Category Archives: Regulation

Killing Whales To Save Them (Part 2)

Killing Whales To Save Them (Part 1), was about animal welfare. Part 2 is about conservation. It’s about not depleting our ocean fisheries of fish. And it’s about not driving species (such as whales) to the verge of extinction.

Today’s post was partly triggered by TVNZ 7: Freedom has a Price, a recent post by atheist Mark Hubbard on his blog Life Behind the IRon Drape. Damien Grant has it exactly right in his comments on Mark’s post. Since he’s pretty much pre-empted what I was going to say, I’ll copy and paste.

But I like fish!

I do not want them to die and I have no faith that fisherman will act in their own best interests.

Save the Flake! Regulate! (repeat)

If the fish had an owner they would not be farmed to extinction. The solution is simple, they need an owner.

It does[n’t] really matter who, but if there is an owner the market can work. If there is no owner you get the tragedy of the commons.

Getting the fish an owner may require some impure statist intervention, but all property, historically, has been acquired … with some impure statist intervention.

Once done you … have fish and freedom!

Well said, Damien. If the price of freedom is no fish, then freedom is unaffordable! Mark says that no fish might, indeed, be the price of freedom, but, thankfully, he’s wrong. And Damien is wrong about the statist intervention being “impure,” for reasons I briefly alluded to.

We need privatisation.

… ocean fish are not the products of men’s minds. But they’re scarce. Scarcity, not production, is the basis of property rights.

I’ll spell this out explicitly … after lunch.

So, yeah. Scarcity, not production, is the basis of property rights. (There are more than two theories of property and property rights, and variations of each, and hybrid theories, but this is a blog post, not a doctoral dissertation.) Let’s compare the scarcity theory of property with the production theory of property.

The production theory of property says that if you produce something, or add value to something, it’s yours. The scarcity theory says that if it’s a scarce commodity, and the prevailing social convention says it yours, it’s yours.

If you’re shipwrecked and find yourself alone on a tropical desert island, the production theory of property says that the mangoes you pick from the tree, or the fallen mangoes you pick up off the ground, are your property, but the mangoes you leave on the tree or leave on the ground are not your property. The scarcity theory of property says that none of the mangoes is your property, simply because there is no need for a social convention to allocate mangoes.

The scarcity theory of property, you see, is the answer to a pressing question, viz., how do we allocate scarce resources in a free society? Whereas, the production theory of property is not the answer to anything. It says that if you produce something, or add value to it, then it’s your property, whether you like it or not. I don’t know about you, but if I found myself alone on a desert island, I would eat mangoes. It wouldn’t worry me, or anyone else, in the slightest that they either were or weren’t my mangoes. (Actually, it would worry me if they were my mangoes. I’d be asking myself, why on earth are these my mangoes? And then I’d eat them. To ease my metaphysical anxiety.)

But let’s get back to fish … before I get the urge to pop across to the supermarket for some mangoes.

So, yeah. Two common types of property are tangible goods and land. Both are in scarce supply. The scarcity theory of property handles both types of property. The production theory of property, however, struggles with land. Either it relies on “improvements” to the land to make it property, or it relies on an ad hoc “finders keepers” add-on to the theory. Elegance is an epistemic virtue, and either version of the production theory applied to real estate is inelegant, don’t you think?

Now let’s go to the fish. Ocean fish are not the products of men’s minds. Someone who subscribes to the production theory of property plus the “finders keepers” add-on can say that ocean fish become property as soon as they’re caught. They can say that the fish belong to no one until such time as they’re caught. But this way of thinking leads quickly to the tragedy of the commons. Like a gold rush, there’s a fish rush. And, soon, there are next to no fish left. Casting a net for fish becomes like panning for gold. There’s an occasional fish here or there in a net full of nothing. Seemingly, only the heavy hand of statist intervention can rectify the situation and save the fisheries. And libertarianism is severely compromised.

It need not be so! The scarcity theory of property tells us that ocean fish are a scarce commodity and should, therefore, be privatised! How this privatisation is implemented is not as important as the privatisation itself. Allocating quotas, or particular species, or geographic areas of ocean, to interested parties who apply for commercial fishing licences solves the problem of the tragedy of the commons which is the natural outcome of applying the production theory of property to ocean fish. A Ministry of Fisheries (albeit, a very small one) is a legitimate arm of government.

Privatise the whales, too! This can be done by literally tagging whales, there’s so few of them left. And privatise kiwis! If private enterprise was permitted to farm kiwis for food the kiwi would no longer be an endangered species. (Imagine what a hit real kiwiburgers would be with the tourists!) It’s all so common sensical it’s no wonder the government hasn’t seriously considered the proposal.

Killing Whales To Save Them (Part 1)

I got this in my email today.

ACT

 
Killing Whales To Save Them
Press Release by ACT Leader John Banks
Thursday, July 5 2012

The proposition that South Korea could begin so called ‘scientific’ whaling is an international outrage, ACT Leader John Banks said today.

“Like Japan, it remains ludicrous that they believe you need to kill whales to save them,” Mr Banks said.

“This thinking is as lamentable as it is obscene.

“It should be condemned and stopped before it even begins,” Mr Banks said.

ENDS
 

Media Contact: Shelley Mackey, Press Secretary, 04 817 6634/ 021 242 8785
(shelley.mackey@parliament.govt.nz)
Unsubscribe from THIS newsletter | Unsubscribe from ALL of our Newsletters
ACT

Animals have rights. Yes, even feral conservatives like John Banks.

This PR may seem like one out of left field to some, but John Banks has a long history of campaigning for animal rights and supporting animal welfare legislation. It may seem that he and (former) Green MP Sue Kedgley make strange bedfellows, but a SAFE media release in (pre-election) October last year had this to say.

Greens Lead the Way against Colony Cages

If the nation’s three million caged hens could vote, the Greens and Act’s John Banks would be ruling the roost come this year’s election, says leading animal advocacy organisation SAFE.

Outgoing animal welfare spokesperson and Green MP Sue Kedgley, announced yesterday that her party will pledge against cruel colony cage systems and Act Party candidate, John Banks, also says he will pledge his personal support to help caged hens.

I say (and I am afraid this is going to be very unpop­u­lar), good on them both. Many libertarians are conflicted about animal welfare legislation. They think such legislation is unprincipled, while at the same time they abhor animal cruelty. I find their arguments, that the way to prevent animal cruelty is through social rather than legal sanctions, feeble at best and unconscionable at worst.

My defence of my seemingly unlibertarian views on the matter of animal welfare legislation is this. Animal welfare legislation is not a moral issue. It is a metaphysical issue.

(Almost) all libertarians I know subscribe to the view(s) that

human beings are individually possessed of certain inalienable rights, which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of … happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers – and only such powers – from the consent of the governed; that all laws legislated by governments must be for the purpose of securing these rights; that no laws legislated by government may violate these rights …

If you believe, as I do, that non-human animals also possess some (limited) rights, then it is within the proper scope of government to secure those rights. Animal welfare legislation is not necessarily unlibertarian. Whether it is or not depends on whether or not non-human animals possess rights. And that is a metaphysical question, not a moral one.

Comparing Hamilton City’s Dire straits to Bankrupt City of Stockton.

The Californian city of Stockton is set to become the largest US city in decades to go bust.

Mayor Ann Johnston told the city council which endorsed the move it was “the most difficult and heart-wrenching decision” they had ever faced.

As has become the Norm these days Stockton Officals attempt to pass the blame upon the ‘Global market collapse’ rather than their own gross overspending, Yet a quick search of the Net reveals the same old story of Grand scheming…Heavy handed Government.
They got into debt building and running Parking buildings… which as usual was *a fail*… just like it was for the Hamilton City Council.
The City of 300 000 carries a debt of $700 Million.
Which, by comparison ought to show Hamiltonians just how grievious is their own situation being a Population of 152641 and city debts of $400 million
When the population of Stockton and US exchange rate is factored, This ruffly equates to an equivelent debt of $450 million to Hamiltons $400 Million.
We will be there by the next Local Body elections!
Thus We can safely say Stockton was brought to it’s knees by the same Pig headed Political Folly as has plagued Western democracy in General… including Hamilton New Zealand.
If only Hamiltonians had listened to me!If only The Waikato Times had been able to grasp the reality of what I was saying, and given me equal time with the other candidates in their paper to present my arguements to the Ratepayers of Hamilton!
We would not be facing such a finacial catastrophy as we do now!
Tim Wikiriwhi
Libertarian Independent.
Hamilton West.

Malum prohibitum

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se (plural mala in se).

Wikipedia says

Conduct that is so clearly violative of society’s standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in State of Washington v. Thaddius X. Anderson:

Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is “naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community,” whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so.

Check out Wikipedia’s list of mala prohibita offences and you’ll recognise many, perhaps most, as classic victimless crimes. Of course, all laws prohibiting victimless crimes now on our statute books should be repealed. As a libertarian, writing for a (mostly) libertarian audience, I take that as a given.

What concerns me in this post is not that victimless crimes are on our statute books, it’s the sheer number of mala prohibita offences on our statute books. It’s a number that keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Why is the number of such offences a concern? Because, as honest lawyer Scott DeSalvo points out

More and more things are being criminalized, so the number of otherwise law-abiding citizens who are technically guilty of a malum prohibitum crime rises.

This has the effect of causing everyone to be technically illegal, and thus in fear of a rightful imprisonment and seizure of property for what amounts to perfectly acceptable conduct. This shuts everyone up—no one wants to protest wrongdoing

We live in a society that I am sure all … can agree features too many malum prohibitum crimes (crimes that aren’t like murder, which are bad in themselves, but illegal because a politician said so). Witness the MASSIVE numbers of new such laws—seatbelts, helmets, cellphone use, smoking bans, foie gras bans, etc. that have been passed recently. And also consider innocuous use of marijuana at home—illegal, but not hurting anyone. Congratulations, we are all criminals in a society with too many laws that aren’t sensical or necessary. Now that we are all technically criminals, the government can snoop on us, right? Give me any person, let me snoop through their stuff—I promise, I’ll find some technical violation of some law.

So, you can see, we are on the way [to a totalitarian dictatorship.]

It’s time to call a moratorium on new legislation. Whoever’s driving the ban wagon, for pity’s sake, hit the brakes!

Of Bossyboots, Busybodies and Bloombergs

The following is today’s op-ed by my friend (when I haven’t been doing my level best to sorely piss him off) and political ally, Lindsay Perigo. Perigo is still New Zealand’s #1 libertarian. Partly because the competition is unhealthy, but mostly because … well, the gem of an op-ed below speaks for itself. Cheers, Linz!

Lindsay Perigo

Lindsay Perigo Op-Ed: Of Bossyboots, Busybodies and Bloombergs

In the Declaration of Independence, ratified in 1776, America’s Founding Fathers affirmed that the role of government was to secure the inalienable rights of all citizens to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In 2012, the Mayor of New York affirms that the role of government is to forbid the sale of super-sized sodas.

Michael Bloomberg has announced a ban, not yet ratified, on the sale of sugary drinks in containers holding more than 16 ounces.

It is an illuminating snapshot of how far the United States has been dragged from its founding principles by obnoxious wowsers like Bloomberg that he can indulge his odious urges with such impunity.

“Big Brother Bloomberg,” as Fox News’s The Five have dubbed him, has already succeeded in banning the smoking of tobacco in public and the use of trans-fats in restaurants.

Bloomberg is now a one-man obesity nazi, on a mission to force fatties to shrink. He has bought into the latest dietary theology that sugar is the main cause of flab, and thinks it’s government’s job forcibly to limit how much of it citizens may ingest.

The last time a politician took such an invasive interest in his subjects’ health his name was Adolf Hitler. He too campaigned against tobacco, along with white-bread and meat-eating.

If New York’s citizens had any understanding of what the original Tea Party was all about, they’d eject Mayor Bloomberg from his office forthwith, before he bans smoking in their homes, criminalizes caffeine and reintroduces alcohol prohibition.

Instead, many are treating his proposed ban respectfully, as though he indeed has a right to institute such a thing. And disastrously, opponents are not staking out a position based on principle—that government under the American system has no business dictating how much sugar people may consume—but on quibbles as to whether sugar actually is the culprit (tacitly conceding that if it were, the move to restrict it would be valid). They also point out that the ban could be easily circumvented by the sale of two 16-oz sodas instead of one 32-oz one. These “arguments” remind me of the hypothetical group of folk, conjured up by Leonard Peikoff in his lecture on why people don’t think in principles, who idly muse on whether it might be a good idea to rob a bank. “Which bank?” one of them asks.

Many of Bloomberg’s opponents are of the “which bank?” ilk, toying with the proposition that robbing a bank might be OK but fretting over which one has the laxest security, the easiest escape route, etc. They forget what they were raised, rightly, to believe—that it’s flat-out wrong to rob banks, period. Bossyboots Busybody Bloomberg is radically, fundamentally, treasonously out of line with the Declaration of Independence in his relentless Nanny Statism … and this is what his critics should be hanging him in effigy for.

Here in New Zealand, the National Socialist Government has announced that the excise tax on tobacco will be raised 10% a year over the next four years, meaning a pack of 20 cigarettes will end up costing over $20 a pack. It has also set aside $20 million of taxpayer money to facilitate the path to a “smoke-free New Zealand” (no smoking in private homes?) by 2025. A freedom-conscious citizenry, smokers and non-smokers alike, would storm Parliament over intolerable outrages such as this. Alas, we do not have a freedom-conscious citizenry, just a flock of sheeple.

America once had, but no longer has, a freedom-conscious citizenry. “Don’t tread on me” has become “please tread on me.”

“The natural order of things,” lamented Thomas Jefferson, “is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

In which case, paraphrasing Diderot, liberty will be safe only when the last pathological power-luster has been strangled with the guts of the last congenital control-freak.

And when its champions are able to defend it on principle.

Lindsay Perigo: linz@lindsayperigo.com

[Reproduced with permission! The original is online at http://www.solopassion.com/node/9150.]