to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.
I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution.
So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.
That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons". If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics will lead to overfishing. Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore
You don't solve a tragedy of the commons by creating a government which is an even larger tragedy of the commons.
Fish stocks survived for years without quotas. Government gets involved, fishing stocks are raped to death. (see Canadian fish stocks).
Regulations don't have to come from govt. industries can self regulate. But usually govts create regulations because they dont have profit motive.
Can you cite the study that suggests govt regulations respondible for decline in fish stock? I like to see this.
I don't need a study, just logic. Check this out.
Fish stock levels a problem? Yes.
Fish stock levels a function of fishing levels? Yes.
Fishing levels a function of fishing quotas? Yes.
Fishing quotas regulated by government? Yes.
So government is the cause of fish stock problems.
Fish stock levels is a tragedy of the commons problem? Yes.
Government is the cause of fish stock problems? Yes.
Government is a tragedy of the commons problem.
Tragedy of the commons problem needs to be resolved? Yes.
Government is the cause of the tragedy of the commons problems? Yes.
Remove the government.
Socialists complaining that this doesn't solve overfishing? Yes.
Lol. Overfishing a problem because of tragedy of the commons? Yes.
Tragedy of the commons exists because of the common? Yes.
Remove the common, land is now private.
Socialists complaining that people will rape their land for fish? Yes.
Land value will increase as a result of bidding for land by fishermen gauging its worth based on future return on investment? Yes
Future value a function of the amount of fish that may be caught over time? Yes.
Land value most valuable to those able to sustainably manage fish stock levels.
Person selling land sells to highest bidder? Yes.
Sustainable fisherman bids the most as the land is most valuable to him? Yes.
All land for fishing aggregates into the ownership of those most able to sustainably catch fish? Yes.
Fishing stock problem solved? Yes.
Fishing stock problem solved by free market capitalism.
On a side note about governments having no profit motivating for the creating of regulations.
Regulations are created so the government can then sell licences to breach said regulation. There is you profit motive.
On a side note, this exact same argument applies to any 'tragedy of the commons problem'
Pollution? Deforestation? Endangered Species? Clean Water? Everything! Just change fishing to whatever and it is still valid.
On another side note, don't you feel ashamed to call yourselves men yet insist that every problem you see should be solved by some nightmarish governmental parental figure? You have the body of a man yet the mind and will of a scared little boy. Grow a fucking beard.
