[Nunt]

I think people with expertise in any area, not just the environment, can and should be valued and used in societal decision-making.

If I understand it correctly then you would prefer that decisions would be made by scientific experts rather than by the individuals who are affected by those decisions. I agree that people with expertise should make the decisions, by I would disagree that distant scientists are the ones who have the most expertise.

Markets allow people to make decisions about their own lives and these decisions affects them directly. If we take your heart surgery example. A market for heart surgary does not mean that every person in the world can make a decision with regards to your health. It means that every person can make a decision with regards to their own health. There is an important role for experts (the doctor in this example), but only in an advisory capacity. The doctor needs to explain to you the alternatives and the costs and benefits of all alternatives. Even if the doctor is an expert in the field, this does not make him the expert in trading off the costs and benefits. This is because the costs and benefits are subjective and can only be valued by the individual. For example, treatment method A has a survival rate of 75% and a 30% chance that you are paralyzed if you survive. Treatment method B has a survival rate of 60% and but only a 5% chance that you are paralyzed if you survive. An expert cannot make this decision for you. There is not scientific way to determine this. The only expert in the field is the individual.

This holds for many societal decisions. Very few societal decisions only have benefits. Everything comes at a cost. But only individuals can make this tradeoff. Whats more important? Saving a lake or building a school? Scientists have ways of trying to guess what people's actual perferences are, but this is just a proxy. The only real experts it the individual who bears the costs and benefits of the decision.

[sooty]

Hi Nunt - thanks.

I did not mean to suggest that I want a surgeon to make the decision for me between Treatment A or Treatment B. The point I am trying to make is I would rather a surgeon tell me the value of treatment A and treatment B, than having the market (collective population by way of preferences) tell me the value. Likewise, I would rather have experts (and not necessarily just scientists) telling me the value of using land in one way or another. So if we are going to leave it to the market (collective population by way of preference), explain to me how people would get their information on which to base their preferences? Bearing in mind that people cannot be expert in everything, not many people have the expert knowledge of a surgeon AND the expert knowledge of a hydrologist.

I would also not want the scientists to be making the decisions on how to use land, but their expertise is critical to making an informed decision. This is not a necessity required of people when expressing their preferences in the market. It is in light of a full range expertise, that we should weigh up the costs and benefits of the alternatives (save a lake or build a school), and make informed decisions on action (such as strategic land use). Again, I come back to how would a market (free of intervention) ensure life supporting systems are maintained, if not necessarily based on informed preferences?

If "destruction" of these resources occur as part of the market processes then their market clearing price will increase. As any market approaches a point where the resources with life sustaining properties are becoming scarce, pretty much all secondary markets will evaporate with all available resources are turned toward their preservation and extension and/or bringing new natural resources into the economic realm.

I would suggest the market is not a good indicator to go by in this regard, by the time the market observes "destruction" and truly "scarce" resources, ecological thresholds, quite conceivably, may have already been crossed, and irreversible damage caused. If not, restoring the natural systems or providing alternatives to ecosystem services will quite possibly be much more expensive. And if arable land becomes truly scarce, value will increase until only a limited number of people can afford food (hence to balance supply) and we have widespread famine, war etc. etc. This is my argument for markets not being able to fully value labour (people). Even if the market has no need for their labour, or there is not enough supply in the market of food, people cannot just be left unused or put on hold.

[Nunt]

Hi Nunt - thanks.

I did not mean to suggest that I want a surgeon to make the decision for me between Treatment A or Treatment B. The point I am trying to make is I would rather a surgeon tell me the value of treatment A and treatment B, than having the market (collective population by way of preferences) tell me the value. Likewise, I would rather have experts (and not necessarily just scientists) telling me the value of using land in one way or another.

I don't disagree with you here. Experts should inform people about costs and benefits and then people can base their decisions about value using the information from experts. Having an expert giving you advice is not something that it outside of the market. It is an integral part of the market.

[Voluntarism]

I don't disagree with you here. Experts should inform people about costs and benefits and then people can base their decisions about value using the information from experts. Having an expert giving you advice is not something that it outside of the market. It is an integral part of the market.

Indeed, in a market economy the people who actually are the closest to the natural resources and can see the cost/benefit of mismanaging a resource are the ones who directly bear the burden of any mismanagement. In the vast majority of cases, the people who best manage the land are the farmers who have a long term investment and interest in seeing the land being sustainably managed. Although we have hangovers from ongoing subsidies, most of these guys are pretty switched on and know the current science and trade-offs involved in alternative practices. Although generally conservative, they are willing to try new ideas and better practices. Issues with natural resource management tend to occur in situations where there aren't clear property rights (or no property rights at all) or where they aren't properly enforced.

[Eran]

For me the equivalent of the market (or the collective population by way of preference) deciding what to do with life supporting systems, is like giving a vote to every person in the world on whether I should have heart surgery or whether I should cut out my heart to sell.

The market has two remarkable features.

First, it can value something you own, but it cannot force you to sell or give it up at that assessed value. So unlike government using eminent domain to confiscate your land for the "value" it determines (or, best case scenario, the market determines), you can hang on to the things you care about for as long as you want.

Second, the relevant value, if you do decide to sell, isn't some consensus amongst all voters. It isn't the median or mean value. Rather, it is the highest value anybody is willing to offer you.

Thus if there are resources you own (or use as a matter of right without owning), others may not interfere with them without your permission. And to the extent that you are willing to sell your rights, you do that at your own good time, and only at the highest price bid, and only if you consider the transaction at that price to be advantageous to you.


You may be thinking primarily about the use of "common" resources. Common resources obtain their value from the people who actually use them. And while you may not necessarily own the river water, you may well have a use-right to the water, use-right that may not be violated by others without your permission.

[Truth To Power]

So unlike government using eminent domain to confiscate your land for the "value" it determines

"Your" land?? What could have made it "your" land in the first place, but government's say-so and willingness to abrogate everyone else's rights to use it?

you can hang on to the things you care about for as long as you want.

The things you care about? And if others who could have used the land you "care about" are thereby forcibly starved to death, their children dying in excruciating agony within reach of the resources they would have been able to use to survive if you did not stop them, tough $#!+ for them. That about it?

Thus if there are resources you own (or use as a matter of right without owning),

There's the rub. Liberty means you can use resources as a matter of right, without owning them, as our ancestors did for millions of years, and others cannot stop you.

others may not interfere with them without your permission.

That assumes you have a right to withhold permission for others to exercise their rights to liberty -- liberty to do what they would have been at liberty to do if you had never existed.

But if they have to get your permission to do that, it's not liberty.

And to the extent that you are willing to sell your rights,

You mean, sell others' rights to liberty, which you claim to own.

you do that at your own good time, and only at the highest price bid, and only if you consider the transaction at that price to be advantageous to you.

And others' rights to liberty be damned.

You may be thinking primarily about the use of "common" resources.

All that nature provided is rightly common.

Common resources obtain their value from the people who actually use them.

Garbage. They obtain their value from the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical properties and qualities nature provides which that resource enables the user to use to his advantage and benefit.

And while you may not necessarily own the river water, you may well have a use-right to the water, use-right that may not be violated by others without your permission.

What happened to others' rights to use the water nature provided? What gives you any right to grant or withhold permission to use what nature provided for all?