> That's not a legal basis for regualtion. I'm all for stewardship, but if
> someone chooses not to be a good steward he/she will simply have to face
> the consequences of the land being worth less when it is sold. This is
> called economics.
I would call it negative externalities. Seldom are these
externalities fully captured in the market value of the land. How much
are you willing to pay for a nuclear waste site (after its been
used)?
> Where you get to impose your *moral* viewpoint upon
> someone is beyond me as far as legalities go.
These are not just *moral* viewpoints. They are economic as well.
Water that is polluted on your land has to cleaned on my land
before I can use it.
> If I want to kill all the
> snail darters on my property then so be it. If you don't want them
> killed, then buy them or pay rent for them. This is the economic
> solution to the mral dilema. "encourage" I agree with, "force" I do not.
Free market solutions to environmental protection don't work.
Champion completely liquidated (clearcut) its Montana lands in response
to market queues. The "market" does not have a conscience. Humans do.
I'm very uncomfortable with an inanimate force called the "market"
determining my fate. The invisible hand slaps pretty hard.
> Who decides what is to much? Maybe cheap paper products are worth more
> than the spotted owl after all. There seems to be some "magical" nature
> given to "species" and their survival when species and habitat have
> always been in flux. As far as what we leave to future people, that is
> your moral choice. Do what you want with your property, I'll do what I
> want with mine.
The problem with economics has been said before...economics is very
good at determining price, and very poor at determing value. The
methods for determining and comparing the values of non-market items has
very far to go. There will *never* be an entirely satisfactory way
to compare market with non-market goods.
To the extent that non-market goods go head-to-head on the
playing field with market goods, non-market goods will always lose.
Ethics and morals make the playing field more competitive by
caputuring values the market simply ignores.
-- Greg Brown gregb@uidaho.edu Computer Services Moscow, ID 83843 University of Idaho (208) 885-2126