Topic: No Taxation...Donation! - page 2. (Read 4642 times)

No, I'm saying that it happens because nobody owns them. Where is the largest breeding population of scimitar horned oryx?

So, you're saying that:
Because not enough people support sustainable paper production to make it more profitable than non-sustainable production, we must pass laws (I assume democratically) to make non-sustainable paper production illegal?

So you are saying it's okay because nobody owns them?

Everybody has to take a shit and doing so without paper is a real hassle, so I guess I would, because I'm no holy men - I'm not able to stand for my principles everytime, even if I wish to.
And even if I did withstand it or find a company that could offer a sustainable option, there would be enough who wouldn't care about this, because this is just my principle, not that of everyone. People have different opinions.

Who owns the fish?
Who owns the elephants?
And I take that response to mean that you would buy from a paper producer who was clearcutting?
So much for your principles.

The ocean is one of the most unregulated markets on earth right now.
Oh yeah, I can clearly see how good it works out for the fishs.
People prefer short profit over a long time profit. Also the paper will sell, as long as paper is needed.
Don't believe me? Take a look how ivory is still sold, there isn't even a real need for it.

Also people like things that are rare, if you have the last forest of a tree which is said to be the best one to build furniture, they will throw money at you.

Reading through this I realize that the clarity of maritime law is not familiar to large numbers of people.

Vessel A is in distress.  A sends out a distress signal.

Vessel B receives the distress signal.  B has a _moral_ not _legal_ obligation to acknowledge the signal and at least pass it along.

B is not obligated to provide any assistance at any time.  B's reputation will be effected by his peers for his action or inaction but there are no legal effects on that point.  Of course standing by and watching people die is likely to make it hard for you to show your face in public again.

If B chooses to render assistance, it can be voluntary, with no strings attached or B can request salvor rights on the property.  These rights confer some degree of interest in the saved property.  A can accept assistance with the salvor rights obligation or turn down that assistance.

To further muddy the waters....

Where I live, the government coast guard _is_ obligated to act in the event of loss of life or excessive property damage BUT they are prohibited from acting if there is a commercial salvor on-scene who is handling the problem.

There are of course, more intricate descriptions of how these relationships work but the general idea is provided.


Now, as a boat owner, it is in my interest to enter into a contract with a provider of vessel assistance if the cost of that contract is less on a time period basis than on a point of sale per incident basis.  Essentially an annual fee that is reasonable is a better deal than an event fee that could equal half the cost of the property.

BTW, the provider of vessel assistance in the region is granted periodically renewing exclusive contract for the region.  At renewal, the contract is up for bid to lowest bidder with proven response capability.  This keeps the cost low while avoiding disputes between two salvor vessels arriving on scene at the same time.

It is reasonable to envision similar public / private mixes for almost any service.  Essentially, the public part of the service is the bare minimum needed to protect society as a whole, while the private part is that which is needed by the individual member of society.  Individuals can chose what degree of service they require down to the point where their choice impacts their neighbors.

Have you really made a good profit? Wouldn't buying the next forest cut into that profit? Wouldn't it be wiser to maintain the forest you have, so that you can continue to make paper without buying more land?

And we haven't even discussed the consumer element. After all, in order to actually make that profit, you have to sell your paper. Would you, Birdy, buy from a paper producer who was just clearcutting entire forests and moving on?

Ok, I'm done with this forest and made a really good profit.
I'm, buying the next ones.
Now you could say, but they get scarcer in the long run, so they will be more expensive.
But at that point it's already lost and too late.

You could also say, then there will be people replanting forests.
But you cannot rebuild everything in nature yet and it also takes a lot of time to do so.

Why should he not gain as much benefit as he can from providing that service? As you point out, there are other people who could be helping to put out the fire. He has the fire truck though, and so he has the most efficient means. This is far from a "monopoly," just a better service that he should be better compensated for. And which he is not obligated to provide without that compensation.

You already have, by buying the forest. And the damages from other forms of pollution, such as dumping, or emissions, can best be judged by those actually affected by it, ie the landowners downstream or downwind from the polluter.

Ok, how do you prevent those firms from working together?
Agglomeration of power is profitable for those who do it and thus creating a new monopoly.
You would end up with a state-like structure again (could be even a dictatorship-like one).

Private security businesses and arbitrators (which take the place of police and the justice system.)  This video can explain it quite well.

Edit:  Whups, goofed up on the URL

Next question: Who forces you to pay the damages to landowners?

There is likely always someone who don't care about pollution, specially if you have access to international markets...

Already answered (edited the last post).

How do you do that? It's nearly impossible to measure damage done to you by pollution.
Who controls it? Who tells you how much you have to pay?

If I destroy a forest, because I've bought that land and I produce something with it (->paper or whatever->profit), who is able to measure the damage done to the environment and will have me pay for it?
Do you count per animal art gone extinct or by cms the sea level has risen? Who was responsible for this in the first place?

While I'm waiting for you to answer my question, I'll answer yours. The reason it is more profitable is because politicians are cheaper to buy than land. If you had to pay the landowners damages for polluting their land, it would be much more expensive.

But without laws he is also able to exploit the situation.
He has the same monpoly on power that you hate, because he is the only one able to do something.


I didn't state the terrorist was from another country, did I?

I have some questions for you, too:

Currently it's more profitable to ruin the environment than to sustain it, how do you prevent this?
If everyone is able to do what he wants, the ones that ruin the environment will outdo their competition.

That ones easy.  Don't go meddling in other people's countries.  Leave them alone and they will most likely leave you alone.

In fact, you can extend that to what we've been saying.  Leave us alone to do our thing and we'll leave you.  Interfere in our lives and expect us not to complain about it?

Well, Birdy?

I give you that you have created an example that's difficult to answer, but
a) there are ways to solve this problem without killing someone (thus creating less suffering)
b) organ donations are very risky and it's far from safe you've rescued the other one
c) choosing the one "who should die" would be a hell of a task and I cant see anyone having the "expertise" to decide

Let's rephrase a scenario that's more sure, it's also a well-known one:
A plane with 100 people on board is hijacked by a terrorist, no way for the passengers to do something about it.
It's heading directly to a big nuclear plant or sky scraper, when it does there will be 1 million victims.
You have the option to shoot the plane or not to.
I would agree on shooting the plane, even when I'm on the plane (at least if I manage not to panic).
(I know a lot of people are gonna disagree with me on this one)

Yuck, wouldn't want to have to kill innocent people to do it!

You just need a few WMDs, holes and job is done...

A lot of people are dying because there isn't enough organ donors. By killing you and distributing your organs, we could
save a lot of lives. The math is pretty simple in this case. Would you support this idea? Or are you an exemption to
your own rules?