Resultados por:


Rechercher Búsqueda avanzada

Últimos temas
» Presentándome.
por Regi Hoy a las 02:49

» Viñetas y debates sobre las temáticas de las mismas.
por Brisa Hoy a las 00:13

» Dudas y sugerencias.
por Admin Ayer a las 23:30

» La frustración
por Regi Ayer a las 23:23

» Botánica del día a día
por Marivi Ayer a las 21:06

» La importancia de la Educación Emocional
por izurdesorkunde Ayer a las 20:38

» como vencer al sistema de recompensa del cerebro?
por Marivi Ayer a las 12:17

» El más bello de los ruidos
por homo divergenticus Ayer a las 10:47

» Nueva administracion.
por Admin Mar Mar 20 2018, 20:55

» Una poesía al día
por Brisa Mar Mar 20 2018, 17:35

The Tragedy of the Commons: Biology and Private Property

Ir abajo

The Tragedy of the Commons: Biology and Private Property

Mensaje por Invitado el Dom Ene 08 2012, 20:53

I've just published it on my blog: http://intelbook.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-biology-and-private-property/

In a market economy, relative prices will always expose the truth about what is the availability of resources that can be used in the community (free market). So the bulls are expensive and chickens, cheap. This is because in the price of a bull or bulls is always a chicken including the cost will mean for capitalists to get back a calf or a chicken, to replenish their stock of animals and reboot the cycle of nurturing.

For this reason, for example, if the whale meat is sold under the premises of the market economy would be much more expensive than it is. Consequently, much less prosecuted. The price of whale steak would explain, clearly than all the campaigns of environmental groups, it is rare that the whales and how expensive it is to "build" a new one. But its price lies. He says buyers that a whale steak is cheap when it is not true.

Many argue that rescue animals have numerous benefits. In the case of alligator Ranger, there is regulation of the population of piranhas, the contribution of extra drainage, recycling nutrients, maintaining the structure and dynamics of the ecosystem, as well as the promotion of employment, with farms for fur trade and products, along with ecotourism.

With the crocodile, it was allowed to raise it in captivity, and sell it. They allow the "farms" of crocodiles, which reproduce and care is one way to prevent illegal hunting and the disappearance.

State intervention is justified for three reasons: Many externalities involve the provision of a public good like clean air or clean water: in particular, can be very expensive to prevent a person enjoy the benefits of these goods.

The second reason is the intervention of the state is related to transaction costs. It is very expensive to make individuals join voluntarily to internalize these externalities. The provision of these services organization is a public good. In fact, you might think that the state is precisely the mechanism that created voluntary individuals to internalize the externalities or somehow reduce the loss of welfare caused by the externality.

The third reason why the markets usually can not resolve the problem of externalities is that established property rights often generate inefficiencies.

The other perspective that I find very innovative and based on the invisible hand of the market works in reverse to the mechanism described by Adam Smith in pursuing each one his own personal interest is contributing to the detriment of all, the depletion we all want the same resource. But things happen because this sector is characterized by the absence of a right of exclusive appropriation. The mechanism that plays the American ecologist Garrett Hardin referred to "The tragedy of the commons."

The most important factor of protection of natural resources, whether of animal or fleet, is the separation of any system of collective appropriation. The species that disappear are those that have no specific law that protects property.

Those that survive and thrive are, however, one way or another, including a sphere of individual rights and exclusive benefit to this, the natural tendency of humans to seek their own interest, since it reflects the to essentially commercial reasons (such as animal breeding), or more noble reasons in defense of nature.

The fact that biodiversity is a "free good", a property typically collective. In this system if I am a prudent man, whether voluntarily limited my shots to not exacerbate the exploitation of the environment, animal, marine, I have no guarantee that others will do the same. And there is no legal responsibility, individual "owners".

Contrary to generally held, the solution of problems of environmental degradation, overexploitation of natural resources or the destruction of wild animals, must go through an extension of procedures for private ownership in all parts where it is technically possible. Paradoxically, the property is the best ally of the enemies of nature.

A good example of the turtles in the Caribbean. This species is highly sought after for its meat and for its leather. These wild turtles were extremely abundant only two centuries ago. Currently are in the process of disappearing. Some years ago a British set up a marine farming specializes in the reproduction of these turtles in the Cayman Islands. His departure most important American market. The big American associations for the defense of nature have felt greatly concerned by the fact that you can make money by exploiting animals harmless.

Result: they started a national campaign until President Carter banned imports. The campaign paid off. The ban was made on behalf of the defense of nature against their commercial exploitation. Consequence: the demand has not disappeared, the U.S. market is currently supplied from illegal imports of turtles killed on the beaches of the Caribbean fraudulently. Again, this species is endangered. Here is what has led the anti-capitalist zeal of environmentalists.

However, the current situation suggests a gradual change in the institutional environment. Unable any longer to maintain the condition of goods free of the tiger (the free market or institutional failure?), Because it is increasingly clear that there are multiple human interests, not necessarily friendly or complementary, dedicated to dealing with wildlife . Ahead then is possible within the future juristical we are proposing, to develop a new environment where notice is possible to generate private entitlements over the species of animal.

In the case of the crocodile, simply because there was a demand for crocodiles, so they stayed and looked at properties. There is another unequal struggle between man and animal, hunting. This has long banned in Africa for several species, among which is the rhinoceros. The purpose of this ban was to keep the population of rhinos and the result was the opposite.

The Adam Smith Institute striking that accumulated after decades of failure have decided to modify and open hunting rhino, not to kill it off, but to save their species. The game, just not worth to save the species. The key is to be allowed to have privately herds of rhinos, as they are, for example, herd. This is the private control of resources that ensures their long-term sustainability. It is a profitable business, as a hunter can pay up to 140,000 pounds to hunt a rhino.

The most important is that private control of the resource to be an owner of an animal, it would be legally responsible and could exercise certain legal laws (the principle of kindness to animals, respect for life and to suffer the least possible in case of sacrifice).


Volver arriba Ir abajo

Volver arriba

- Temas similares

Permisos de este foro:
No puedes responder a temas en este foro.