How would a free market prevent overfishing?
>>72626110
>overfish
>fish don't get bought
>that smell
/thread
>>72626110
Once all the fish are fished up, no one will be able to overfish any more.
>>72626342
Bingo, as well as no more government subsidies to inflate profits.
>>72626465
As well as fish prices would increase leading to less bought fish.
>>72626110
I'm absolutely not a libertarian, but...
Ideally, the fishing companies would understand that they are going to ruin themselves once all of the fish run out...
So the better question is: why don't they realize this in real life?
>>72626110
People stop buying fish and overfishing dissapears as demand does
>>72626580
Real life isn't a free market. Too much pressure to collude. Too much brainwashing for people to make informed choices.
>>72626110
Just feed somali immigrants to the ocean.
the fish will get to eat
We will have more fish and less niggers
>>72626580
Just sink the migrant boats it will produce more food for fish and lobsters
There are steps being made through the market that restrict overfishing. The "free market" doesn't simply mean people should be free to fish whatever you want out of the ocean, there will still be rational conservation efforts to ensure a sustainable industry, which is what a market economy would stand for anyway.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/projects/global-tuna-conservation
Private fishing companies are under the most pressure to implement conservation efforts since they're the ones who will suffer the most if the market fails. The biggest problem is that states who do not recognize private corporation's conservation efforts such as China, Russia, Japan and the vast majority of developing states are disregarding any attempts to curb overfishing or trawl fishing
>>72626342
>what is overpopulation due to overabundance
>>72626580
Opting out of the tragedy of the commons is financially untenable. You have to have effective legislation, otherwise the only option is to keep fishing.
>>72626580
>what is Prisoners Dilemma
>>72626110
> fish become scarce and expensive
> smart (jewish) man invest in farming pools to grow fish
> endless supply of cheap fish
> ???
> profit
>>72626110
Easy, implement the free market and remove everything that even resemblance the welfare state. All the idiots will either starve to death or get shot to death trying to steal food for walmart.
Then only smart and people will remain and they will be well informed enough to not buy fish from companies that overfish or fish that is being overfished.
>>72626110
We genocide the natives of 3rd world shitholes.
More fish for us
>>72626956
>supply begets demand
may want to try that again
>>72626342
>>72626621
>People stop buying fish
So what do seafood companies and restaurants do?
Just wait for the global fish populations to renew themselves
>>72627318
Fish farms typically grow big fish that you eat from the market or at seafood restaurants. These fish, like salmon and tuna, eat smaller fish. The problem is that the smaller fish are being overhunted and exacerbate the problem.
>>72626110
It probably couldn't, unfortunately.
Plenty of animals have been hunted to extinction by humans.
The Euros overfished cod in plenty of areas. And now areas that were filled with cod have none left.
>>72626110
Does statism?
>>72628269
>fish only can ever eat smaller fish
haha nice one, boonga. fish eat anything actually, from chicken to mince to fish flakes
>>72628751
It really doesn't. There have been efforts to try, but if you look at Japan, the Bluefin albacore tuna is soon basically extinct, even with muh gov't.
>>72628269
smaller fish are in demand, better make a small fish farm to breed and sell off as profit to the large fish farmers.
>>72626579
then companies invent better ways to fish to make some nice profit until the fish are gone for good
>>72626110
Once all the fish are gone everyone will go on to rape another natural resource.
>>72626110
Who eats fish
>What is the free market rationing effect of higher prices
>What is fish farming
>>72626342
>use this logic
The fish will definitely be bought, even if there is overabundance. The price goes down, people can afford it, they buy it, ect. Maybe in some cases with some fish this would be the outcome, but in reality we would endup completely destroying entire ecosystems if we eliminate just one species of fish in a region. Stop living in a fantasy land with teenage edgy hate for big gubments. In the real world, without at least the most basic and minor regulations people would completely devastate the environment. Look at history you fucking moron.
>>72626981
underrated post
>>72629233
aw shucks dude.
>>72629174
wouldn't higher prices incentivize more intensive fishing?
>>72628987
That makes no sense Muhammad, you would still have a lack of demand and fish going bad still driving prices up.
>>72629347
Yes, but to no avail due to low fish population, incentivizing fish farm investment
>>72627318
More like:
>Fish become scarce
>Jewish man secretly makes farming pools
>Sees he produces lots of fish which would make the prices drop again
>Destroys parts of the fish so it remains scarce for maximum profit
>>72626580
Idealy, in industrial revolution era britan, the manufacturing companys would have enough sense for humans (let alone animals) to be treated with environments that don't threaten their mental and physical health by overworking them to death in dangerous conditions, without the government getting involved!!! Because that worked.. r..right guys?.. ya! (some libertarian ideas are great, but total freedom left to the mercy of greed when involving the environment, people, animals is fucking stupid). It is in peoples nature to do what they are aloud, and then test the waters beyond that in the name of profits. Sometimes I feel like i'm arguing on a japanese image board with kids who have never worked in the real world, held an actual job, and have expirienced corporate greed first hand. Big business is fucking soulless and needs constraints, they'll do whatever it takes to make mega profits for the little at the expense of everyone and everything else. All we need are just some limited controls, not total state control. Economic freedom, with reason and rationality. Fucking christ this thread.
>>72629223
Ow the salt.
Give me an example where we devastated the environment.
>>72626110
liberal faggots run away from capitalism
they are the only people gay enough to eat fish
>problem solved
I really, really despise this hipster trend that's been getting stronger of eating sushi.
If you're not a nip and eat raw fish you should be gassed. I could shit on a cracker and so long as the Jews called it trendy you'd buy into it.
>>72627318
>smart
>jewish
Is this meme still active? Jews aren't smart they're just not allowed to be criticised so they can do what they want. It's like an episode of the X-Factor
>"So what brings you on here today?"
>"Well, I'm Faggot, 23 and I'm a singer, but I'm not great at it-"
>"So why are you singing?"
>"Because it's my dream to be a singer"
>"But if you can't sing..."
>"Well my mother used to say to me "Faggot, I hope you become a singer" and that's what I'm doing"
>"Is she here tonight?"
>"No she died 2 days ago, I had a twin brother but he died at birth, my dad died 12 years before I was born, my dog was ran over last night etc etc"
>Can't sing a fucking note
>"Ladies and Gentlegoys, your X-Berg winner 2016 is...FAGGOT, 23!"
That's literally how Jews have what they do, not out of intelligence, not out of being smart, but out of, and only out of, pity. Normal people hate to be pitied or have people feel sorry for them, you thrive off it though and all that proves is that you aren't human. You're the personification of the plague.
>>72629754
>Eating raw fish is only done in Japan
Eating raw fish is tradition in the Netherlands and many other places in Europe you uneducated Americuck.
>>72626342
except they were overfishing and it was all getting bought. Most fish goes into animal feed and there is a huge demand
Not a free market solution but it's been proved that huge areas of the ocean are lacking in iron that acts as the base of the ecosystem. By iron seeding you increase the base food supply and can lead to massive returns.
For example a native band in BC, Canada did iron seeding and in the next year lead to the largest salmon run in recorded history by a factor of 4, while the government was predicting a smaller than average. This tread carried over the next year at a reduced rate.
The Antarctic ocean is a similar iron depleted zone, but about 10 times larger.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376258/pacifics-salmon-are-back-thank-human-ingenuity-robert-zubrin
>>72629954
I don't mean herring in a jar, muhammed. you know exactly what I'm talking about. the guilty always confess. To the gas chamber.
>>72626110
Farming.....
>>72629504
So fishermen would keep fishing until there were so few fish that they couldn't find them anymore?
>>72630125
I'm not talking about herring from the jar. Just raw herring.
>>72629597
thats the problem with you people
What don't understand this is an economic theory aimed at the fucking long run and operates on the largest scale
Your shitty anecdotal evidence about corporate culture does not matter because eventually corporations who treat their workers badly will go out of business because they will not be able to attract and keep the best people possible.
Whats happening now is that crony capitalism/plutocracy allows them to oppress workers as they please because they dont have to fear the consequences of competition.
They will just bribe politicians and corrupt the system in their favor to stay as powerful as they are.
The obvious solution to this is to give politicians less power so they can't help out as much in this evil scheme.
In cold hard theory the company that provides the best working conditions, wages, will attract the best workers and ultimately succeed by giving the customers the best possible product.
There is no room for epic opression, slavery.
I do however realize that theres a problem for the free market when its about natural resources. There needs to be some consensus on this because the entry barriers into a market can't be so restricted/high that a monopoly occurs.
>>72626110
The invisible hand of the free market will fix it
>>72626110
By organizing the ownership of the fish resources into quotas.
Different fisher own the right to fish a certain amount of fish.
If you fish more fish than your quotas you are steeling the property of other fisherman’s.
>>72630801
And when the amount of fish drops below the quota amount and fishermen take all the fish and you have a collapse of the stock then what?
How does the free market fix that?
>>72630434
old /pol/ memes
>>72629058
eating a brown trout that I caught an hour ago.
I catch a lot of big trout.
When people ask if I'm catching anything I tell them I get a few here and there.
>>72630101
I remember hearing this on the news, they did this illegally and against the advice of big environmental groups IIRC
>>72632866
>I remember hearing this on the news, they did this illegally and against the advice of big environmental groups IIRC
It hasn't been proved to be illegal and is going to trial.
The government's stance is that it was in violation of the waste dumping laws of the London Convention. Which clearly wouldn't apply because they were not dumping waste (garbage) but intentionally seeding iron into the water.
The second treaty violation claimed is of the UN's convention on biological diversity. Which again doesn't apply because it was scientific research.
The big environmental groups hate this because it would allow for more harvesting and economic activity and would make their goal of no human activity pointless.
Fact is that it works, and works better than anything else.
Bump for great thread.
>>72629058
>Who eats fish
Not me! Fucking hate fish.
Fish = poor person's food
Pork = poor person's food
Any type of bird = poor person's food
Any type of game = poor person's food
>>72626110
>How would a free market prevent overfishing?
Aquaculture, also known as aquafarming.
If the demand is truly high, fishing wild is unsustainable, so they'll come up with a system that allows them to get as much as they want.
Look at Japan. They love fish more than they love meat. Most of their dishes incorporate some kind of fish in it, from fish-based broth (dashi) to raw fish (sushi). It's part of their culture, and the demand for fish is high. To help meet that demand, they have been developing technologies in farming various fish species, and they've been quite successful at it.
They have been farming lots of their fish lately, especially since world governments aren't too keen with Nips catching everything that swims in the wild. Sometimes getting into territorial fishing waters of other countries. They are still a long way from farming every kind of fish they like to eat, and we're talking about hundreds of fish species, but they already have the means to farm many species of fish compared to most countries.
Japan could share those secrets with the world so that they could stop overfishing. If they develop sustainable farming methods for favorites (crab, lobster, etc.), they could even make them cheap enough to be affordable and an alternate (and perhaps healthier) source of protein. It's definitely more environmentally friendly than producing meat.
The problem is that there are interests that don't want the proliferation of aquaculture because they want to control the price of seafood. The easy to harvest and the more abundant the supply is, the cheap it gets. They want to keep them expensive and beyond the reach of most people.
TL;DR: The free market already has the means to prevent overfishing (aquaculture). It's just a matter of getting around greedy people (or just disenfranchising them) that's controlling the price and access to seafood.
>>72634707
This ties in with a bit on whaling I heard on the radio a while back. Whale dung is massively rich in iron and the decrease in whale populations correlates with the overall reduction in diversity and population of other marine species
not a link to the piece i listened to but:
http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/04/03/298778615/the-power-of-poop-a-whale-story
>>72636931
This. They have a dolphin farm in Russia or somewhere like that
>>72630801
Only sensible post in this thread.
Iceland has used this for the past 30 years and has worked like a charm. We also have a centralized agency that determines the quota for the whole of Iceland.
>>72636931
I was going to write a lengthy post on how Murray Rothbard dedicated a chapter in his manifesto to this kind of problems (overfishing, deforestation and etc.) but your post pretty much summed it up.
The reason why deforestation isn't a problem in some countries is because companies can OWN the forests instead of having to beg for licenses to extract wood from government owned ones. If they OWN the forest/sea parcel or whatever else it is they won't cut everything because they would then be the owners of an empty useless land, so instead they will grow, cut and replant trees. Just extend property rights to big enough parcels of sea and those who extract too much will go bankrupt. Those who don't and are able to engineer/fertilize the zone for the fish to grow will earn money than those who are irresponsible.
Property rights solve pretty much everything when correctly applied.
>>72626110
What most ancaps will ignore here is the extinction vortex. Basically, if you drive the population low enough, the genetic diversity of the gene pool contracts. The lack of genetic diversity makes the species less capable of reviving itself. It won't just regenerate back into its equilibrium; species will die go extinct if their total population is reduced past a critical point.
You can't just fish less and solve the problem. I'm not saying there isn't a solution, I'm saying that "kill fewer fish" isn't an adequate response.
>>72626110
>>72626465
This. By eating all the fish to extinction.
>>72638803
>>72639189
Read
>>72638746
>>72636931
---> Aquafarming.
Tree farms instead of extractive production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_farm
Aquafarming instead of extractive fishing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture
And the best thing is you don't even need government for that!
See the graph. The free market is already solving this problem.
>>72626110
tragedy of the commons. most economists will tell you that regulation is needed. i am an economist
>>72626110
It doesn't.
They fish farm until the fish are extinct.
Then the fish market is so small that only the people willing to solve the problem remain and we just hope that they come up with fish farms.
>>72639661
You can fuck off, Keynes. Overfishing is easily solved with private property rights. Giving companies rights to large parcels of ocean incentives sustainable production and intercorporate cooperation.
>>72639313
Aquaculture is actually worse especially in china. It's just a faster way of making sure nothing will live there in the next decades.
>he has to ask people why a 100% free market is undesirable
just throw the overfished fish back in the sea until you need them again
>>72631796
damn! looks delicious.
>>72639921
keynes? try neo-classical if we are talking about micro and regulation (althoug new neoclassical synthesis on macroeconomics)
>>72626110
With property rights.
>>72640131
This man is smart.
>>72640131
Fine, whatever. I guess "property" can be defined as regulation anyways.
>>72626110
It doesn't, people prevent over-fishing.
If some greedy fuck started over-fishing around a lake/coast/river I like to fish on, I shoot them in the head and feed them to the fish.
If someone prevents me from doing so, the state is actively helping the over-fishers and no free market even exists, it's just another corrupt plutocracy whose laws give certain people an advantage over others and restricts my freedom to defend whatever it is I believe ought to be defended.
>>72626110
Companies want to keep the fish around so they can keep fishing there an make more money. Also, people won'y buy ALL the fish, so supply and demand will limit fishing.
>>72640409
basically. although you'd need to make sure long term incentives were properly in place.
also there is nothing anti-libertarian (philosophically) about making sure that the property of everyone (eg the seas) are protected from the destructive activities of a tiny minority of the owners
>free market
A 1 min conversation with the average guy and you will realize that people are meant to be led and ruled.
>>72626110
I'm actually friends with a libertarian who's doing his thesis on solving overfishing.
>>72640990
why rule and lead when all you need to do is manipulate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory
>>72626110
>I'm a fishing company that makes money by catching fish
>might be a good idea to make sure I don't run out of fish.
You know how the paper industry plants 4 trees for every 1 they cut down?
>>72641002
does your friend know about the works of Hilel Steiner?
he writes about universal property rights and infringements on them (eg. the existence of borders and states) from a libertarian perspective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_Steiner
>>72630371
Except in the future, it may be prudent just to have a natural monopoly on the production of fish, with it being more economical to have one company manage the Research and Development required to stabilise fish stocks again.
>>72640153
Property rights are the main problem with ancapism and wouldn't solve the problem, which is funny considering the entire philosophy is built upon property rights. So far the best proposition for what determines property ownership is whether or not you "put labour" into whatever it is you desire to own, but this notion is so laughably fucking vague.
Basically the over-fishers could get away with it because they will simply claim that they "put labour" into acquiring the fish by dragging a net across the water, so the fish they catch are their property.
If you are supposing that perhaps the water on which they fish would be owned by some other entity, there is nothing there that would prevent over-fishing, the owners don't own the fish on the land that swim in and out of their territory, and logic would suggests that if they were paid well enough they would let fishers take all the fish that happened to stroll onto their property anyway with no real restrictions on quantity, because "there are many fish in the sea", they would think without any regard for the fact that they are contributing slowly to over-fishing.
There would need to be some collective effort to prevent overfishing which contradicts the entire notion of the "free market"
The obvious solution is just to band together as a community and literally kill the ones over-fishing, but then that brings into question whether laws should be enforced, or how they would be enforced.
Anarcho-capitalism will forever remain a joke so long as the definition of "private property" is so horrendously vague. Reality suggests that private property doesn't even exist in any real sense besides "what you are capable of defending", in which case killing the over-fishers is justified.
>>72641425
you will want more than 1 company. this is because with only one company you will have no competitive incentive for that "research and development" and as such R and D will be underdeveloped
>>72641892
In that case, having an oligopoly and making an exception on collusion rules between companies would stimulate R&D.
A monopoly that operated under the vested interest of the consumers is, although nothing short of a dream, would work to solve the problem of overfishing.
>>72641739
This is most ignorant shit Ive ever heard. go read and econ textbook dummy.
Private property creates the ability to exclude, which stops the tragedy of the common problem described in the OP.
Has nothing to do with An-cap, its econ 101.
Your an idiot and didn't bother with the rest of your illiterate verbal diarrhea.
Socialists are so stupid that probably think sun revolves around the earth.
>>72641739
>but this notion is so laughably fucking vague.
Its quite simple stupid.
Private property means you can exclude.
Exclusion prevents the tragedy of the commons.
No overfishing.
You will forever remain a joke as you have not even attained a high school understanding of econ.
>>72642075
I majored in Economics in university you fucktard, logic suggests that the entire notion of private property is completely unfounded in the first place, which leads to the entire slew of problems that plague the religion of ancapism from top to bottom.
I am not in any way a socialist either.
>>72642285
Why did you reply to me twice saying the same thing in a different way? You know we have IDs here
>>72642419
basically, ancaps can't justify excluding people from what was once shared global property.
yes, ancaps are basically just cap-caps
>>72642419
>I majored in Economics in university
thats a fucking lie lol
>logic suggests that the entire notion of private property is completely unfounded
no it doesn't . why do you think this?
Your full of shit. You have no clue what a "tragedy of the commons" is, or the nature of goods.
Riddle me this faggot
Whats the diff between a common good and a private good?
You have 60 sec to respond.
>>72642508
Because your so ignorant it had to be broken down barney style for your simple 14 y/o brain
>>72642688
If we theorise for a second that leaf did do a degree of any level in economics, it's highly likely that one of his dissertations was to dispute the nature of private property, and whatever opinion he focused on in said dissertation it will have likely stuck in his mind.
>>72641739
>The obvious solution is just to band together as a community and literally kill the ones over-fishing, but then that brings into question whether laws should be enforced, or how they would be enforced.
Why did you include this? It makes you look retarded.
>>72642599
Actually . Pic related justifies excluding people from property.
>>72641305
Less fish means they're more expensive to buy thus you keep fishing and make the same profits, example oil.
>>72642880
>dispute the nature of private property
Then he should gotten an F.
There is no dispute about private property.
It exists.
It has defined characteristics.
Those characteristics have a definite effect on law and economics.
Everything else is irrelevant moral sophistry that has no place in the social sciences.
>>72626981
Possibly the only anon who took a basic level econ course in this thread.
>>72642938
Just as I thought
total chickenshit
>>72642969
pic related justifies obama doing what he wants
USA is an-cap paradise by your logic???
>>72643139
Could have well failed that year/unit's dissertation. Reading through what he said over again, it seems to be making a very unclear point.
>>72626981
>Opting out of the tragedy of the commons is financially untenable.
Actually its financially profitable. If the common good is converted to private good.
SO your false dilemma does not apply here.
>>72638746
The main difference between fish and trees is that the former usually moves. So if you have a migratory specie for instance,your stock is going to shit if a smartass collapses the stock in another point where your population goes, like reproductive sites. Even if you don't apply excessive fishing effort and respect the quotas of your sea parcel
>>72643317
So you're changing the subject after you got told on the nature of private property.
I'm so sorry you cannot grasp the nature of this competitive world we live in or the social arrangement we constructed to make the process more civil and predictable.
That's understandable when you grow up in a Kingdom that treats its subjects like infants.
>>72629622
I can give you two very good examples where we stoped major fuck ups by not behaving like niggers.
>lead in gasoline
you can read up on what lead does to brains of developing kids. lead concentration in the blood is heavily correlating with anti-social and criminal behaviour
>chlorofluorocarbons
by banning this shit we saved hundreds of thousands of shitposters from dying of too much UV light
And if you want to see what happens if you shit on the inviroment just look at Delhi. The air is so poluted that you lose two extra hours of your life for every day you spend there.
Another point is biodiversity. You don't have to like biodiversity, but there are people that enjoy having more than a few species in an ecosystem
>>72626110
How is being prevented now? Seriously, I don't know how.
Can't anyone get a boat and the supplies then go out every day and fish?
The ocean is pretty fucking huge too.
>>72643319
>Could have well failed that year/unit's dissertation
Id love to read that for a larf.
>>72643580
no, I'm just saying that anarcho capitalism doesn't justify the ownership of private property.
violence and competitivity also justify statism to the same level
>>72643755
essentially yes.
International waters is an-cap.
>>72626110
The tragedy of the Commons occurs due to ill defined property rights.
In a free market, the owner of the fishing spot has an incentive not to overfish his property. As long as others abide by his property claims, there will be no overfishing.
If anything, overfishing occurs due to a lack of free markets.
>>72643810
>anarcho capitalism
let me clarify that I dont give a flying fuck about the preceding word pairing you mentioned.
Force to exclude is the only thing that justifies private property. End of Story.
That is what makes it PRIVATE.
Now whatever legal fiction you invent over the course of 10,000 years to make that process less murderous and destructive, is why we have now arrived and granting legal protection for private property.
Because the alternative is people warring each other for it OR a tragedy of the commons.
And its done a good job of doing that in the modern world.
>>72643824
That's not quite how it works.
Sure you can sail into international waters and fish to your heart's content, but bringing the fish back to shore is another story
>>72644054
This man wins at economics
A+
>>72626110
If fishing companies had to buy rights to fisheries and be required to maintain fish populations by law, problem would be solved. Most commons problems are really property rights problems.
>>72644199
This is also true.
You can also seastead, but your sovereign claim will never be honored by land-based nations.
Now that I think about true an-cap could never occur over land.... only sea.
Guess waterworld was right afterall.
>>72626110
They would form a group organization that was independent of each of them and promoted their shared interests. The organization would contract with the companies to collect regular fees from each of the fishing companies to run its operation, which they would allow because it provides them a net benefit. The fishing companies would retain say in who runs the group organization so that it best represents their interests, probably by voting in regular periods.
As the group organization is designed to recover the fish population, they would probably called it something like "recovernment".
>>72627318
shut the fuck up kike
>>72644434
nicely done lol
>>72644434
And then I would start my own fishing company and overfish and drive them out of business because they have higher costs due to their membership fees.
Free market so nothings stopping me
>>72626110
This is a tragedy of the commons problem. No one owns the oceans and therefore no one feels a need to stop the over fishing problem.
You don't see deer being over hunted for meat because someone owns the lands in which those deer live and are hunted.
When the oceans are homesteaded and owned as well this will no longer be a problem.
>>72644698
>>72644434
>>72644353
>nobody mentioned 3D printing
c'mon step it up newfags
>>72644054
Fishes aren't stationary beings tho, some of the most valuable fishes aren't even litoral (see red tuna).
Also, there actually are fishing rights that countries sell to other countries (pretty much like the Kyoto carbon thing) so it would "define" that countries that have bought those can fish there, which /would/ define the property (maybe wrong about that). Still, companies fishing in foreign countries take a shit ton of product.
Also, you need to take in account the abusive methods, because they can affect their communities and environment and thus lower the capacity of your product, as it can house fewer individuals. It's a complicated issue
Establish a cadastre/land registry of the seas.
There were plenty of such "tragedy of the commons" before the clear establishment of land cadastres.
Basically the main (perhaps only) "regulation" you need is the easy recognition of property of sea areas.
This itself is a very complicated question due to the fluid nature of the sea and the very intricated nature of what we call sea/ocean. But not having any property relation at all is the worst case scenario.
It's mind blowing that we have clear property relations and registry of electromagnetic waves in each area but we still don't have a fucking registry of the seas. Shows how much people (and first of them all states) still have a pirate-like vision of the ocean.
talapia is the future. connect the fish water with Hydroponic veggies. This will be the norm soon. Liberals will keep winning and they will push more and more environmentally friendly bills that will allow this to happen. Chickens and cows will not be fed antibiotics. They will be organic and their excrement will be fed to the fish.
>>72644895
Problem solved for the short term, but this would only work nicely until an inevitable 'resource war' began.
>>72645285
So you mean it hasn't started already?
>>72645454
Eh, I meant until it becomes an existential militaristic issue, rather than an echange of concerns and legislation.
>>72630371
Except the free market allows people to consolidate money and power as they grow. They outgrow their competition and naturally use their abundance of money and power to secure more money in power by influencing laws with their money and with physical force if they can't do that. And because they have so much money no individual can fight them. Libertarianism is a half baked idea.
>>72645285
The resource war is happening right now under the propertyless system, precisely because it's a propertyless system.
Constant bitching between Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and China ring a bell. The case of indonesian piracy too. Or you can see the /int/ memes about the cod war.
People don't go to war for electromagnetic frequency ranges. The sea is also already owned along the coasts for three miles.
Someone should own the oceans. No way they'll allow overfishing.
>>72626110
>overfish
>less fish
>fish price rises
>no one is willing to buy fish anymore
>less fishing
>fish numbers recover
>start again
>>72646094
The UN owns the oceans
>>72646087
Yes, this is true. It remains an issue of words right now, but surely when the war escalates the boundaries you've suggested will be forgotten?
>>72646584
>when the war escalates the boundaries you've suggested will be forgotten?
We have had total war in Europe a century ago and as far as "we tax your shit to fund massive military spending and force you to enlist" go, property was respected by all parties.
I don't see why water would be different even in case of total war.
>>72629622
Lel remember the whales? They used to be everywhere, but unrestricted whaling decimated the population.
>>72647515
Still eat whale about once a month or so, they are delicious. Softening regulations would probably be really bad for them.
>fish population reach critical low level
>imposible to catch fish
>not profitable to fish using the old way
>fish farming implemented
>fish population increases again
tada
>>72646450
The state doing a bang-up job again.
Seriously, get some military ships, a few radarplanes, sell some licenses to fishermen. Anyone fishing without a license will get blown out. We sell licenses acording to them amount of fish that may be caught. Any questions?
>>72646398
>Overfish
>Harder to catch fish
>Fishermen asking for subidies because boohoo
>Fishermen live off the state, keep fishing for the last ones
>No more fish.
>>72627318
>>72629927
The jews are just a slaves of primitive feelings such as greed. Poor people. They have never tasted the feeling o-
>>72650407
Not even a prediction, this is what is happening right now almost everywhere.
>>72649889
>oops, we just caught every member of this species!
Nope.
>>72641739
>>72642075
>>72642285
>>72642419>>72642688
>>72642880
>>72643139
>>72643810
Did an essay on this topic, thought this excerpt would be relevant.
>One major problem in the account of property rights is how resources come to be acquired. The vast majority of resources on our planet including land are claimed by nation states, and within these states sections of land or resources are subsequently claimed by individuals. How did these individuals come to own these resources? Often through legitimate and consensual transactions between two parties, in effect a trade of goods. However, upon tracing these transactions to the inception of the resource claim, we must consequently explain how it is one may ‘claim’ a given resource. A Lockean account of property rights holds that one may claim a resource if one’s labour is mixed into the resource and there is enough of the resource left which is as good for others to claim. This conception quite obviously does not reflect our reality.
>>72651645
>From all appearances, the existence of property rights essentially boils down to a ‘First in first serve’ principle. Someone arbitrarily claims a resource; it is transferred in ownership indefinitely until the present day where the current owner proclaims exclusive ownership of the resource. One day property rights were established, and all claimed property became just. I entirely reject this conception of property rights as ‘just’, for it is based upon the same arbitrary principles law was established to escape. The fact that future transfers of the resource are legitimate is irrelevant, as the acquiring of the private property in the first place is built upon a completely arbitrary principle. Why should we accept a corporation enjoying exclusive control over a natural resource such as oil, if their control is indeed arbitrary? Additionally, how do we justify this to people born after all resources have been claimed? The only justification I can see for a private entity enjoying the fruits of an arbitrary natural resource claim would be a siphoned distribution or tax which accounts for others equal claim to the resource. The other possibility would be to have resources shared communally, a possibility that has been attempted before and that shall not be discussed here.
>>72626746
kek
