NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/environm/2862

Text File | 1992-07-21 | 3.9 KB | 82 lines

Newsgroups: talk.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!tsf
From: [e-mail] (Timothy Freeman)
Subject: Re: What, if anything, is a wetland? (WAS Re: Why Bush does not want to sign at Rio?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 15:08:49 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Nntp-Posting-Host: u.ergo.cs.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of Mon, 20 Jul 92 19:59:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Lines: 65

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

   >Land ownership is a legal fiction, just like all other ownership.  The
   >only justification it needs is that it leads to a reasonably efficient
   >use of resources.

   But land ownership is *not* like all other ownership, precisely
   because it can only be justified in the way you describe. Other things
   of which it is possible to be the owner invariably trace their
   origions, through a serious of exchanges, to human labor. Its hard to
   quarrel with such onwership, or at least, it would be were all the
   exchanges fair and mutually consented to.

Each object (with the exception of intangible things like patents)
consists of some amount of human effort combined with some amount of
material that originally came from the Earth.  The current
configuration of a piece of land also depends on some amount of human
effort combined with whatever nature did.  I can see quantitative
differences but not qualitative ones.

   If you want to use efficiency
   as the justification for its ownership, fine, but this implies a
   degree of community interest that isn't present for the shirt on my
   back (or yours).    Only with a deft wave of the "it will all work all
   right in the end" can you avoid such a justification from leading to
   continual meddling in owner's rights, something I don't approve of.

Continual meddling leads to businesses trying to make quick profits.
This seems to me to be a good argument leading from efficiency to
non-meddling.

   Read Henry George.

Thanks for the pointer.

   You lease the land long-term from the community;
   have exclusive rights to some of the resources therein; are under
   various obligations to the community regarding the state of the land.

If the community can't change the contract in the middle, that would
be a better deal than we have now.  But if the community also makes
the laws and does the law enforcement, that's not going to happen.

   Wetland was around before human beings
   (although its quite possible that no particular piece of wetland was),
   so what possible right do you have to remove it ?

The oil that was used to construct the plastic in the keyboard I'm
typing at was around before human beings, so what possible right was
there to make the keyboard?  I could give more utilitarian arguments
that both rights are reasonable (assuming nobody else had an interest
in the wetlands or the oil), but I would be more interested in finding
out if and why you think the questions are different.

   I suspect that Pastor Niemoller might approve [of tsf's signature], if he
   understood the Constitution.

I copied my signature from someone else without knowing about the
original origins.  Can you mail me a pointer to Pastor Niemoller?
--
Tim Freeman <[e-mail]>
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.