Marine life reduced by 50% since 1970

[Karl]

The banking collapse was bad for the fishing industry. Got it, not very surprising. Banking collapses bad, understood.

 

Glad you found quota systems helped restore Icelandic fish stocks. I still believe privatizing the ocean would be disastrous. Would fisherman be able to put there boats in the water, if someone else owned it? You'd need to pay, get permission or be banned from moving every few miles. You can only fish on water that you specifically owned. I doubt a fishing vessel could exist like that. I assume they troll dozens of miles a day. Only fishing the same small (3 square mile area), while fighting off any boats that make incursions into your fiefdom. Somalia-like indeed.

 

In the paper it mentions how the boat owners are up to there eyeballs in debt. Wait til they have to literally buy spots in the sea itself. That'll be great for them. More debt, more restrictions, a dozen negotiations every time they go out and cross into other people's ocean. Cause in you vision, the ocean is no longer free.

I would say that it was never 'free'. That we treat it that way, is why there are problems. If we are going to correctly allocate resource and price discovery in the free market with private ownership is literally the only way we can do this fairly and sustainably. Every other method runs us into the wall of pollution, over fishing, environmental damage and eventually wiping ourselves out.

 

You see free implies no labour is applied to the sea at all, but we know that isn't right. Every activity has an opportunity cost. Fishing isn't 'free' and we don't get 'free' fish to eat, or free shipping. All these things are connected together.

 

If you think in terms of separate things you will miss the beauty of it. Try thinking of us as connected. Everyone producing and consuming and the whole producing the prices of various things in relation to other things. We choose to trade things which we value less for those we value more and therefore we can only consume, effectively what we produce according to those ratios. All that happens with sea privatisation is that it just becomes another commodity in the market. A fisherman relies on the oil, steel, netting, staple foods, etc shipped from all over the world. If he owns a vast ocean and does not let the ships cross his property then an alternative method of transportation must be found which means the cost of his fishing becomes prohibitively high-people can't afford fish and the high cost of the other goods and so they choose vegetables, or game-the fisherman now has no customers and all the costs.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Karl

[thelerner]

Yes, there are so many costs and people and things involved (near infinite if you go deep enough) that divying up the costs and recompense is very difficult.  I'm better at imagining what the world would be like if your solution was implemented.  

 

Maybe privatizing as far as large sanctuary sites, with studied and controlled harvesting might work out well.   My biggest worry would be an ocean with pathways split amongst dozens of hundreds of competing interests that'd be a nightmare of tolls and restrictions to navigate. 

[Karl]

Yes, there are so many costs and people and things involved (near infinite if you go deep enough) that divying up the costs and recompense is very difficult.  I'm better at imagining what the world would be like if your solution was implemented.  

 

Maybe privatizing as far as large sanctuary sites, with studied and controlled harvesting might work out well.   My biggest worry would be an ocean with pathways split amongst dozens of hundreds of competing interests that'd be a nightmare of tolls and restrictions to navigate. 

 

There are lots of tolls and restrictions already. The market really doesn't do 'nightmares of tolls and restrictions', that is very much a product of anything the state does. What causes the biggest delays in receiving a package from abroad ? Customs and Excise. We are then shaken down to pay duty and taxes which the state forces the delivery company to collect at your expense.

 

Did you know the first lighthouses were private enterprises ? The state was more interested in catching pirates than making navigation safer or faster. The Suez Canal was a private enterprise which carved weeks off sea transport and made it far safer. What I'm showing is that the private sector market does not tolerate delays or losses. It is the Profit and loss accounting plus competition that results in ever greater innovation, improvements and reduced costs. What was good for farming in private ownership, would be equally great for the sea. In Britain, prior to the agricultural/industrial revolution the population of a mere 6 million were starving, now we are a nation of ten times that many worried about obesity-in which an enormous market has grown up around a slimming industry. How unimaginable is that for a period of only a handful of centuries ?

[thelerner]

There are lots of tolls and restrictions already. The market really doesn't do 'nightmares of tolls and restrictions', that is very much a product of anything the state does.

If this is driven by the theory that people will do the rational thing that produces the most gains, I think you'll be disappointed because reality doesn't work that way.  I am pro-capitalist, but humans singly and in groups can be relatively insane.  With no government intervention needed we will create irrational commodity bubbles every decade, we will soil our environment, we will vote bread and circus on a family and national level.  We are too often greedy and malleable.  

 

I digress- Lets keep to OP, selling off portions of the Ocean, privatizing it. 

 

I assume someone crossing my water/land is trespassing and will have to pay me a toll or I could say, enter at your own risk of being sunk.   This has nothing to do with economic theory.  If you needed to drive your boat from a to z, and you passed through 10 or more privately owned pieces of water, it'd be a nightmare.  I own a big enough 'piece' of water close to a harbor I can choke people off.  Maybe not forever but long enough to put others out of business and buy longer and longer pieces of ocean. 

 

Take the Suez Canal, it that was broken up so many people owned a piece of it, there'd be disaster.  Own a big enough chunk and you can bottleneck it.  Course its been nationalized for decades hasn't it.  On land privatization is a good idea, as long as there are public roads people can use.  And there are large chunks of public land that all can enjoy.  Without parks, people would go crazy. 

 

I'd add national parks are huge blessings.  Being in Chicago, one of the smartest things done was making the beach public, so all enjoy it, instead of the rich.  Same with islands like St. Lucia, all beach front private, it makes for a much better quality of life.

 

I'll go further.  Its a good thing there are building and zoning regulations.  These are made for the people by the people and keep buildings from collapsing and make for better organized cities.

Edited September 20, 2015 by thelerner

[Karl]

If this is driven by the theory that people will do the rational thing that produces the most gains, I think you'll be disappointed because reality doesn't work that way.  I am pro-capitalist, but humans singly and in groups can be relatively insane.  With no government intervention needed we will create irrational commodity bubbles every decade, we will soil our environment, we will vote bread and circus on a family and national level.  We are too often greedy and malleable.  

 

I digress- Lets keep to OP, selling off portions of the Ocean, privatizing it. 

 

I assume someone crossing my water/land is trespassing and will have to pay me a toll or I could say, enter at your own risk of being sunk.   This has nothing to do with economic theory.  If you needed to drive your boat from a to z, and you passed through 10 or more privately owned pieces of water, it'd be a nightmare.  I own a big enough 'piece' of water close to a harbor I can choke people off.  Maybe not forever but long enough to put others out of business and buy longer and longer pieces of ocean. 

 

Take the Suez Canal, it that was broken up so many people owned a piece of it, there'd be disaster.  Own a big enough chunk and you can bottleneck it.  Course its been nationalized for decades hasn't it.  On land privatization is a good idea, as long as there are public roads people can use.  And there are large chunks of public land that all can enjoy.  Without parks, people would go crazy. 

 

I'd add national parks are huge blessings.  Being in Chicago, one of the smartest things done was making the beach public, so all enjoy it, instead of the rich.  Same with islands like St. Lucia, all beach front private, it makes for a much better quality of life.

 

I'll go further.  Its a good thing there are building and zoning regulations.  These are made for the people by the people and keep buildings from collapsing and make for better organized cities.

 

Firstly I would question your pro-capitalist stance. Government simply extract money from one group by force and give it to another group whilst giving themselves a nice cut of the stolen loot. But as you say that is a digress. Funnily enough I wasn't an An Cap until about 4 years ago and would have considered myself broadly socialist pro state.

 

We must first accept the premise that the Government has done some good things-if they hadn't then I doubt you would even be arguing. However, we also have to accept that the free market might well have done these things anyway. So, in the case of building and zoning regulations, if you had local, accountable governance for a specific private area I suggest it would do something similar at less cost and with greater efficiency. People don't generally build things that will fall down on purpose as its costly for purchaser, insurance company and builder both in terms of reputation, finance and often falling foul of the law.

 

No area is really free. Indeed during your own issues with Government finance the very first thing the Government did was to close your national parks. The state was holding the people to ransom, it didn't close down its tax offices but went straight for the thing that would hurt the people the most. They could close them down because they are filled with state employees who you are paying through taxation. What's more they often do a very poor job, there are immense problems with wildlife at Yellowstone due to the Government intervening in nature. There are also many stories of parks that were once private being bought by force and then let to go to ruin. Central Park has/had a curfew due to the number of crimes being committed-that doesn't happen in Disney land. Also, what happens about those who never use these state owned areas ? Why are they forced to pay ?

 

When the Suez Canal was nationalised we had the suez crisis. The canal ended up full of sunken ships. I haven't researched the full history behind it so excuse any inaccuracies, but it was an undertaking thought to be impossible by the state. It would never have been built but for private money and vision. There would have been nothing at all to nationalise as it simply wouldn't have existed.

 

Back to the ocean. Private actors are rational. The market forces them to be rational. The ocean wouldn't necessarily be owned by many seperate people, it's pointless to conjecture how the market would work until the possibility is implemented. People always ask how things are going to work in the absence of state control because they are brainwashed into believing things could not work without it. That's deliberate. The school systems begin it by saying how there would be no education without the state because they are taught that through going to state schools, reading state defined history, state regulated text books supplied by state employed publishers, in schools built by state employee builders, by state licensed employees.

 

In Russia it was unthinkable that the private sector could supply footwear optimally. Who would know how many shoes, boots were needed and how would the quality, style be regulated and price be kept at affordable level. Surely the private sector would gouge the market and the poor would go without shoes, whilst the wealthy had the finest boots. The private shoe manufacture would monopolise leather, rubber, labour and machinery and squeeze the people for everything they had. Yet we know this isn't what happens. Instead, unlike the state footwear companies that often ran out of shoes in summer, or boots in winter, that made a wasteful excess of boots that would then find there way onto a black market. That couldn't keep up with sizes, so that children were forced to wear adult sizes and all made in factories which were inefficient. The result was a very expensive shoe industry that could never hope to compete with the free market that could produce endless styles, sizes and types of footwear to suit every pocket.

[thelerner]

I understand the problems with production under communistic central planning.  I also know that without protected National parks, much beauty would be lost to the public, without regulation, despite your belief in rational market forces, forests would be clear cut, because that's where the immediate profit is.  The best land would be sold off to housing projects.  More roads, more fences that would be disastrous for wild life. 

 

Short term profit can mean long term destruction.  There is a need for sanctuaries against privatization.  On land and on the sea.  Places to protect nature.   Without environmental rules, modern industry can be a devastating destructive force.  In many ways it already is, but unfettered it could be apocalyptic.  We saw it in the 1960's and 70's acid rain, deforestation, great lakes on fire.  Horrible things, the government upped regulations and put teeth in them and we've seen improvements. 

 

Its not an all or nothing game. Your model leads to present day rules, regulations and government.  Everywhere, in every state, unless the countries falls into anarchy.  Its the nature of the beast.  We collectivize and organize; as populations grows we need laws and standards that cover everyone. 

 

That's not to saying things have to fall into communism or dictatorship, just that in one nation there needs to be one set of laws.   There will always be tension between municipal and central power.  There are places that municipalities do better with more autonomy but not always. 

[Karl]

I understand the problems with production under communistic central planning.  I also know that without protected National parks, much beauty would be lost to the public, without regulation, despite your belief in rational market forces, forests would be clear cut, because that's where the immediate profit is.  The best land would be sold off to housing projects.  More roads, more fences that would be disastrous for wild life. 

 

Short term profit can mean long term destruction.  There is a need for sanctuaries against privatization.  On land and on the sea.  Places to protect nature.   Without environmental rules, modern industry can be a devastating destructive force.  In many ways it already is, but unfettered it could be apocalyptic.  We saw it in the 1960's and 70's acid rain, deforestation, great lakes on fire.  Horrible things, the government upped regulations and put teeth in them and we've seen improvements. 

 

Its not an all or nothing game. Your model leads to present day rules, regulations and government.  Everywhere, in every state, unless the countries falls into anarchy.  Its the nature of the beast.  We collectivize and organize; as populations grows we need laws and standards that cover everyone. 

 

That's not to saying things have to fall into communism or dictatorship, just that in one nation there needs to be one set of laws.   There will always be tension between municipal and central power.  There are places that municipalities do better with more autonomy but not always. 

 

Yet don't we create and preserve when we own the land? Don't we put it to productive use ? Isn't it true that Yellowstone has been damaged by state involvement ? Why would anyone build in Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon etc ? There are millions of miles of open space and yet where do people choose to live and work ? In the cities, where land is expensive, space is limited and people density is at the highest.

 

Private areas it would be harder to get planning permission if the development did not be fit the community where it was to be based. The law- unlike today-would not allow industry to ride roughshod over the property rights of others. It wouldn't be acceptable to pollute or damage for 'the common good' as is the current law on commercial development. Look at the fracking that is going on. People can object but the state over rules them. Look at agriculture and cattle farming subsidised by the state that turns land into dust bowls. Watch the forests getting torn down for Maize growing to benefit the farmers growing it for fuel production. What about the oil spills, Fukushima, 3 mile Island, the BP platform fire and oil spills, not to mention the polluted mess that resulted from the exploitation by the centralised states of USSR and China. More state, more destructive pollution and mis allocated resource.

 

In the UK we have vast tracts of Scotland which are wilderness and yet we are supposed to be a very over populated country. The developed areas are less than a few percent of the available land mass. Yet no one wants to build in Scotland. The most they can do is crofting and forestry. In both Scotland and the North East we struggle to attract industry despite reducing regulations to nothing and offering grant aid. Let people buy national parks just as our own, private, national trust does. It's funded by charity and buys up country houses, beaches and rural areas and conserves them. They charge a membership fee, or a small fee to enter their properties. They are scrupulously kept and well managed, where as our local state park is vandalised, strewn with rubbish and dog dirt. The facilities are badly maintained and the plants unkempt. Hordes of hoodlums infest the areas where children play and will often attack them, take money/ phones etc.

 

If you can see your way to understanding that less state leads to greater liberty and increased wealth, then it will also lead to a better environment and less mis allocation of resource. It's really that simple, but you have to get rid of the brain washing that tells you the state is good.

 

We can have laws and police we don't need the state to provide anything. The Government is always corrupt, wasteful, violent and inefficient. At best they are bearable at worst they will plunge us into a nuclear winter. They are just too dangerous to trust. Look at Biden, Clinton, Rice etc. Look at all those neocons banging the drum for intervention and war. They cannot wait to soak the land with blood and fill their pockets with money.

[thelerner]

Yet don't we create and preserve when we own the land? Don't we put it to productive use ? Isn't it true that Yellowstone has been damaged by state involvement ? Why would anyone build in Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon etc ? There are millions of miles of open space and yet where do people choose to live and work ? In the cities, where land is expensive, space is limited and people density is at the highest. Private areas it would be harder to get planning permission if the development did not be fit the community where it was to be based. The law- unlike today-would not allow industry to ride roughshod over the property rights of others. It wouldn't be acceptable to pollute or damage for 'the common good' as is the current law on commercial development. Look at the fracking that is going on. People can object but the state over rules them. Look at agriculture and cattle farming subsidised by the state that turns land into dust bowls. Watch the forests getting torn down for Maize growing to benefit the farmers growing it for fuel production. What about the oil spills, Fukushima, 3 mile Island, the BP platform fire and oil spills, not to mention the polluted mess that resulted from the exploitation by the centralised states of USSR and China. More state, more destructive pollution and mis allocated resource. In the UK we have vast tracts of Scotland which are wilderness and yet we are supposed to be a very over populated country. The developed areas are less than a few percent of the available land mass. Yet no one wants to build in Scotland. The most they can do is crofting and forestry. In both Scotland and the North East we struggle to attract industry despite reducing regulations to nothing and offering grant aid. Let people buy national parks just as our own, private, national trust does. It's funded by charity and buys up country houses, beaches and rural areas and conserves them. They charge a membership fee, or a small fee to enter their properties. They are scrupulously kept and well managed, where as our local state park is vandalised, strewn with rubbish and dog dirt. The facilities are badly maintained and the plants unkempt. Hordes of hoodlums infest the areas where children play and will often attack them, take money/ phones etc. If you can see your way to understanding that less state leads to greater liberty and increased wealth, then it will also lead to a better environment and less mis allocation of resource. It's really that simple, but you have to get rid of the brain washing that tells you the state is good. We can have laws and police we don't need the state to provide anything. The Government is always corrupt, wasteful, violent and inefficient. At best they are bearable at worst they will plunge us into a nuclear winter. They are just too dangerous to trust. Look at Biden, Clinton, Rice etc. Look at all those neocons banging the drum for intervention and war. They cannot wait to soak the land with blood and fill their pockets with money.

Not necessarily, see corporate polluters.  Not necessarily, see my backyard.  Maybe, but its in one piece and full of spectacular wildlife that doesn't thrive elsewhere.  For the view.  Many live in cities, some in suburbs, some have large estates in beautiful areas with spectacular views. 

 

Government does many good things and protects some important things.  It's not always corrupt.  Often its doing the will of the collective people but there are so many cross desires that there is no pleasing everyone.   Politics is the art of compromise.  Constantly having to make decisions that will piss some people off.  It can't be helped.

 

Much of what you're writing about would happen, and my guess be much worse, if there were no government.  So you think no oil spills, fracking or power plants if there was no government?    You view is so black and white with Government being the devil and market forcing being a gracious god.  I see much more shaded world. 

 

Less government is fine but I realize, get rid of it, anarchy, then it comes back because we need it.  As numbers increase (beyond say 3 people), for order and to get things done We create government; the more people, the more complex we'll build it, out of necessity. 

 

Also there are there laws and police yet no government? 

 

 

You know.. I don't think this dog is ever gonna catch its tail.  I'm gonna leave the oceans to themselves for a while .

 

With Respect

Michael

Edited September 21, 2015 by thelerner

[voidisyinyang]

Let's use shark fins as a model of government intrusion.

 

Shark fin soup anyone?

 

 

 

Bycatch is Ecocide T-shirt

50,000,000. That’s how many sharks are caught each year as bycatch (reference). And it’s not just sharks – it’s the 300,000 dolphins, whales and porpoises, it’s the 100,000 albatrosses, the thousands upon thousands of sea turtles, it’s the wholesale destruction of the ocean floors with bottom trawlers, it’s the millions upon millions of sea creatures killed needlessly for no reason other than for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bycatch is ecocide.

 

I'm looking for government subsidy of this.

 

http://www.stopsharkfinning.net/bycatch-is-ecocide-t-shirt/

 

 

 

China Says No More Shark Fin Soup at State Banquets ...

www.nytimes.com/.../china-says-no-more-shark-fin...

The New York Times

Jul 3, 2012 - “It is the first time that the Chinese central government has expressed a decision to phase out shark fin from banquets funded by taxpayers' ...

China Bans Shark-Fin Soup At State Banquets

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../china-shark-fin-soup_n...

The Huffington Post

Dec 16, 2013 - China has banned shark-fin soup from official government banquets and ... more as an effort to limit the cost of publicly funded state banquets.

China bans shark fin dishes at official banquets - CNN.com

www.cnn.com/2013/12/09/world/asia/china-ban-shark-fin/

CNN

Dec 9, 2013 - China has banned dishes containing delicacies like shark fin and and bird's nest from official banquets as part of a government crackdown on ...

Missing: subsidized

 

 

 

So yes indeed.... but is it the real drive behind the ecocide of sharks?

 

Why Shark Finning Bans Aren't Keeping Sharks Off The Plate (Yet)

 

 

But, as Shelley Clarke, an independent researcher based in Japan and coauthor of the Biological Conservation study (and a less technical companion paper), writes, it's more complicated than that. Some endangered sharks are still being overfished. And while the trade in shark fins may be down, the trade in shark meat, it turns out, is going strong.

i

A shark steak. Despite bans on shark fin, the trade in shark meat is going strong.

iStockphoto

As The Salt reported in August, sharks like mako and blacktip were hot menu items in the U.S. during Discovery Channel's hugely popular television series "Shark Week." And according to an analysis by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, imports of shark meat around the world increased by 42 percent from 2000 to 2011.

 

and

 

 

foreign shark fisheries, he says, can be especially problematic due to their lack of transparency, especially if fins are brought to port detached from the shark. This makes it almost impossible for scientists to track which species are being fished.

 

But wait - isn't that a key factor in the free market fundamentalism? transparency in the market so that prices reflect the true value of supply and demand?

 

 

s, Peter Knights, executive director of Wild Aid, says regulations won't help sharks if demand for the animals is not eventually dampened. "Just like with elephants, tigers, rhinos — if the financial incentive to break the law is too strong, the protective measures will fail," Knights says.

 

So yes there is a "free market" - to pillage and plunder once again! Rape the oceans!

 

And yet the shark fin banning laws have had some impact to be sure.

 

 

Gonzalez, who runs a website called Eat U.S. Seafood, says he thinks that overall there's been progress.

"I'm just happy I can walk into a shop in [san Francisco's] Chinatown now and not see imported fins of great white sharks," he says.

[Karl]

Let's use shark fins as a model of government intrusion.

 

Shark fin soup anyone?

 

 

 

 

I'm looking for government subsidy of this.

 

http://www.stopsharkfinning.net/bycatch-is-ecocide-t-shirt/

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yes indeed.... but is it the real drive behind the ecocide of sharks?

 

 

 

Why Shark Finning Bans Aren't Keeping Sharks Off The Plate (Yet)

 

 

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

But wait - isn't that a key factor in the free market fundamentalism? transparency in the market so that prices reflect the true value of supply and demand?

 

 

 

 

So yes there is a "free market" - to pillage and plunder once again! Rape the oceans!

 

And yet the shark fin banning laws have had some impact to be sure.

 

If a market exists for a product then a ban will drive down supply and increase price. That will make illegal shark fishing even more attractive to criminals who are prepared to take the risk in order to reap huge rewards.

 

If the Chinese had allowed private property rights to cover oceans then the market would step in to sustainably farm shark and everybody is happy except the criminals who will now find it less attractive to harvest a lowered value bountiful supply.

[voidisyinyang]

Considering the chinese are in a huge multinational dispute about the south sea islands what fantasy world are on living on? Rape is rape. Mar rape goes back to greek mythology. International law defers ownership to the pillagers as a race to extinction based on free market ideology of wto.

[Karl]

Considering the chinese are in a huge multinational dispute about the south sea islands what fantasy world are on living on? Rape is rape. Mar rape goes back to greek mythology. International law defers ownership to the pillagers as a race to extinction based on free market ideology of wto.

 

State on state. There are no private properties rights for states. A state is not a person. Who claims the territory ? It is a proxy land grab utilising the resources of the producers to procure arms/force.

 

The law is the law. Theft is theft. Rape is just property theft as is murder. It is the violent appropriation of that which is unearned.

 

The 'free market' is not an ideology. It is proper allocation of resource and increasing wealth for voluntary participants in the round. It's foundation is private ownership and property rights. States ignore both. Governments are instruments of theft and are maintained by theft.

 

The Bible had some pretty good advice about theft. Thou shall not steal. Theft implies something privately owned by fair, productive means. It is not to be appropriated by the force of arms of government.

 

If you participate in it consciously and voluntarily, then you are equally responsible. Just because you did not hold the gun, or pull the trigger it makes you no less guilty. Karma huh, it's a bitch.

[voidisyinyang]

State on state. There are no private properties rights for states. A state is not a person. Who claims the territory ? It is a proxy land grab utilising the resources of the producers to procure arms/force. The law is the law. Theft is theft. Rape is just property theft as is murder. It is the violent appropriation of that which is unearned. The 'free market' is not an ideology. It is proper allocation of resource and increasing wealth for voluntary participants in the round. It's foundation is private ownership and property rights. States ignore both. Governments are instruments of theft and are maintained by theft. The Bible had some pretty good advice about theft. Thou shall not steal. Theft implies something privately owned by fair, productive means. It is not to be appropriated by the force of arms of government. If you participate in it consciously and voluntarily, then you are equally responsible. Just because you did not hold the gun, or pull the trigger it makes you no less guilty. Karma huh, it's a bitch.

 

Your views are the typical views of a brainwashed cult follower. there is no "free market" and it's definitely not Taoism.

 

Free market math is logarithmic which means inherently the distribution of property is unequal. That's the scam of logarithmic math upon which Western civilization is based.

 

There is also no separation of state and private property contrary to your claims.

 

Eminent domain, Terra Nullius, http://nonduality.com/whatis8.htm  - colonialism in general - even the idea of "containing" Nature into rectilinear grid property lines is contrary to the infinite truth of Nature.

 

Actually for the original human culture - the Bushmen - the females control the land. The concept of private property is based on males trying to be like females - it's wrong.

 

So when the Germans arrived at Minnesota or at Namibia - they set up slave concentration camps for the indigenous land inhabitants - and set up a bounty to kill off the Indians or Natives in Africa.

 

That's just typical genocidal colonialism based on patriarchal mentality - it goes back to about 10,000 BCE with the origin of domesticated wheat monocultural farming.

 

Archaeologists call this the "symbolic revolution" when art became anthropocentric and males erroneously believed they could contain and control Nature.

 

So God comes from the Indo-European word Gott which means Bull just as Brahman means Bull - and so the idea is that at first the bull was wild and could not be domesticated and so was worshipped as the goal was to domesticate the bull for plow farming.

 

So then you have private corporate charters for land ownership - but the concept of legal personhood for corporations comes from the royal king issuing charters.

 

It's Freemasonic ideology - this Platonic belief that Nature can be perfected into a sacred geometric realm based on logarithmic distribution of wealth - it's a scam for the masses made poor through Platonic eugenics.

 

The problem goes way back and private property is part of the problem.

 

Sure we can "buy" land but it was stolen first - just as homesteading is free land offered by the government to "private" citizens for colonialism - but how was the land achieved? Stolen through genocidal colonialism.

 

But if you want to "improve" the land then you have to follow the logarithmic distribution of wealth scam - along with all the zoning codes for Freemasonic ideology, etc.

 

Meanwhile the REAL world based on ecology could care less about private property - water flows across boundaries, so does air, so do animals, even land - the sahara desert fertilizes the Amazon rainforest.

 

private property is a cover-up of rape land theft.

 

For example you say that adding on complex math to the supply demand model is wrong. I agree. The chaos math is based on the computers being in control - and the math is still logistic equations.

 

It's the rotten root that is wrong - logarithmic math itself.

 

Taoism is based on complementary opposites - so the females control the land because of the yin qi connection. Females are yang internally and the menstrual cycle is synchronized with the lunar cycle which governs the growth and fertility of life on Earth.

 

All humans are born as females with clitoris and so in Nature parthenogenesis is the norm - males are just an extra addition for some genetic novelty but not necessary at all. Nature is inherently female as is the Emptiness.

 

private property is inherently rape of the infinity - you can not "contain" the infinite.

 

Europe as a modern idea is based on this patriarchal feudalism that led to the enclosure acts and the poor masses fleeing eventually to the U.S. - to only perpetuate the same genocidal problem here.

 

This spread around the world as plow-based farming raping the land.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDYQFjADahUKEwj9zcfDg43IAhVFHh4KHfDXCVw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsocialistregister.com%2Findex.php%2Fsrv%2Farticle%2FviewFile%2F5817%2F2713&usg=AFQjCNFsOA3PexHwqG3vnYQy5ni8tj1b8g&sig2=XyG-ALQ5QJ1rmRxT5obRHg&bvm=bv.103388427,d.dmo&cad=rja

 

pdf link review of Ecological Imperialism.

 

 

The main ecological contradictions of capitalism, associated with ecological

imperialism, were already evident to a considerable extent in the writings of

Marx. The accumulation of capital is in some respects a self-propelling process;

the surplus accumulated in one stage becomes the investment fund for the next.

One of the crucial questions in classical political economy, therefore, was where

the original capital had come from that set off the dynamic accumulation that

characterized the late eighteenth and nineteenth century. This raised the issue of

prior, primary or ‘primitive’ accumulation.

Taking Britain as the classical case, Marx saw primitive accumulation as having

three aspects. First, the removal of peasants from the land by land enclosures and

the abrogation of customary, common rights, so they no longer had direct access

to or control over the material means of production. Second, the creation by this

means of a pauperized pool of landless labourers, who became wage labourers

under capitalism, and who flocked to the towns where they emerged as an industrial

proletariat. Third, an enormous concentration and centralization of wealth as the means of production (initially through the control of the land) came to be

monopolized by fewer and fewer individuals, and as the surplus thus made available

flowed to the industrial centres. Newly proletarianized workers were

available to be exploited, while ‘Lazarus layers’ of the unemployed kept down

wages, making production more profitable.

The whole process of primitive accumulation – involving, as Marx put it, ‘the

forcible expropriation of the people from the soil’, and the ‘sweeping’ of them,

as Malthus expressed it, into the towns – had deep ecological implications.4

Already land under feudal property had been converted into ‘the inorganic body

of its lord’. Under capitalism, with the further alienation of the land (and nature),

the domination of human beings by other human beings was extended. ‘Land,

like man’, Marx noted, was reduced ‘to the level of a venal object’.5

Marx’s concept of a ‘metabolic rift’ was developed in the context of the alarm

raised by agricultural chemists and agronomists in Germany, Britain, France and

the United States about the loss of soil nutrients – such as nitrogen, phosphorous

and potassium – through the export of food and fibre to the cities.

 

Yeah - Marx was not radical enough.

 

I expand on Marx to develop the term I call "the surplus value of consciousness" which explains how logarithmic models like Supply and Demand create an internal logical contradiction by attempting to materialistic contain the infinite. So as Buddha taught - the desire can not be subdued by this materialistic containment attempt and hence the materialistic math always creates a surplus value of consciousness.

 

This then leads to the Actual Matrix Plan based on the logarithmic spiral from music theory as I exposed from my masters thesis research. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_matrix43.htm

[Karl]

You are completely crackers, you have no valid argument just a load of disparate, disconnected ideological mysticism. It's pointless continuing a discussion with someone so bereft of logical rationality.

[voidisyinyang]

Give me ur private property answer to dead zones in the oceans from nitrate fertilizer runoff into streams and rivers?

[Karl]

Give me ur private property answer to dead zones in the oceans from nitrate fertilizer runoff into streams and rivers?

 

Your answer is to let it continue. Private ownership of the ocean would mean prosecution for those producing the pollution by those owning the ocean.

 

I read through part of your thesis. You have lots of factual evidence, but your conclusion is wrong. Most of the factual stuff such as Plato, HG Wells etc is right, but then you get sidelined into mathematical modelling and resonance whilst connecting it to economics. That's a basic error which is the result of not understanding economic science except for the new wave empirical modellers that regard economics in a similar way to a science like physics. The resonance/spiral is connected to music etc, it is connected to everything but it isn't in the human spirit/action anymore than atoms of carbon.

[voidisyinyang]

Mother nature is persucuting the private farms that created the dead zones. It was polluted as a free market externality. It was clean as owned by mother nature. The government of mn is requiring the farmers to haver buffer strips. They say rmthat is against their private rights. What do u think? Peaolpe cant eat money so forcing farmers into bankruptcy eud be stupid.

[voidisyinyang]

Russia put a flag in the bottom of the arctic ocean and has built the largest military force in the arctic ocean. So does russia now own the arctic ocean? If not why? Also wilk the privitization of the arctic stop oil drilling there since it just escalates global warming? Tell me how the arctic shud br privatized to preserve the environment?

[Karl]

Mother nature is persucuting the private farms that created the dead zones. It was polluted as a free market externality. It was clean as owned by mother nature. The government of mn is requiring the farmers to haver buffer strips. They say rmthat is against their private rights. What do u think? Peaolpe cant eat money so forcing farmers into bankruptcy eud be stupid.

 

Find me the article so I can read it for myself then I will give you my opinion.

[Karl]

Russia put a flag in the bottom of the arctic ocean and has built the largest military force in the arctic ocean. So does russia now own the arctic ocean? If not why? Also wilk the privitization of the arctic stop oil drilling there since it just escalates global warming? Tell me how the arctic shud br privatized to preserve the environment?

 

You have a habit of adding your personal bias into your arguments in a way which does not help them.

 

Russia is a state, not a private, free market enterprise.

There has been no global warming for 17 years despite the previous claims of a 2 degree rise.

You want to 'preserve the environment' but that isn't my aim. The environment is constantly changing without mans help. My aim is not to cause unnecessary damage and to have the free market allocate resources properly.

[Karl]

Rothbard covered the basics :

 

 

https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution

 

 

Sent from my iPad

[voidisyinyang]

Wow an actual denier! Ur views are hilarious.

[Karl]

Wow an actual denier! Ur views are hilarious.

 

Not half as unfunny and dangerous as yours fortunately.

 

 

[AussieTrees]

Got a fishing boat years ago.

Never really caught much,mostly none caught,sometimes one or two fish.

 

Still got the boat,don't go out much.

Happy for fish to stay in the water and be fish.

 

Impermanence is everywhere.

[Karl]

Got a fishing boat years ago.

Never really caught much,mostly none caught,sometimes one or two fish.

 

Still got the boat,don't go out much.

Happy for fish to stay in the water and be fish.

 

Impermanence is everywhere.

 

I like them battered and fried with chips, mushy peas and a cup of tea. Nice pan fried or oven roasted. Not keen on the bones.