Save the Bluefin Tuna With Property Rights
My article yesterday at Mises.org. BTW lately my articles have benefited from the customized artwork of Evan Wondolowski. An excerpt:
Over the past two weeks, National Public Radio (NPR) has carried stories on the plight of the bluefin tuna and on the conservation campaign designed to save the endangered fish. Restaurants and supermarket chains have pledged to boycott the delectable creature until governments lower fishing quotas. Some vocal fishermen naturally oppose reductions in their quotas, because this would hurt their livelihood.
The whole episode is just another demonstration of the conflict that arises whenever government regulation tries to solve a problem caused by a lack of property rights. If people owned portions of the ocean, then the bluefin tuna would become as ubiquitous as cattle.
Property rights are great, but who really gets to determine what is who’s. Where does the ownership of property come from? The ocean can’t be auctioned off because that would imply that it is owned in the first place. A government certainly doesn’t own it and neither does an individual. When it comes to land, ownership cannot really be determined unless forceful takeover is an accepted method of deciding ownership.
Nobody seems to address this issue. It is assumed that either the government assumes the moral role of protecting the environment by regulating the commons, or that the free market assumes the moral role by assigning property rights to every plot of land. If both options have immorality in them then either the lesser of two evils has to be chosen or there is another option. I’d say that the other option is unfacilitated cooperation. It has its drawback but it isn’t inherently immoral, rather it is simply difficult.
Property rights are determined by the Lockean homesteading principle. If the government willingly stepped aside then property rights would be determined by the person who could show that he was the first to put labor and ocean to use. It isn’t immoral to have property rights as long as it isn’t taken through force. If property rights are determined through the Lockean homesteading principle then it violates nobodies rights. This is one of the most addressed issues of Austrian economists. Libertarianism rests on this principle.
You can’t say that property rights are great and then proceed to say why you believe property rights should not exist. I mean you just made the argument that rather than having property rights we should have unfacilitated cooperation? What does that even mean? Nobody owns any land? Sounds like socialism to me. I think you would agree with the libertarians on property rights but just haven’t read their theory on where those rights derive from.
Socialism implies that there is government in control of property rather than nobody in control of property. A lack of ownership by an individual does not imply that socialism exists.
I have not read the Lockean homesteading principle. I’ll look in to that.
How would you propose a system of no ownership of property by anyone would work. How do you overcome the Tragedy of the Commons problem that was the main theme of the article?
Well, that is the ultimate question isn’t it? I don’t think that the ultimate solution to this problem is in a system of any kind. The answer ultimately will lie outside of politics and economics.
Libertarians are quick to say that every problem in the world could be solved with property rights. While they are usually right in their critics of the status quo, they don’t take enough time to talk about the difficulties of their proposed solutions.
First of all, how do you manage to transfer the ocean into private ownership? Can I just ram my flag into the … ground(?) ? Could I charge ships that want to cross my portion of the ocean? And why would that be legitimate? After all, an owner of a private street built that street and maintains it. Without him, there would be no street. But even without an ocean owner there would still be an ocean.
An why would I stop overfishing Tuna if I owned a portion of the ocean? I would just try to fish as many as possible before they swim into someone else’s water.
I think the almost god-like belief that every problem in the world could be solved with private property rights is just as wrong as the belief that the state will fix everything.
The government controls the oceans now so they could auction it off just like they auction off any property.
Yes you could charge ships that want to come on to your property. The owners would likely hire fisherman to farm their section of ocean, or do it themselves, and would have an incentive to make sure a crop was available for the following year. It would be legitimate to charge to enter their property the same way it is legitimate to make someone buy a ticket to go into a movie theater. It is their property and they have the right to exclude entry or charge a fee to enter. That doesn’t mean this would be how it would play out as there would be an incentive by the owners to allow each other easy passage. The point is that it is up to the entrepreneur to decide what is the most efficient way to operate their property. If they are efficient they will make a profit and if they are not they will lose and eventually go out of business.
We can’t determine exactly how a free market would operate in a privatized ocean in advance. That is left to the profit and losses of business to determine. The government has no profit and loss system to guide their actions. They are planning blind.
Libertarians have taken time to talk about the difficulties of there proposals but it does require studying what they have to say. Walter Block is usually great on explaining these issues. I think I heard he is going to be writing a book on the matter. Here is a short pdf on this very topic by him.
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/waterprivate.pdf
Well, there could just be the private ownership of fishing rights, with all ships not fishing in a privately held property allowed to pass free of charge.
I do take some issue with your apparent assumption that governments are necessarily planning blind without P&L, and even that they have to lack the latter.
There are some things that only government can do, such as fund massive space or military projects. It benefits from huge budgets, the largest economies of scale, and the lowest borrowing costs.
Often private companies get contracts on government projects and what’s to stop the government administrators from getting rewarded in proportion to their costs/results? There can also be competing efforts.
The internet; computers; satellites; GPS; nuclear power; much medical research; treatments, and pathogens vaccinated to extinction; much of particle physics and electronics; many advances in aeronautics; and Tang were all funded and managed to some extent by government, with many of these invented by it. These are just some examples off the top of my head.
The U.S. government may have had a hand in inventing many of the technologies you mention, but that does not mean they could not have been invented without government funding (i.e. under a pure private property order).
Second, the government has wasted untold amounts of wealth on its ‘projects’. I am sure we would all be much wealthier today had this wealth remained with its original owners.
Finally, governments don’t create wealth. They take it from others. I do not see how it follows that because the government can take wealth from others that they can invest it more wisely. If governments paid ‘administrators’ based on their ability to invest (make profits vs. losses), it seems to me they would no different than any other investment business. As such, they would not enjoy an advantage over other businesses – they could not tax and inflate to cover their losses.
On your first point, would you be willing to risk giving up computers, the internet, GPS, or vaccines to change history and give the free markets a chance to develop these things? They may have come about later,, at least.
On the second, where is the evidence for your claims about government waste? I don’t want assumptions or lazy anecdotes, but data. How about some data on waste involved in projects like those above?
And on your last point, of course governments create wealth. They are responsible for much infrastructure; education; public safety and health projects, including mass vaccinations; military protection; police, fire, and medical services; legal and political structures; among many other things.
If you don’t think governments create wealth, then why have them at all? Go to someplace like, oh, maybe Somalia without the advantages above and tell me it doesn’t create wealth.
On a broader point, these extremist libertarian ideals are ridiculous. There never has been, and unless human nature changes, likely never will be a libertarian utopia. There will always be some who will take from others and always governments to tax constituents, fairly or not. And “fair” is subjective anyway. Governments will always make some mistakes and be relatively wasteful in some areas.
Politics is war where there is disagreement and the strongest win. I suggest that not only is the extremist libertarian desire for indifferent government immoral , but is hypocritical as I wonder how many government benefits you’re willing to surrender for you and your family.
Most red states are net beneficiaries of tax dollars, so the blue states should stop subsidizing them and see how they like it.
“And on your last point, of course governments create wealth. They are responsible for much infrastructure; education; public safety and health projects, including mass vaccinations; military protection; police, fire, and medical services; legal and political structures; among many other things. ”
Government doesn’t create wealth as they have to steal it through taxes. Everything you mentioned is financed through taxes and wealth is created through savings and capital investment.
“If you don’t think governments create wealth, then why have them at all? Go to someplace like, oh, maybe Somalia without the advantages above and tell me it doesn’t create wealth.”
Great point! We don’t need them at all. Somalia is better off now without a government than they were when they had one. Here is an article that goes over how things have gone in Somalia since they got rid of their government.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/somalia-failed-state-economic-success/
Now I would of course rather live in the US than Somalia, but I would rather live in the US with no government today than in our current system. The question is would we be better off without a government the same way Somalia is better off without a government.
“On your first point, would you be willing to risk giving up computers, the internet, GPS, or vaccines to change history and give the free markets a chance to develop these things? They may have come about later,, at least.”
YES! Individuals created these great products that we use. The government might have stolen money from someone to finance the project but that doesn’t mean that this was necessary and it definitely wasn’t moral.
“On the second, where is the evidence for your claims about government waste? I don’t want assumptions or lazy anecdotes, but data. How about some data on waste involved in projects like those above?”
Come on you can’t be serious? Here is one of thousands upon thousands of examples.
The Stimulus Plan The National Institutes of Health spending more than $400,000 in taxpayer money by paying researchers to cruise six bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk — and just what can be done about it. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/government-funds-study-gay-sex-argentina-bars/
“Politics is war where there is disagreement and the strongest win. I suggest that not only is the extremist libertarian desire for indifferent government immoral , but is hypocritical as I wonder how many government benefits you’re willing to surrender for you and your family.
Most red states are net beneficiaries of tax dollars, so the blue states should stop subsidizing them and see how they like it.
Leave a Reply”
I am willing to surrender every government benefit for my family and myself. All libertarians feel this way. I think you don’t understand what libertarianism is with your last point. I am against republicans just as much as I am against democrats except in the few cases where either group sides on the side of liberty.
Libertarianism starts from a simple premise that you must understand. It’s called the non-aggression principle. Try reading this because if you are talking about red states and losing benefits then someone has misled you on what libertarians believe. What Libertarianism Is by Stephan Kinsella http://mises.org/daily/3660
“There are some things that only government can do, such as fund massive space or military projects. It benefits from huge budgets, the largest economies of scale, and the lowest borrowing costs.”
Why is the government the only one who can do those things? Are you saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for these to be funded any other way? I think at best you could argue that the government would do it more efficiently than the free market but even that I would challenge. The Private Production of Defense by Hoppe would differ with your premise. Also Dr. Murphy’s Chaos Theory.
The government does indeed have a large budget for the military. They spend more than the rest of the world combined on it. Is that efficient or necessary?
Now I am not arguing that the government won’t stumble into a good creation like the internet. I am arguing that the free market would do it more efficiently. The government created the internet but the free market turned it into what it is today.
Well, let me put it this way: How many roads have you seen built by private interests for public use? Could they be built at all without imminent domain, which presumably must be funded by government? If people are allowed to set any price on their properties they wish when offered opportunities to sell to build large scale infrastructure, would anything get built?
And when it comes to the military, do you think the free market would come together and ensure US security?
Are private companies funding and developing large scale astronomical research projects like Hubble, which assist even in testing fundamental physical theory? How about large synchrotron accelerators?
More generally, do you really want a country in which we have the less fortunate doing without healthcare that the more fortunate can afford? Do you want the wealthy to necessarily attend better schools on average? Do you want children going hungry, grandmothers without pensions, families without housing or utility assistance? Should any child grow up in a home without decent internet access?
This ultimately comes down to values I think, and some people are simply heartless and stingy. Here in the wealthiest country on earth, in which linear productivity gains ought to be allowing workers to work less with better social benefits, we have quite the opposite.
And don’t tell me the government causes all of this. Automation is eliminating far more jobs than outsourcing, and anyway the benefits go disproportionately to wealthier asset holders. We also tend to ignore things like inverted u-shaped relationships between compensation and performance for wealthy corporate managers, for example, while many corporate boards are mutually filled with those same CEOs. Many boards have members that sit on the boards of many other companies.
Capitalism for some is more a religion to some, rather than the primary engine of growth.
Walter Block has as much info as you want on private roads here. http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf
Hoppe goes over private defense. http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf
Dr. Murphy goes over it in Chaos Theory. http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
“More generally, do you really want a country in which we have the less fortunate doing without healthcare that the more fortunate can afford? Do you want the wealthy to necessarily attend better schools on average? Do you want children going hungry, grandmothers without pensions, families without housing or utility assistance? Should any child grow up in a home without decent internet access?”
This is what we have now with the biggest government in the history of the world. Do you think if they were bigger then everything would be provided for?
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit. This is not what we have today.
The republican politicians try to say they support capitalism but their policies are the antithesis of capitalism. We don’t support fascism even when you call it capitalism.
If you want to understand why the wealth keeps rising to the top as the poor get poorer then look no further than fractional reserve banking. Check out What Has Government Done to Our Money by Rothbard here. http://mises.org/books/Rothbard_What_Has_Government_Done.pdf
I think you believe we support views like Newt Gingrich when we couldn’t be further from that. If you take the time to read the literature you would see we are not an enemy to peace and prosperity.
Which government owns the middle of the Pacific Ocean? If the US government auctioned some miles somewhere in the middle of nowhere, don’t you think other governments would have a problem with that. What if two governments auctioned the same place to different people? Why would I even care whom the French government sold some portions of the sea to, given that I’m not a Frenchman.
And the ocean is not a movie theater. If it wasn’t for the owner, the movie theater wouldn’t exist. He is the only reason that I can enjoy the movie, because he puts a lot of effort and personal risk in it. I get the benefit of seeing a movie and he gets money in exchange. But to me the guy owning the ocean is not a benefit at all. If he wasn’t there, it would still be the same ocean. On the contrary he takes advantage of his part of the ocean and on top of it he wants to charge me. So the deal is quite different. He gets all the benefits and I only get to pay.
And the reason you say that is legitimate is because it was said so by some government auction.
And then who would enforce it? Would you put up some kind of ocean police which arrests me If I refuse to pay? That would mean that you would in fact expand the territories of the states dramatically. While at the moment there is no square meter land left on this planet where I am not controlled and ruled by some kind of government, at least I can take my boat and drive away and experience some real freedom. If your idea became reality there would be no place left on this planet not controlled by a government. And that is way more terrifying to me than living in a world without tuna.
I am certainly not a socialist and I doubt very much that these UN Conferences can solve any problems whatsoever. But I think some libertarians are a little overenthusiastic with the concept of private property.
But I promise to read more on the issue and maybe change my mind…
I feel where you are coming from. I became a libertarian after years of getting brainwashed by liberals throughout my entire youth. Once I got out of school and people started to challenge my ideas is when I discovered how wrong my original views were. I had to swallow the fact that I was 100% wrong on everything I thought I knew which is not an easy concession to make. I’m not saying you are 100% wrong, I’m just trying to point out how persuasive their arguments are to bring me into their camp from as far away as you could get. It didn’t happen until I delved into the libertarian literature that I was convinced of another way. They have answers to every concern that you have expressed and you will be able to read into as much detail as you can handle on all economic matters. Mises.org and lewrockwell.com are great starting points.
Dan,
Just give me the evidence for “spontaneous” free market created roads, defense, and other things I mentioned that only governments can do, or do best. I want specific examples, without a bunch of links to numerous pages of material I’m not interested in without actual evidence.