>> It's not clear at all that the water under your property is yours. 

Gerhard :
>Ok. I thought you were discussing from a point of "no common property"; ie.
>everything is private property.

        Apparently you don't realize there's another option. Things can be
un-owned, so to speak. The point is, the price of natural resources is based
on the effort it takes to 'mine' them. When you pay for oil, you basically
pay for exploration and extraction. The oil itself is not private property.
It's un-owned.

        But you say it's common property. Ok. Now the fun begins...

        Imagine you want to sell your house. You ask for $xxx. YOU get to
decide how much you want. And if somebody agrees to give you what you ask,
then the price is $xxx.

        Now, when something is owned by everybody, WHO gets to decide what
the asking price is ? The govt. of course ? The nation-state ? the UN ? The
god-designated leader ? Majority  rule ? Rousseau ? 

        And even worse. If everybody is selling something, then WHO is
buying it ??? Do you see that common property is a contradiction in terms ?
Do you see that prices can't exist in a common property scenario ? If
something is common it can not be sold or bought...

        So in practice the politicians own the country and they sell it to
their friends. And the firms who buy licenses from the politicians get back
the money they spent in 'licensing' when they sell their stuff to the
consumers ('we the people')

        Still want common oil fields ? Still want common 433mhz bands Wouter ? 

 

>You said that in your definition, the oil is useless
>for me, even though I said that I don't think it's useless for me.

        What I meant is that the oil can't be used unless it's found and
extracted. I was not opining whether it's useful or not for you. Whatever
you do with it is indeed useful for you. Otherwise you woudn't do it...

>Not using is not the same as hoarding.

>[See, if you want to have a serious discussion, you should make a little
>bit of an effort to keep it free of gratuitous attacks.]

        Don't take it so hard. I was simply teasing you. I don't believe
that 'hoarding' is a dishonest act. You can call it saving if you want. 


        Anyway, we have strayed from my original point, wich was that the
current price of oil is higher than it should be because of taxes,
regulations, wars, inflation and 'common' property. Apparently you
disregarded all factors except common property - a system you seem to relish.

        So I repeat that people who want an even higher price of energy
because they consider that 'we' need to economize it, are badly mistaken,
and are, apparently, willing to use state-sponsored violence to further
their 'conservative' agenda.

        I'm off my soap box...before somebody starts throwing stones :)


J.



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist