|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:No one can own a cloud. That is true. But how could the tragedy of the commons apply to a cloud? Doesn't it only apply to things like rivers and lakes?
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
I'm not going to keep holding your hand through this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Modern_commons quote:The tragedy of the commons can be considered in relation to environmental issues such as sustainability. The commons dilemma stands as a model for a great variety of resource problems in society today, such as water, forests,[25] fish, and non-renewable energy sources such as oil and coal. Unless you think it's OK to let people literally die of thirst because they can't afford water that has been bid up by a free market that has found uses for that water that are more immediately profitable than those people's lives, you must accept that water - at least some amount of water - is a public resource. Once you are there, you are at the tragedy of the commons. I am not making this up. Wikipedia isn't always the best resource, but all of the parts I have bolded are well-documented. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 00:54 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
So what you are saying is that water is a communal good and this is the reason why it is susceptible to tragedy of the commons. if it wasn't communal and actually had an owner, tragedy of the commons would not apply. Over grazing (the Tragedy) doesnt happen on the privately owned pasture, only on the communal (common) one? That's what you are trying to say right?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:So what you are saying is that water is a communal good and this is the reason why it is susceptible to tragedy of the commons. if it wasn't communal and actually had an owner, tragedy of the commons would not apply. Over grazing (the Tragedy) doesnt happen on the privately owned pasture, only on the communal (common) one? Yeah man thats right.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:So what you are saying is that water is a communal good and this is the reason why it is susceptible to tragedy of the commons. if it wasn't communal and actually had an owner, tragedy of the commons would not apply. Over grazing (the Tragedy) doesnt happen on the privately owned pasture, only on the communal (common) one? Yeah. But, tragedy of the commons is a way of pointing out how communal goods can be mismanaged due to individuals apparently making rational choices. But commons aren't always mismanaged (the tragedy does not always manifest). And water in California is a complicated thing, you can't just 100% reduce it to a community resource. Because it also falls out of the sky, for example. Am I obliged to share with my neighbor the water I collect in a barrel, that runs off of my roof? Or must I pay the state of california money, because I have "extracted" this water from the communal system? What about when individual communities pay taxes to fund a specific water project that is to their benefit, such as the Hetch-Hetchy dam and reservoir system, paid for by San Francisco taxpayers a century ago? Can they lay claim, in perpetuity, to the water in that system, since they paid for it... not as a business, not for profit, but as a communal sharing? What about the communal benefit of restoring Hetch Hetchy valley, which lies inside Yosemite national park? And we obviously need farms, we need food. And obviously in many cases, private entities are better at making use of natural resources to produce things. Should we just tell every farmer what they can and can't grow on their land, and how much, and when, and exactly how much water they're allowed to have? Is there a limit? Reasonable people in this thread are more than willing to accept that total government takeover of water in the state would not be a great solution, any more than total privatization and creation of an unregulated free market. A good system is a well-regulated market, one that forces the participants in the market to pay for all of the externalities, one that reserves water for future and emergency use, is sensitive to environmental issues, and ensures that everyone, no matter how poor, can afford an adequate supply of clean safe water.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
It's interesting that you mentioned food.Leperflesh posted:Unless you think it's OK to let people literally die of thirst because they can't afford water that has been bid up by a free market that has found uses for that water that are more immediately profitable than those people's lives, you must accept that water - at least some amount of water - is a public resource. Once you are there, you are at the tragedy of the commons. I am not making this up. Wikipedia isn't always the best resource, but all of the parts I have bolded are well-documented. Is food a public resource? How come food prices don't get "bid up by a free market" to a level where people starve to death? Why are people not starving in countries with privately owned food sources? Why can I own food but not water? Why is there a danger of people dying of thirst but not of hunger? If water is a human right and must be communal, surely food is as well. I'm curious what the difference is between food and water and why we don't see mass starvation under a system of privately owned food sources. (In fact the only starvation we tend to see happens in countries with socialized food sources. N Korea for example)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:It's interesting that you mentioned food. The government regulates food.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Some logic bombs ITT.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
It's almost as though a well-regulated market is the key to managing essential resources and avoiding tragedies of the commons. Hmm... makes you think.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The government regulates food. The same way it regulates water? Can I own water the same way I can own food? I thought they were treated differently. Does the USA not have privately owned food sources? I thought it did.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Why are people not starving in countries with privately owned food sources? Uh, people are?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:It's almost as though a well-regulated market is the key to managing essential resources and avoiding tragedies of the commons. Hmm... makes you think. Would water be an example of a well-regulated market? Water has a lot of regulations on it in California. The regulations are how California managed to avoid the tragedy of the commons with regards to its water right?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Uh, people are? Source? How many people died of starvation in the USA last year?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan, man, this is not the right thread to teach you economics from the ground up. "Well-regulated" is a phrase that means, regulated well, as in the opposite of poorly, not regulated a lot, as if sheer weight of regulation was the only factor of importance. In the US, we produce a massive surplus of calories, in part due to enormous agricultural subsidies, especially of corn. That's not "well-regulated" but it certainly serves to produce huge surpluses. There's a reason there's corn syrup in everything, and it's because it's a lot cheaper than sugar from sugar beets or cane sugar, even though it takes more of it to have the same amount of sweetness. If you're trying to argue that the fact we have enough food to go around is evidence that a free market feeds everyone, you're not going to get very far with that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
California is an example of an terribly regulated market — see Leperflesh's post about the poorly integrated, not internally consistent mishmosh of laws we have. There are regulations, they suck, and they add considerable complexity and expense while doing a bad job of protecting essential resources. The answer isn't to have no regulations, it's to improve the regulations we have.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:If you're trying to argue that the fact we have enough food to go around is evidence that a free market feeds everyone, you're not going to get very far with that. He's not going to try to argue anything. His schtick is that he's going to ask a bunch of questions that force everyone else to get very specific with their answers, and then he'll use that derail to avoid answering anything asked of him from the previous round. I think the closest thing we're gonna get to him actually taking a position is just more smarmy questions. gonger fucked around with this message at 01:47 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Leperflesh, your posts have been thoughtful and enormously instructive. I want to thank you for taking the time to compose them. I shared your first big response on my Facebook wall, crediting you, because I want everyone I know to read it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Oh god. Well, that's OK of course, and thank you. But I'm not even all that educated in this area. Let's just say I have had an unfortunate amount of practice arguing with libertarians, and have put a fair amount of thought into it as a result.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:GuyDudeBroMan, man, this is not the right thread to teach you economics from the ground up. "Well-regulated" is a phrase that means, regulated well, as in the opposite of poorly, not regulated a lot, as if sheer weight of regulation was the only factor of importance. This is ironic since I was the one who had to teach you the meaning of tragedy of the commons. I still can't believe you never actually read the definition before and you had no idea it didn't apply when the pasture was privately owned.  quote:In the US, we produce a massive surplus of calories, in part due to enormous agricultural subsidies, especially of corn. That's not "well-regulated" but it certainly serves to produce huge surpluses. There's a reason there's corn syrup in everything, and it's because it's a lot cheaper than sugar from sugar beets or cane sugar, even though it takes more of it to have the same amount of sweetness. So huge agricultural subsides are needed to keep people from starving to death in the USA? What about countries that don't have large subsidies? Do they starve because they don't have the same enormous subsidies as the US? This is really easy to fact check. Why don't we take a country with lower agricultural subsides and see if the starvation rate goes up. Whats the starvation rate in New Zealand? New Zealand has a very small amount of subsidies compared to the USA. If your theory is correct, we should see a lot higher rate of starvation in New Zealand. Should we check the data and see if you are right or wrong on this issue (like you were wrong about tragedy of the commons)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
gonger posted:He's not going to try to argue anything. His schtick is that he's going to ask a bunch of questions that force everyone else to get very specific with their answers, and then he'll use that derail to avoid answering anything asked of him from the previous round. I think the closest thing we're gonna get to him actually taking a position is just more smarmy questions. This a thousand times this.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
You aren't arguing in good faith, but that's not what he said at all. Corn subsidies are about spurring economic growth by providing cheap corn to the food and beverage industries, not about meeting basic food needs so people don't starve. The subsidies are for creating surpluses, and by definition you don't need a surplus to meet your basic needs. That's why it's a surplus.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:So huge agricultural subsides are needed to keep people from starving to death in the USA? What about countries that don't have large subsidies? Do they starve because they don't have the same enormous subsidies as the US? This is really easy to fact check. Why don't we take a country with lower agricultural subsides and see if the starvation rate goes up. uhhhh, yeah? actually, trade liberalization destroying protectionist regimes for agriculture more or less destroyed lots of third world economies?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:You aren't arguing in good faith, but that's not what he said at all. Corn subsidies are about spurring economic growth by providing cheap corn to the food and beverage industries, not about meeting basic food needs so people don't starve. The subsidies are for creating surpluses, and by definition you don't need a surplus to meet your basic needs. That's why it's a surplus. Someone said that people are starving to death in the USA. I asked for a source and wasn't given one. Then he comes in with this: Leperflesh posted:In the US, we produce a massive surplus of calories, in part due to enormous agricultural subsidies, especially of corn. Isn't he arguing that the reason why we don't see starvation in the USA is BECAUSE of the subsidies? That's not his argument? What is his argument then? Why did he bring up the subsidies when talking about starvation? Is he arguing in bad faith? I still haven't seen starvation statistics. The argument was that "we MUST communalize water to prevent it from becoming so expensive under the free market that everyone dies of dehydration". I asked why this didn't happen with food. I wasn't given an answer.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Does water have a liberal bias? Can property rights fix this problem? Maybe we should turn all of the state's water over to a private entity. I'm just asking questions here... Haha so literally it was this.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:The argument was that "we MUST communalize water to prevent it from becoming so expensive under the free market that everyone dies of dehydration". No, it wasn't.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Is it possible for the pedantic economics slapfight be taken to a thread dedicated to such discussion?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/child-hunger/child-hunger-fact-sheet.html Do you care if they're malnourished or only if they literally die?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Someone said that people are starving to death in the USA. I asked for a source and wasn't given one. Then he comes in with this: When was the last time you hosed a watermelon?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
gonger posted:He's not going to try to argue anything. His schtick is that he's going to ask a bunch of questions that force everyone else to get very specific with their answers, and then he'll use that derail to avoid answering anything asked of him from the previous round. I think the closest thing we're gonna get to him actually taking a position is just more smarmy questions. http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/Malnutrition.aspx quote:About 1% of children in the United States suffer from chronic malnutrition. Thats a staggering number in this nauseatingly wealthy country. I guess The Market is just serving up past life karma to babies.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States quote:Hunger in the United States is an issue that affects millions of Americans, including some who are middle class, or who are in households where all adults are in work. Research from the Food Safety and Inspection Service found that 14.9% of American households were food insecure during 2011, with 5.7% suffering from very low food security. Eat that lovely ramen you poors! http://pen.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/09/23/0148607114550000 quote:The burden imposed by disease-associated malnutrition (DAM) on patients and the healthcare system in food-abundant industrialized countries is often underappreciated.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:This is ironic since I was the one who had to teach you the meaning of tragedy of the commons. I still can't believe you never actually read the definition before and you had no idea it didn't apply when the pasture was privately owned. This is the opposite of what happened, dude. quote:So huge agricultural subsides are needed to keep people from starving to death in the USA? No. Even without the subsidies, there would be plenty of food. In part because we are a huge wealthy economy, in part because we are lucky enough to have a large, ecologically diverse, and extremely fertile country. But we also have a (shrinking, due to idiotic cuts) food stamp program to help poor people afford healthy food that the market prices too high for them to afford otherwise. Poor people can often afford only poor-quality food (full of corn-based calories). But hunger in America isn't a problem of insufficient supply, it's a problem of economic disparity, food deserts in the poorest communities, a failure to provide adequate healthcare to the poor, endemic racism, and many other factors. The subsidy on corn was intended to refute your apparent comparison of California's (subsidized, regulated) water "market" to a supposedly free and unregulated food market. It was not intended to imply that the corn subsidy is a good idea - which was obvious from the context, where I pointed out that they put corn syrup in loving everything because it's so cheap. quote:Whats the starvation rate in New Zealand? New Zealand has a very small amount of subsidies compared to the USA. If your theory is correct, we should see a lot higher rate of starvation in New Zealand. Should we check the data and see if you are right or wrong on this issue (like you were wrong about tragedy of the commons) "My theory?" Given the first two quotes, you have deliberately and radically mischaracterized "my theory" - which is that a well-regulated market is the best way to ensure essential goods and services are provided. New Zealand may not have large agricultural subsidies, but they have a well-regulated agricultural sector, and - just in case it escaped your notice - a nationalized healthcare system. The others are right. You're not arguing in good faith. gently caress off and don't come back.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
UberJew posted:No, it wasn't. Yes, it was Leperflesh posted:
Now do you agree with the following statement: "Unless you think its OK to let people literally die of starvation because they can't afford food that has been bid up by a free market that has found uses for that food that are more immediately profitable than those people's lives, you must accept that food- at least some amount of food- is a public resource. " If its true for water, is it also true for food? Why are countries with free food markets not starving to death? This is the 3rd time i've asked for starvation data. I don't think I'm going to get it, am I? Why not? Is the data scary? Sometimes data can be terrifying. I don't blame you for not linking it. Leperflesh posted:RACIST as gently caress food desert mythology that has been thoroughly debunked countless times Give me the address of a house inside a food desert. I dare you. Unless of course you are arguing in bad faith, which looks like is probably the case here. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Horking Delight posted:http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/child-hunger/child-hunger-fact-sheet.html Leperflesh was talking about people DYING of dehydration. He didn't mention people who were thirsty. His exact quote was: "literally die of thirst". So, I'm afraid he needs actual deaths due to starvation to prove his point and not look like a fool.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Leperflesh was talking about people DYING of dehydration. He didn't mention people who were thirsty. His exact quote was: "literally die of thirst". So, I'm afraid he needs actual deaths due to starvation to prove his point and not look like a fool. o poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:If its true for water, is it also true for food? Why are countries with free food markets not starving to death? This is the 3rd time i've asked for starvation data. I don't think I'm going to get it, am I? Why not? Is the data scary? Sometimes data can be terrifying. I don't blame you for not linking it If it's not scary why don't you find it, link it, and make a loving point already?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Yes, it was quote:Now do you agree with the following statement: I said it, so of course I agree with it. quote:If its true for water, is it also true for food? Why are countries with free food markets not starving to death? This is the 3rd time i've asked for starvation data. I don't think I'm going to get it, am I? Why not? Is the data scary? Sometimes data can be terrifying. I don't blame you for not linking it. There are no countries with completely unregulated food markets. There are no countries with completely unregulated water markets, either. Total abandonment of regulation is a Libertarian fantasy. Regulation is the act of human beings deciding on rules for how to conduct themselves; it's an essential component of government, and by definition there cannot be a "country" without government. quote:Give me the address of a house inside a food desert. I dare you. Unless of course you are arguing in bad faith, which looks like is probably the case here. This is extremely easy to back up, because there are peer-reviewed scholarly articles such as this one. This review cites 31 peer-reviewed studies that identified and quantified food deserts in the United States. Now it's your turn: identify any country on Earth that has a completely unregulated market, of any kind, and we'll see how that market is performing.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Why are you spending time arguing with My First Libertarian
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:Why are you spending time arguing with My First Libertarian
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:Why are you spending time arguing with My First Libertarian I've been arguing with people on the internet for... oh, god, 23+ years now. It's reflexive. You know... I say a thing, and want to stop, and then he says a thing, and it's so stupid and wrong and I just have to reply to correct him, and it goes on and on like that. I should apologize, I suppose. This is quite the derail.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Oh I have the same problem, which is why my life got much better once I started embracing the Ignore button.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
Oh cool a bunch of replies, I wonder if we're talking up the HSR.GuyDudeBroMan posted:I still can't believe you never actually read the definition before and you had no idea it didn't apply when the pasture was privately owned. Oh.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 06:45
|
|