly place to piss and shit. And the hotels know that if their bathrooms aren't up to par, word of mouth will go around, and their hotel quality ratings would probably fall.
Plus, with hotels, you have maids and staff cleaning that stuff I think everyday, which of course is why there are signs you can put on the door like "do not disturb" for your room. They especially clean soon after a customer checks out, I would imagine, so they're constantly cleaning.
But I would agree that completely public bathrooms, such as the communal bathroom in a public university (I went to mizzou for 4 years) are DISGUSTING much of the time.
@whoo689 The communal bathroom at the private university I transferred from wasn't much better. It had I think 10 or 20 stalls, and there so many toilets with piss n shit in them UNFLUSHED. Not only that, but some jackasses once shaved each other's heads near the sink, so there was a pile of hair near the door. And then 2nd semester, it turns out some douchebag kept shittin in the showers. I may have smelled it once or twice, but luckily I never saw it or went to that shower.
Public bathroom analogy? It reminds why I never used the public toilet, mainly because no one bothers to take care them seriously (particularly in public schools are my campus).
@ReasonTV How is the catch shares program NOT collectivist/communist economics?
If each fisherman is mandated by the government a certain percentage of the total catch allowed, isn't that just rationing and limiting not by merit and competition but by equality?
And what can fishermen do to grow the fish pop.?
Don't get me wrong - if it's economically sound for the fisherman AND good for the environment, I'm all for it. But I'm confused how this is specifically 'libertarian' economic policy.
@MikeEggleston It bothered me too. Fish catch shares is not a libertarian solution. Whether or not your allowable catch size will be increased would depend on the political climate when it comes to vote. The whole process of measuring to catching fish would eventually come under increasing scrutiny of legislators and be politicized. What is seems like is an effective regulatory mechanism to enforce quotas, something that up until now has failed.
@LionEatingMan
It is not true that Reason.tv dislikes any government regulation. Reason (and libertarians generally) approve of strong property rights, which (most but not all libertarians believe) requires government to enforce. Here they're just suggesting that a kind of property rights be applied to the sea as well.
calorion 4 months ago
HAIKU
I hatch! Crawl! And swim!
Oh how I love my sweet life,
Don't pollute my home.
—A Green Sea Turtle
StephanieLisaTara 5 months ago
Woo, I was scared that reason was going to offer some solution like, let the market work it out. I'm glad they offered this solution better. Its very clever, and works great in areas where no one can claim ownership, the seas. My state, Maryland, should look into this to boost its oyster population, which is at 1% of historical levels. Whales have better statistics than the MD oyster
Vegemighty 1 year ago
i have read Chris Costello's reports, and it has been widely circulated - but there are economists who dispute the "tragedy of the commons," and divorcing sustainable fisheries from coastal economies IS devastating to cultures that have been dependant on fishing and associated economies. Explain to me how sectors management reduces government oversight - fishermen must now submit to 3 TIMES the amount of regulatory management - hail in, hail out, monitors at sea, monitors at docks -
meritree 1 year ago
lolololololololol
whale sushi.
funkypieguy 1 year ago
shouldn't these people be working, you know, at a job?
thedongerknowsall 1 year ago
if dolphins were ugly would it be ok?
thedongerknowsall 1 year ago
No one owns the oceans so they are abused?? - answer - let MONSANTO OWN THE OCEANS - then fish can be patented and barcoded and Monsanto can charge you for looking at the ocean and being near it - sell shares of the ocean and float the ocean on the fte and assdac bla bla fuckin shit- SHIT - LEAVE MOTHER EARTH ALONE!
mooners40 1 year ago
Good work. Now make a new video so we can get government out of this CO2 and Carbon credit scam.
Crime, Inc.!
Alvin691 1 year ago
interesting to compare public toilets and the ocean!
kulturfenster 1 year ago
@Michopsychology I was speaking geographically about ownership. The idea would be to maintain and protect a specific area of the sea to encourage fish populations in the area. Yes, fish populations shift, just as some fields have good and bad crops from year to year.
tkwelge 1 year ago
What we need in all areas of conservation is for resources to be managed by Professionals, not politicians or environmental wackos. Case in point - the wackos won't allow forests to be managed intelligently. They insist on a hands off approach when responsible management calls for clearing underbrush and dead wood to prevent wildfires.
averagejoe040 1 year ago
@averagejoe040 For that to happen all world governments would have to agree to lease vast tracts of ocean to private owners like they do with land. Right now the waters are "owned" by whatever country they're closest to within a certain distance, everything else is "international waters".
sedatedlife18 1 year ago
@sedatedlife18 I agree. That lease scheme may be a way to get someone besides government to manage fisheries. As the vid pointed out, there has been some success along this line. I really don't believe that will solve the whole problem. I honestly do not know what can solve this problem. There has to be some sort of economic incentive to behave responsibly. At present there is an economic incentive to do the opposite.
averagejoe040 1 year ago
I am not in favor of government controls. Like the guy said. "The more government control, the worse the management". Nevertheless, this vid makes a very valid argument that some kind of management is needed.
averagejoe040 1 year ago
Maybe more places should institute in-situ conservation that actually helps fish populations without any government control. If more people treated fish like livestock and reared them in specialized farms while, there would be more oceanic fish left AND any egg runoff will help to repopulate the oceans. This has done wonders in New Zealand.
Thebboss 1 year ago
Great video
NevadaPolicyRI 1 year ago
The answer is simple; Not more Government, more private ownership... of the Oceans. Other than the fact that they're wet, how are they different from any other property?
ResonTV Fail.
VerbotenDingleberry 1 year ago
Not to mention that the scientists are very disingenuous with their science. "Warmest decade in 600 years" is what they say about the 2000-2010. Gee, I wonder why they say 600 years....maybe because that was the beginning of the little ice age? And it was as warm or warmer in the mid evil warm period as it is right now?
But hey, maybe the mid evil warm period was due to man made camp fires right? Do some real research before you try and talk to me about this crap Collin
Twiggy269 1 year ago
@Twiggy269 Please source your claims and quotes so I can follow up.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen
watch?v=1aubZlRnIxI
this is a vid link to a lecture given by Sallie Baliunas about greenhouse gas theory, it is one of many many lectures given by prominent scientists about man made climate change.
watch?v=NMc8XRw226A
This is a lecture given by John Christy a scientist that was part of the IPCC, about satallite records and temperature change.
This is 2 hours worth of information for you to absorb. But I doubt you'll even bother.
Twiggy269 1 year ago
@Twiggy269
In these 2 vids, it gives evidence to support my previous statements, if you'd rather, I'll simply pull quotes from the material, so you don't have to watch it, but I suggest you do.
Also, if you have lectures or material you'd like me to look into, I'd be happy. I'll be taking a look at the previously linked material in your posts. I enjoy vigorous debate, but usually I find people on the other side, are unwilling to engage because of dogmatic beliefs.
Twiggy269 1 year ago
@Twiggy269 Give me till Saturday/Sunday for my response, will be away most of Friday and part of Saturday.
However, doing a preliminary search on Sallie Baliunas I found out she's connected to Willy Soon and made the following statement (wikipedia):
satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years
Which isn't true, you just have to take a look at the published temperature records.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Twiggy269 Give me till Saturday/Sunday for my response, will be away most of Friday and part of Saturday.
However, doing a preliminary search on Sallie Baliunas I found out she's connected to Willy Soon and made the following statement (wikipedia):
satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years
Which isn't true, you just have to take a look at the published temperature records.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen John Christy is also a bit dubious as he made the following statement (wikipedia):
nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.
Which also isn't true (if you want I can give a short rundown on why we know this, takes about 5 posts...).
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen So I'm a bit sceptic about your sources but I'll see in how far they are correct. Btw, could you provide timestamps for when they make their points that support the argument you are making here?
And also, please do not presume to know how I would act. I do follow up on peoples claims.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@Twiggy269 I just watched them and I have no idea where to start. There are so many errors and misrepresentations in those two presentations...
Like Sallie Baliuna using one temperature record from the sargasso sea and saying look it was warmer then, and comparing it to a worldwide temperature record...
Or the quote mine John Christy used for his argument that scientists predicted an ice age:
a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen The report just said it could happen, they never said what kind of chance there is, just that the possibility exists. Making predictions wasn't even the goal of the document.
(for the full excerpt he qoute mined and the explanation see the following page and go to appendix a: ossfoundation. us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-cooling )
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
Why didn't ReasonTV question the validity of the assertions that the oceans are running out fish? And privatization... That seems to be Reason's de facto response to any situation. We get it already, everything must be owned in your eyes. It's starting to seem like a cop-out rather than a valid response.
It seems odd to me that Reason has completely disregarded multiple, high-level Second Amendment issues which have been heading to trial. I'm starting to question that "Libertarian" title.
KyleOutrage 1 year ago
I'm honestly a little confused. Doesn't reason TV dislike any government regulation? Why are they arguing for a different kind of government regulation?
LionEatingMan 1 year ago 6
@LionEatingMan I'm honestly confused by your comment. I was under the impression that ReasonTV dislikes illogical solutions to practical problems. I agree that if it's what works then why would we push for a system of all out freedom with obvious dire consequences?
sedatedlife18 1 year ago
Reason has turned into a bunch of statists. You argue against one form of government intervention in favor of another. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Who cares if species of fish go extinct, survival of the fittest is what makes this world great.
Koba1t 1 year ago
@LionEatingMan
i get what your saying but we need some form of governance. we just have to find the right law or regulation and if this will work then its great. that means there will be fishing for years to come. As a hunter i welcome this. i don't know much about the way Sea Fishing is governed but if this will work better than the current then so be it. its not all about jobs, i mean without fish this people will be out of a job any way
8LowRider2 1 year ago
@LionEatingMan
They explained that, because nobody owns it, therefore everyone decides they do. If you can distribute the resources of the ocean to each who use it, therefore they will take better care of it. Putting limits on the overall yield is the only way to keep the replenishing resources up. It would be a difficult task to privatize a section of Ocean. How are you going to police your waters? How are you going to mark it? How would you know if someone uses your claim, and if so, prove it
Rayvok 1 year ago
They're arguing for a different type of regulation.
Obviously they (and I) would like to see this happen on a total market with non-state regulatory agencies, but presupposing a state - this is better.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@Michopsychology Why would somebody overfish their parcel, as your example presupposes? Also, fish and seafood tends to travel, so people would bid up the best fishing parcels, and have every incentive to improve the health and wellness of their parcel to increase its value.
tkwelge 1 year ago
blaming greed is like blaming gravity for a plane crash
no animal under the commercial ownership of people has gone extinct
ForTehNguyen 1 year ago
Great report.
anarchylogic 1 year ago
Fisheries problem is indeed the tragedy of commons. Privatise the oceans!
rumco 1 year ago
I thought this was going to be about the BP oil spill.
El3ctricPenguin 1 year ago
@Michopsychology They would also be open to lawsuits from nearby owned ocean parcels. That would do a pretty good job of deterring somebody from polluting their water, as nearby waterspace owners would eventually find out and bring them to court. Technically, there is absolutely nothing that limits pollution of oceans right now besides the finger wagging of government, and often not even that.
tkwelge 1 year ago
I have been waiting to see something on this issue for a long time.
Wormtail81 1 year ago
In a catch share system, does a fisherman who does not fish get a share? Will the catch share system subsidize bad fishermen by good fishermen? Just askin.
bingintheusa 1 year ago
@bingintheusa Not to my knowledge. If I understand correctly it is based off a percentage of usable resources. You keep what you catch, but the more you replenish the resource the more there is to catch. It's like how OPEC says you can only sell so much of your oil production. Problem there is that they cook the books making it seem like there is more so they can sell more. Either way it depends on openness and accountability to work.
ryinski2 1 year ago
People should try to own parts of the ocean so that they can manage the fish population themselves. Similar to the Coase Theorem. People will manage things better if there are property rights are established. The BP Oil Spill would be better managed had they been drilling in a part of the ocean that was privately owned. BP simply doesn't care much about cleaning the oil spill since they don't think they have much of an obligation for oceans owned by the commons.
BloodiCheeseCake 1 year ago
If you're using a Brad Sucks song, I think 'Certain Death' would've been a better choice for this video.
Hehe.
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
I love how quite Reason has been during the oil spill.
joepglass 1 year ago
Comment removed
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@joepglass Actually, if you go to their website and do a search for "Gulf Oil spill", there are several articles about the spill. "The Making of an Oil Spill," "Fouling the Gulf---And Much More," and "Weighing the Benefits & Cost of Offshore Drilling." Those were among the first five results when I searched.
So, maybe you didn't spell "quiet" wrong and actually meant "quite."
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason I just found them aswell, thanks. Sorry for the typo, I do it all the time. I thought all of Reason's vlogs were being sent to me but I guess not. Sorry for the attack Reason!
joepglass 1 year ago
You guys can sure make govt. regulation sound good when you want to. "The fish share method" = federal reserve of the sea when you follow it to its conclusion.
Vlaxitov 1 year ago
"Privatise the elephant" Daniel Hannan :
watch?v=QouamYWL6vc
mrHasaf 1 year ago
At first, I was skeptical of the "catch sharing" idea. Seemed pretty collectivist to me. But, after I thought about it, it made some sense. Fisheries cannot be expected to survive if we all just fish till our hearts content. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I don't like government control, but this is one thing that needs to be managed. The fishermen still have an incentive, just in a different way. Hell, there could even be market for the "shares".
renegade2142 1 year ago
The whale saving people need to take thier ships and hang out in North Korean waters and try stopping them from fishing. Lets see how dedicated they are to saving the oceans when their own lives are on the line. Creating a international fishing department is completly idiotic when we cannot even control what where and when nuclear weapons or drugs are going.
TheStrazy 1 year ago
I'm confused about this video. It seems to be advocating less regulations and then advocates a different kind of regulation? Feel free to tell me if I'm right or wrong here.
ObjectivistAesthetic 1 year ago
@ObjectivistAesthetic
Ideally, in a frictionless universe, we could privatize everything. But, the oceans are by nature "open". Thus, a compromise is needed. Rather than pursue total government regulation, they created a semi-private means of managing the resource.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
WE ARE RAPING THE OCEAN OH SHIT
DMWestWoodElite 1 year ago
Oh god.....This is the most pathetic Reason tv vid i've ever seen. Yeah, lets "Share" our catch...that doesn't sound like it should have a hammer and sickle as the logo.
(note sarcasm)
I love how all these enviro-freaks say everything is going to collapse in a "Matter of decades" our planet is going to be 110F with no fish or whales! And we will be under the water from all the melted polar ice! Give me a break.
Twiggy269 1 year ago
@Twiggy269 There is a lot of alarmism out there in the environment corner. But if the scientists themselves say that they are worried and that the predictions are being matched or exceeded for climate change. Then you really need to listen to them, they don't say the word worry easily.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen
If reason is telling us this, then it's probably a sincere problem.
chaz706 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "they don't say the word worry easily. "
Really? So they weren't "Worried" about a global ice age in the 70's?
h-t-t-p-://denisdutton.c-o-m-/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Btw, you're wrong on more than just this, the 1995 IPCC report that gave predictions for future weather is off tremendously, all predictions about temperature, ice melting, etc, are all off, there most certainly NOT being met, or exceeded. Sea levels are lowering, temps are cooling or remaining stable.
Twiggy269 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Twiggy269 Oh come one not that one again.
It was predominantly the media which was saying that, very few scientists said anything about cooling (note the word cooling, not ice age). A survey done by Peterson (2008) of peer reviewed papers from 1965 to 1979 found that 7 predicted cooling and 42 predicted global warming.
Here's the study if you want to read it yourself:
ams. confex. com/ams/pdfpapers/131047. pdf
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen IPCC has several published reports, the 1995 one you mention is the second oldest. 2007 is the latest and the one I'm referring to.
If I only take sea level rise, and you claim sea levels have been dropping instead of rising, these are increasing along the upper range of the predictions by the IPCC. Please take a look at the report on the following website, where on page 37 they compare the sea level rise with the IPCC projections:
copenhagendiagnosis. com
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen And about temperature. If you take a look at the latest graphs from NASA GISS you see that temperatures barely dropped (they levelled off) and are now rising again.
noaanews. noaa. gov/stories2010/20100415_marchstats. html (add ww at the front)
This is the reason they look at long periods (15 years+) for their projections and conclusions about climate change.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
this is how we saved the American Bison after it was hunted to near extinction. People were allowed to own bison so they were protected and raised by their owners. In Africa, the natives were allowed to own the animals on their land. Guess when the poachers tried to take them, the villagers defended the animals because it was their property. Poachers didn't come back, populations exploded.
Once you let people own the animals, they have an incentive to protect and multiply them.
ForTehNguyen 1 year ago
good luck trying to change Japanese culture
ForTehNguyen 1 year ago
Comment removed
ibeatupbigbird24 1 year ago
most speices which have ever lived are now gone why dose it matter if whales or dolphines join them.
AborttheBabies 1 year ago
Right off the bat this video throws out oversimplifications and incorrect statements. The hunting of dolphins by Japan is NOT illegal and the dolphins they're hunting are not endangered. The whaling they do in the waters is technically legal as well since they are conducting their catches as scientific research (aimed towards the monitoring of whale species and eventual return to sustainable whaling). The minke whales are also not endangered in the least bit! This is mostly a cultural issue.
Duckhugger 1 year ago
Keep in mind I'm not saying one side or the other is %100 right in this respect. The dolphin and whale meat does have the health-related issue of containing a large amount of mercury. However, the protesters don't seem to take a scientific route in their reasoning for the opposition. Most of what I see is like I said... oversimplification in the wrong-headed thinking that "all cetaceans" = "endangered"... also some mumbo-jumbo about whales being "graceful and magical creatures" or some crap.
Duckhugger 1 year ago
@Duckhugger I agree with you. The second i read "Illegal dolphin hunting" I stopped watching altogether.
This may be informative (and maybe even truthful) but to be associated with the filmmakers of the cove removes all credibility instantly
saneideas 1 year ago
about halfway through, i was all: hear the comes the "nutty" explanation of why. ( i am on youtube, and there are a ton of "lefties" on here.) then i remembered i was watching reason.tv. then was all: this is reason, it WILL make sense. then it came and i had a sigh of relief.....
scalp340 1 year ago
Stop killing the dino-fish!
1974cpdmm 1 year ago
Quotas are part of what destroyed the Newfoundland cod stocks. The Ostrom approach is much more appealing, I think.
nightpotato 1 year ago
Hummm dolphin!
Species going extinct has been happening looong before we came on the scene.
In the last 300 years Europe has made most of its large land mammals go extinct. Now we don't have to worry about some stupid aurochs running us down on the way to work. That is extinction working for us!
XCritonX 1 year ago
The catch-share solution recommended doesn't involve the provision of property rights, but the imposition of a superior system of government-run permits. Isn't that a statist as opposed to libertarian solution?
aidengregg 1 year ago 31
@aidengregg
It does require less micro-management. You just have to check how many fish each fisherman brought when they get to the land, rather than measuring net sizes, speed of the boat, etc in surprise inspections. It also allows for more individual planning; fishermen are not forced to all go to the ocean when the govt says to.
So, I'd say it's a _more_ liberty-friendly solution.
picapauengracado 1 year ago
@aidengregg It's more like a revision of an already statist system. But at least they showed the tragedy of the commons problem with the oceans. Personally I think that privatizing the oceans would keep fish populations in check and give the world a great new industry.
Syncdev 1 year ago
@aidengregg
Agreed.
Private Property Rights > catch-share
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@aidengregg Idealistically, you are correct.
But, there is a practical limit to this problem, in that we cannot simply privatize the oceans. So, some compromise seems in order, and this at least respects the human nature component of a market based system.
RogerOnTheRight 1 year ago
@aidengregg Good point. But then again, what would the alternative be? A corporation owning the ocean?
JBSauce 1 year ago
@aidengregg Not really. Libertarianism is not the total absence of government it more the shrinking of government to its proper levels. The ocean that surrounds the US is under Federal jurisdiction so controlling how things are fished is something that the government has the proper authority to control.
This isn't on the same level as the government regulating salt in foods, or some of the other horse crap like that.
jeperosonal 1 year ago
@aidengregg
I agree with you that privatization sounds and would probably be a better solutions.
But there are some things you can't privatize: national ocean waters for example.
This reminds me of the irrigation share system out west. Sure, it's not a completely privatized system, but it's a good system that works to allow everyone enough water to grow crops.
To me, this would probably be the next best thing. And in a way, it is privatization: own a share, and you own a part of the whole.
chaz706 1 year ago
@aidengregg
Privatization would certainly be better, but at least this solution yields some positive results as well. Although I obviously support privatization, I'm also in support (to a lesser degree) of this solution, as it at least provides a good first step in the right direction.
KagarBeardtooth 1 year ago 6
@KagarBeardtooth He's wrong about the privately owned toilets - lots of hole-in-the-wall bars with skuzzy restrooms - privately owned.
megagagnon1 1 year ago
@megagagnon1 That's because the bars, especially the hole in the wall places, are patronized by people who don't care about cleanliness as much as getting drunk. I've been in several bars with nice rest rooms.I would say that far more public restrooms are nasty than private restrooms, at least 90 percent of the time. Restrooms probably aren't the best example of the tragedy of the commons, as some public spaces do have cleaning staff. I would say a better example would be rainforest logging.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Comment removed
tkwelge 1 year ago
Comment removed
tkwelge 1 year ago
@aidengregg Yes, but in regards to natural resources which effect everyone, I think a government system run by the worlds top scientists in sustainable management is an appropriate solution.
It's better than the current system.
PluripotentBrain 1 year ago
@aidengregg I was thinking the same thing, but how do you define fish as property. Elephants were saved by property rights, they were owned, tracked, fenced, and protected instead of poached. But, you can't fence a fish. you could define sections of ocean as property, but you would not be able to control the in and out of the harvest.
TmanWdaPlan 1 year ago
@aidengregg That's because it conflicts with the social goal of conservation of fisheries. If left to the free market, fishing stocks will be depleted because the human population is continuing to grow and hence demand continues to grow while the fishing stock declines.
PLooBzor 1 year ago
@aidengregg Sure sounds that way to me. It reminded me specifically of Marx's ideas.
AlexanderLee1 1 year ago
@aidengregg I don't remember ever hearing anyone at Reason claim that the libertarian platform should be applied universally. What do you see as more logical complete freedom coupled with drastic overfishing, or a proven system that promotes the repopulation of the oceans?
sedatedlife18 1 year ago
Comment removed
aidengregg 1 year ago
@ Garboth
Actually, dolphins are pretty smart. They rival chimps. For example, they can recognize themselves in a mirror. Check out academic references on animal cognition. One book making a positive case for them is this:
indefenseofdolphins[dot]com
I don't agree with this author that dolphins are smart enough to have rights given that they are not so smart to have responsibilities. But they are relatively more deserving targets of moral concern, given their higher cognitive level.
aidengregg 1 year ago
The collapse of fisheries is a good thing. Economically, the message is: the commons is now completely ruined, go make some private property if you want to keep producing fish. So, it should give way to a whole new industry of aquaculture.
Individualism101 1 year ago
Great Job as always Ted. :-)
samlowrey63 1 year ago
What pissed me off about that award is that FOOD INC. was shafted horribly. But no, we can't tell people about anything important, we have to unfairly judge Japanese people for killing fucking dolphins. THE ONLY REASON ANYBODY GIVES TWO FUCKS ABOUT DOLPHINS IS BECAUSE EVERYONE IS CONVINCED THEY'RE SO SMART. It's just not true. Reason is right here, if you let people farm animals their populations always increase. That's what brought the Bison back from certain doom, and I eat Bison all the time!
Garboth 1 year ago
I agree with these protestors in their attempts to discourage people from consuming endangered whales. . . .however, I take issue wiht the greed assertion inasmuch as it sounds a bit too close to "Capitalism = Evil" and I fear that that may be what several of these folks truly feel. . .which is utter CRAP!
ironbuttermilk 1 year ago
Excellent video, great channel.
603881 1 year ago
When ANYTHING immoral is done, profit is usually to blame? WOW! That guy sounds like a hardcore socialist. What ignorance! What profit was there being Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and all the other dictators and totalitarians killing people at will? Care to explain that, sir?
whoo689 1 year ago 21
Btw, isn't "tragedy of the commons" an originally economic term? I haven't heard many scientists using it lately.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 You've never heard Hitler talk about how the jews are ruining the economy and hording money? Almost every war comes down to economics. You think people are actually fighting wars for reasons of morality? Profit doesn't mean just over the counter exchanges of money. Maybe I'm just a stupid socialist. Ass.
ryinski2 1 year ago
@ryinski2 So basically Hitler was driven by a hatred of Jewish Capitalists. Not to mention, he put socialist goals ahead of the profit motive time and time again. There is a difference between wars being about economics and wars being about profit. Most things are about economics, but the point being made was that the profit motive alone leads to negative behaviors. Most of the people who voted for hitler put socialism above markets.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@ryinski2 You still haven't done a very good job of explaining how "profits" drove despotic regimes. You've done a good job of explaining how Hitler was anti captialist, anti libertarian, and anti freedom. True, you may find profits being made SOMEWHERE due to people doing bad things, but you'll usually find profit behind most widespread good things too. 90% of the good things that happen to me every day (such as my ability to eat and clothe myself) result thanks to profit motives.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge Eat and clothe yourself?! Like this wouldn't happen in a system not based around profit? That's absurd. And I wasn't agreeing with the guy in the video, only disagreeing with how a generalizing comment was rebutted by a generalizing label of socialist. Profit and economics are not separate in my view, one is the micro, the other the macro. I don't believe the word profit has to mean monetary gain, it can be any gain. So yes, wars are about gain for one at the expense of another. Always.
ryinski2 1 year ago
@ryinski2 It might happen, but it would happen either by me having to feed and clothe myself by actually harvesting and weaving, or it would require some sort of organization compelling others to do these things for my benefit. Economics and profit surely are different, but related things. Economics is a social science and profit means a net gain over total costs. IN a loose sense EVERYTHING is about trying to achieve a net gain. I'm not sure what your point is.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge Money is just a place holder for everything else that people want or need, whether money is used in the process is irrelevant. Wars and genocide etc. happen when group A feels that group B is a threat to what is "theirs". Call it greed instead of profit if that helps. The US doesn't get paid directly for killing Iraqis and taking their oil but there is prospective profitability in doing so. It's not direct profit but it absolutely turns into that. Money is a medium not a commodity.
ryinski2 1 year ago
@ryinski2 Okay, but you have made only a tenuous connection to the profit motive itself. People do indeed do things for the benefit of themselves. You are making such a meaningless point that it has been driven to the point of absurdity. Essentially your point is so bland that it simply amounts to "people do things because they are motivated to do things." I can't really disagree with you, but I fail to see the importance of you even mentioning these things.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge You have yet to explain to me how the profit motive itself is behind "everything" evil. You have simply decided to define profit as anything that motivates people to do anything. I'm sorry, but the profit motive is actually something separate from other concepts of motivation.
And yes, money is a commodity. It has gains its value as a medium of exchange, but yes, it is still a commodity. Currencies change relative values to eachother and other commodities all of the time.
tkwelge 1 year ago
Comment removed
tkwelge 1 year ago
Comment removed
tkwelge 1 year ago
@whoo689 I'm not certain about your other references, but I can tell you many historians claim that Hitler started putting/starving/killing jews in concentration camps because there wasn't enough money to feed the German populous. it was an insane economic system developed by hitler which allowed this.
2snipe1 1 year ago
@2snipe1 That is not a good explanation of how "profits" where what drove hitler to be a mass murderer.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge where should be were, sorry
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge However, it is a good example of how ignorance (of the monetary system) could drive a man to become a mass murderer to protect their country. You're right that doesn't have to do with profit per se, but it addresses why it ultimately happened: Germany needed more money. Why are fisherman hunting dolphins and such? They need more money; government regulates the fish stocks so much that it has hurt business, and so they cleverly use other meat.
2snipe1 1 year ago
@2snipe1 They didn't need "more money" but more resources. Using violence to obtain goods and services doesn't count as obtaining "profit," as profit implies a voluntary exchange in which both individuals give up something that they desire less than what they obtain. The profit motive is the opposite of violence based obtainment of goods and services.
Personally, I'd hunt dolphins and such, because I don't care about them personally. I wonder if they are tasty...
tkwelge 1 year ago
@whoo689 There is profit from socialism - profit of power.
michaelseemstobecool 1 year ago
@whoo689
Definition of "usually" aside, Hitler was beyond a shadow of a doubt profiting from his conquest. He expanded his rule into other countries. That alone gave him a significant boost in resources. Factor in killing Jews and his enemies and it all becomes clear. He wanted his group of people to benefit from tons of resources that wouldn't have to be shared with anyone else. Even if we don't look at the people he wanted around him, the man himself would've profited greatly.
VOTERindependent 1 year ago
@whoo689 One could make the argument that the "profit" in your example would be power. Power over their subordinates,subjects,serfs',etc.
cstrand31 1 year ago
@cstrand31 Profit is only obtained through voluntary exchange. Theft is violence, not profit.
tkwelge 1 year ago
@tkwelge You don't know what you're talking about. Profit has absolutely NOTHING to do with HOW it is obtained. Even going off it's basest dictionary definition, it's merely total earnings,less expenses. Nothing more. Try again.
cstrand31 1 year ago
@whoo689 The profit was that Mao and Hitler made a lot of money. That is called profit.
LionEatingMan 1 year ago
@whoo689 No kidding, its California what do you expect?
bittergunowner12 1 year ago
@whoo689
did you intentionally read over the word "usually"? The man makes a fair point
vinoberg 1 year ago
It actually takes ENFORCEMENT....."Catch Share" is just Quota-based, and has already been shown (in "End of the line") that fishermen will blow off quotas....
The same way most drivers blow off speed limits, and set their own "natural speed limit".
UnderseaCaveman 1 year ago
@Michopsychology
I'm done. Feel free to think about it yourself.
Ksabrs45 1 year ago
Fish farms, anyone?
Morrakiu 1 year ago
Most environmentalists are trend-environmentalists, and only care about what's cool, regardless of the matter's science or economics, which is why they just protest sushi bars instead of push for new policies.
It's so stupid that the only reason they care about sea mammals is because they're cute. Sharks and plankton are more important to the ocean's eco system, but because plankton ain't sexy and because of Jaws, no one carres. If I had to choose between dolphins and sharks, fuck the dolphins.
AshillaBeige 1 year ago
@Michopsychology
My guess is ostracism and black balling by local fishing associations and "Plot Owner Associations".
What is stopping this from happening now?
Ksabrs45 1 year ago
About public bathrooms: actually the bathroom at the State Park where I went today was nice and clean, much more inviting than the bathroom at the gas station or a certain restaurant I've been to.
SubmarinerAndroid 1 year ago
Well, that state park clean bathroom is probably a rarity. I've been to at least a few parks, and the bathrooms were kind of disgusting. Plus, gas stations don't actually have much incentive to keep their bathrooms that clean. For one thing, while they are privately-owned, most people who go to a gas station don't a) use the bathroom and b) could probably care less if it's not spic and span. They go for snacks, drinks, gasoline, etc. and clean bathroom is probably number 10 for them.
whoo689 1 year ago
@SubmarinerAndroid As for that restaurant, it probably is just poorly managed, at least janitorially, and like with gas stations, you're going there for the main attraction (good hot food, in this case), not a bathroom. Hotels, OTOH, NEED to keep their bathrooms clean because no one wants to get a room with a dirty, smelly place to piss and shit. And the hotels know that if their bathrooms aren't up to par, word of mouth will go around, and their hotel quality ratings would probably fall.
whoo689 1 year ago
Plus, with hotels, you have maids and staff cleaning that stuff I think everyday, which of course is why there are signs you can put on the door like "do not disturb" for your room. They especially clean soon after a customer checks out, I would imagine, so they're constantly cleaning.
But I would agree that completely public bathrooms, such as the communal bathroom in a public university (I went to mizzou for 4 years) are DISGUSTING much of the time.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 The communal bathroom at the private university I transferred from wasn't much better. It had I think 10 or 20 stalls, and there so many toilets with piss n shit in them UNFLUSHED. Not only that, but some jackasses once shaved each other's heads near the sink, so there was a pile of hair near the door. And then 2nd semester, it turns out some douchebag kept shittin in the showers. I may have smelled it once or twice, but luckily I never saw it or went to that shower.
whoo689 1 year ago
Yeah I'm with the previous commentators. Why not just use GPS markers to privatize water ways and fisheries?
Ksabrs45 1 year ago 2
Public bathroom analogy? It reminds why I never used the public toilet, mainly because no one bothers to take care them seriously (particularly in public schools are my campus).
Dpaladinx 1 year ago
@ReasonTV How is the catch shares program NOT collectivist/communist economics?
If each fisherman is mandated by the government a certain percentage of the total catch allowed, isn't that just rationing and limiting not by merit and competition but by equality?
And what can fishermen do to grow the fish pop.?
Don't get me wrong - if it's economically sound for the fisherman AND good for the environment, I'm all for it. But I'm confused how this is specifically 'libertarian' economic policy.
MikeEggleston 1 year ago
@MikeEggleston It bothered me too. Fish catch shares is not a libertarian solution. Whether or not your allowable catch size will be increased would depend on the political climate when it comes to vote. The whole process of measuring to catching fish would eventually come under increasing scrutiny of legislators and be politicized. What is seems like is an effective regulatory mechanism to enforce quotas, something that up until now has failed.
82abhilash 1 year ago 3
how do they determine your share of the catch?
anryth 1 year ago
@anryth
I'm sure that depends on how many campaign contributions were made by the fishermen.
KagarBeardtooth 1 year ago