On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 07:22:35 -0700 (PDT), Fred Weiss
papertig.com> wrote:
>On Aug 5, 10:53=A0am, forbisga...@
msn.com wrote:
>
>> Products are the effects of human labor but natural resources are not.
>
>You are forgetting that "natural resources" are useless unless they
>are, first, discovered then extracted, and finally processed into
>usable form.
Nonsense. Discovery has no effect on natural resources. It only
affects the discoverer's own knowledge. You are allowing yourself to
be confused by the grammatical form of the transitive verb. Discovery
is not something one does _to_ the discovered object, but something
one does to improve oneself.
And resources have to be useful BEFORE they are extracted, processed,
etc., or there would be no way to distinguish the ones worth
extracting from the ones not worth extracting. You are claiming that
resources are useless until someone uses them to make useful
resources. But.... how can anyone use resources if they are not
usable, hmmmm?
That is another good example of an absurdity intended to justify an
atrocity.
>So, they are very much a product of human labor
As proved above, and as obviously apparent to any honest, thinking
person, natural resources are self-evidently and indisputably NOT a
product of human labor. They were around long before any human being
existed.
You are simply engaged in the age-old enterprise of trying to sell the
absurdity that justifies an atrocity.
>and,
>far more importantly, of human intelligence (including capital
>investment and risk).
That is just another absurdity, as proved above.
>It is this latter factor which lead to the
>inexorable decline of commodity prices (in real dollars) - and of
>course would again if the gov'ts of the world, including (and maybe
>*especially*) ours would get the hell out of the way.
Oh, don't be so stupid. Do you really imagine that in the absence of
petroleum, the price of whale oil would have declined inexorably as
they were hunted to extinction? Give your head a shake, and tell us
what flavor of jelly beans fall out.
>>=A0I've seen no rational argument for a society to respect property rights=
> over natural resources.
>
>It's staring you in the face everytime you fill up your car.
No, stupid, it isn't.
>There is
>no reason - in economics - why commodity prices today should be
>reversing their longterm trend of ever downward (real) prices or why
>there should be (alleged) shortages.
Yes, of course there is: the monetary irresponsibility of the US
government.
>It is only - and entirely - due
>to gov't meddling in the market (in effect, property rights),
There are no property rights in natural resources. Only
government-created privileges.
>e.g. the
>gov't should have no right to restrict drilling in Alaska or offshore
>(or anywhere else for that matter - and that, btw, includes *any*
>gov't, not just ours).
Oh, don't be so stupid. If the government didn't allocate rights to
natural resources, people would dissipate their entire value in rent
seeking, impoverishing everyone.
You obviously know no economics but what you have read on brain-dead
libertarian websites.
>> ...on the basis of greater good for the society...
>
>The "greater good" is to respect property rights - everyone's,
>including those who invest in the discovery, extraction, and
>processing of commodities.
There is no such thing as a property right in natural resources. What
has been extracted and processed is no longer a natural resource. And
why would "discovery" (i.e., adding to one's own knowledge) confer a
property right in a resource that is utterly unaffected by such an
action? How could improving my own knowledge of what nature provided
entitle me to extinguish others' rights to access and use it?
>Practically, we've seen the result in ever decreasing commodity
>prices.
Bought any seafood lately? There's your result of
unrestricted extraction of a natural resource for private profit.
That's the effect of technology and investment on production costs.
Different topic.
-- Roy L
