Comments (38)

• Matt

  I do have a question about the graph that is shown. In 1491 Charles Mann points out that there is a discrepency between the number of meso-Americans that were here. There seems to be a large divergence on the true number. Some say that it might have been millions upon millions while others say they were so widely dispersed that it could only be several hundred thousand. Does this graph take the high number or the low number?

  Published: September 24, 2007 9:44 AM

• jeffrey

  It's not supposed to be a scientific graph. It is a common one shown on sites warning about dangers of overpopulation. The point is that the graphic illustrates not danger but the productive capacity of the free economy.

  Published: September 24, 2007 10:47 AM

• Eric

  Population also affects the division of labor. With the extreme specialization required to maintain our high tech society, we need ever more people to specialize.

  I recall the popularity of books that spoke of habitats in space some years back. There was even talk of creating "arks" similar to the one in Rendevous with Rama by A.C. Clarke where a civilization would build a huge spaceship and travel to far off solar systems, or even galaxies.

  Years later I began to think about the economic issues, especially the imposiblity of having enough people to continue the development of new technology, let alone maintain what already existed. It takes entire cities to be able to develop computer chips. And such specialized cities do exist.

  So, any ark sent into space would be frozen in time, or worse, as they would not be able to replace any broken components, not having the equivalent of a city such as Silicon Valley.

  The bottom line is that the more people we have on earth, the more different and wonderful things can be developed and the more specialized we can become. This lets us do things lke search for the cures to rare diseases, that a small population would not be able to do (without giving up something more important to survival). So, I say, to be prosperous - multiply!

  Published: September 24, 2007 1:15 PM

• rhys

  I think the author makes a good point about the lack of need for children in the developed nations. I think that must certainly play a role in declining populations. When children become an expensive luxury, as they are in the US, there are disincentives to procreate. This is only a partial explanation though.

  The developed nations have governmental policies that create strong disincentives to bear children. I believe that these are the heart of the decline in birth rates in developed nations. For one, it is, by and large, illegal for children and young teens to work. Instead they are compelled to go to school, as if that is the only way to receive an education. And by the time it is legal for them to increase the wealth of the family, they are of majority age. This means that by law children represents a pure liability to the family. This push to devalue children in their youth amounts to an effort on behalf of the State to have the parents subsidize the future tax revenue of the State (in effect creating class struggle between potential parents and their potential children, which potential parents "win" by disallowing the potential to become actual - see next paragraph). This may seem far fetched, but go to your local school board or city council meeting when they address education. They will go on and on about how it is imperative to increase the education of their citizens in order to raise additional revenue (educated populations attract white collar companies, and white collar workers pay more taxes). In this effort, they destroy families, create disincentives to procreate, and conspire to raise the level of education despite low demand (otherwise there would be no compulsory education). Your government makes it illegal for your child to be anything but worthless until they are old enough to pay taxes (unless, of course, you are on welfare!).

  Also legislation within a democracy will tend to create class warfare (Hoppe "Democracy-The God that Failed"). Not just between the rich and the poor, but between every possible class - Rich against poor, black against white, male against female, gay against straight, old against young, etc... This class struggle based upon age occurs in large part due to Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, and Public Education. These transfer payments cause wealth to shift from reproductively fit citizens to non-reproductively fit citizens, decreasing the ability of young adults to pay for their legislatively-mandated worthless children.

  Someone might bring up child exploitation, but even at the height of the industrial revolution, the population boomed, due in large part to the ability of children to earn their keep. Before the industrial revolution, needy children would often die due to hardship. During the industrial revolution, mechanization allowed children to mitigate their own hardship. Sure, needy or poorly cared for children were worked, but in the time before this class of children could work, often they would just die. Today, I would imagine that even if child labor where decriminalized, parents would aim to find the best combination of work and education for their children. Why can't 10 year-olds fix cars? Why can't 13 year-olds wait tables? Why can't 15 year-olds work as loan officers? Children might be inexperienced, but they only act as irresponsibly as they are allowed.

  Published: September 24, 2007 1:45 PM

• EnEM

  "Most developed countries have low replacement rates."
  "The United States population is still growing, but an estimated three fourths of that growth is from immigration or births to immigrants."

  Is there a corelation here, because what I am comprehending the article or Dan McLaughlin as saying that developed countries like the US have low replacement rates, and were it not for the the "undeveloped/underdeveloped'immigrants the US too have a low replacement rate, seeing as how it's a developed country.
  

  Published: September 24, 2007 3:18 PM

• Mike Tabony

  You probably meant to say the great rise in population was due to the human race "feeding" on cheap fossil fuels instead of capitalism. Like locusts feeding on fields of grain we have been devouring millions of years of stored sunlight. As soon as the fossil fuels are gone or are restricted because the waste products are creating havoc with the climate which we need to live, the population of humans will return to approximately pre-fossil fuels and pre-capitalism days. If we are very lucky.

  In fact, one might argue that the development of cheap energy, cheap fossil fuel energy, allowed capitalism to flourish in the first place. In that case, you'd have the cart before the horse.

  Published: September 24, 2007 3:33 PM

• bwp

  In all Socialist countries, which includes all the technically advanced countries, the government control of education has brought about an elongation of the time it takes to become minimally educated. Physically a females best time for giving birth is around 16-19. For the male his sperm counts reach their highest about the same time. But where are they today, they're in a class room often being bored out of their minds. The standard of education has fallen by about 5 years over the last 100 years. Females conception rates reduce as their education increases. Over 60% of students in the USA and in other so called 'advanced societies' are now female.

  Published: September 24, 2007 4:25 PM

• happylee

  To follow up on the great piece by McLaughlin and comments by rhys, there is a powerful strain of anti-humanity a.k.a. population growth in the elites of today that horrifying. As if having more species of monkeys wandering some jungle somewhere is more wonderful than having another man walking a paved street.
  Just look at the evil anti-carbon nuts. The market proved too efficient at reducing harmful pollution, so the anti-humanists had to invent a new boogaboo. How convient that man not only exhales this very horrible "new pollutant" but requires so much more to heat his home in the winter and cool his home in the summer, etc.
  And then there's this horrible crap here

  Published: September 24, 2007 5:23 PM

• bwp

  Whoops.

  "Over 60% of students in the USA universities and in other so called 'advanced societies' are now female."
  

  Published: September 24, 2007 5:58 PM

• serena

  I want to start by pointing out that bwp is mistaken about a woman's best, most fertile years. These years are not 16-19. Fertility increases dramatically every year until 20. Her best childbearing years are 20-25, with a peak at 23 and 24.
  Rhys asks why a 10-year-old can't fix cars. Indeed, why can't an 8-year-old collect debts? When I was 8 I wanted to be a secretary. Not when I grew up. I wanted to be a scientist and maybe a dancer or talk show host when I grew up. i wanted to be a secretary then, instead of school. I was reading at four and reading at postgraduate level at eight. The world of work fascinates the growing mind. What does a five-year-old talk about longest? Cranes! Tractors! Factories! She wants to know how to make things.
  If the only restrictions on occupations were real factors of safety and competence, and school were absolutely optional and could take any form anyone felt like putting out there on the market, kids would be happier, parents would be happier, generations wouldn't be intimidated and resentful of one another, the population would do just what it should and every child would be a wanted child because adoption would be less financially risky.
  But we would still need some safeguard against child slavery and abuse. Any ideas on how to do that?

  Published: September 24, 2007 7:10 PM

• Jean Paul

  Serena, all accurate points.

  How do we prevent slavery and abuse?

  Embracing freedom is certainly the answer. Here's my speculation as to how it may go down; others may suggest their own take.

  First and foremost, when we tear down slavery and abuse as the foundational maxim of our society, and cease to indoctrinate all individuals into the culture of slavery and abuse from an early age, we will be creating an environment naturally hostile and immune toward this evil that infects the planet today.

  So the first piece of the puzzle: The free person of tomorrow will understand, appreciate, and demand the justice that today's 'citizen' has been brainwashed to fear and disdain.

  Next, in a truly free society, there would be far more transparency into people's and firms' activities, because there would be far less reason to waste scarce resources on keeping anything secret.

  ...Probably that deserves more explanation. Today we are all criminals on one count or another, which is as the state prefers it; this way we are all held hostage to its will, and investing in privacy is of crucial importance for mere survival. Thus we all live paranoid lives, and avoid asking questions for fear of provoking same. Nothing short of Orwellian, and getting worse each day.

  In the more permissive and affluent society that freedom brings, you can expect people to live vastly more open and unconcerned lives. When people no longer fear bullets for thoughtcrime, secrecy just won't matter as much as it does today. This means that veils of secrecy will be more conspicuous wherever they do exist; and the resources and permission to 'peer inside the veil' will be more readily available to all.

  Just as consumers have begun to demand today - only moreso - consumers will demand transparency from the corporations, firms, or other parties that they associate with. The price of secrecy will be high indeed, both in terms of consumer trust, opportunities missed, and the care and technology needed to maintain secrecy. Expensive, short-lived, and ultimately unreliable information controls will be deployed where most economical - toward the timely protection of information-sensitive business models, such as new product development, or artificial IP scarcity (this plug for market-based IP is dedicated to my pal ktibuk).

  Under these circumstances, no corporation will be able to keep dirty secrets from the righteous public for long.

  So, we have the second piece of the puzzle: in the free society of tomorrow, abusers and enslavers will quickly be outed as such.

  Finally, consider the enforcement of justice through resitiution and retribution. The passive means of influencing others' behavior - contracts primarily, but also punitive boycotts and simple social unpopularity if it comes to that - are extremely effective tools. In many ways, these means are more potent than violence, as they are rooted in self interest and motivation toward constructive ends, rather than destructive fear.

  Beyond that, free market justice is certain to operate more swiftly and accurately, and far less destructively, than the coercive and violent mockery of justice that serves us today.

  With these means at the public's disposal, acts of injustice will be countered with swift and effective corrective measures.

  Thus, the third piece of the puzzle: the outraged citizen of tomorrow will have the teeth and tough hide needed launch a very successful personal attack on injustice.

  There you have it... my version for tonight at least.

  Published: September 24, 2007 9:19 PM

• Anthony

  Great analysis JP.

  Published: September 24, 2007 9:46 PM

• Matt

  "Population growth has been much slower in developed countries than developing countries."

  OK we know that that is true but what is really going on here? It is claimed developed countries need fewer children because of their technologies,
  more machinery etc. and developing countries have more children because they need them to feed themselves. BUT developing countries are generally the most unfree countries and should therefore have fewer children but have more. Something doesn't add-up here.

  I believe the primary factor of birth increase or decrease lies in education.
  The developed countries have a higher rate of education and as a consequence see that as the cost of Socialism increases children become very expensive to properly raise, those in the underdeveloped countries have more children because of their lower level of education.

  Published: September 24, 2007 10:15 PM

• Marco Saba

  "People who are not starving are healthier."
  Yes, this is the problem. There is an interesting solution proposed by a former US Treasury employee:
  C.H. Douglas: Pioneer of Monetary Reform - by Richard C. Cook, Global Research, September 24, 2007
  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6870

  Published: September 25, 2007 4:57 AM

• mark

  believe the primary factor of birth increase or decrease lies in education.
  The developed countries have a higher rate of education and as a consequence see that as the cost of Socialism increases children become very expensive to properly raise, those in the underdeveloped countries have more children because of their lower level of education.

  Actually, the biggest factor is the liberation of women. The liberation of women pertains to the asymetries with in developed countries as well. Higher educated women in the U.S. on balance reproduce significantly below replacement level.

  Published: September 25, 2007 6:45 AM

• mark

  Developing populations increased per capita calorie intake by 38 percent.

  This statistic is not only completely misleading but totally misses the far greater consequence of overpopulation and development.

  As nations develope , diets change from grain to more meat and fish. Do I have to spell it out to you or do you understand where this going with respect to the ecology?

  Published: September 25, 2007 6:54 AM

• Tom Hurst

  Government-induced market distortions are everywhere, of course, and with regard to childbirth in developed countries one is that the welfare state enables many families to have far more children than they could possibly support on their own because government guarantees that taxpayers without children will cover the difference. With that mechanism in mind, I would speculate that Russians - lacking a robust welfare state - are not having children because their relative lack of liberty, free markets and property rights precludes their affording children. That's the message Putin should be responding to if he wants more Russians! www.TomHurst.US

  Published: September 25, 2007 7:07 AM

• Anthony

  I agree. Perhaps if Putin were serious about increasing the population, he'd try fix up the mess that exists in Russia. Of course, he instead contributes to it...

  Published: September 25, 2007 7:11 AM

• TLWP Sam

  So what if developed countries have few children? Why on earth would Western nations want to be as populous as India or China? It sounds very unLibertarian to say that women are expected to be baby-makers or that couples who don't particularly want to have children should still have them anyway. (I think human babies have a long way to go before they are as cute and cuddly as puppies or kittens >:P) One thing that is striking in the very highly populated parts of the world is the way people there live in spartan conditions. As it been pointed out heaps of times before the world population skyrocketed due to declining death rates not birth rates. I'm sure when you consider how many welfare cases there are in a Western nation you'd find you really wouldn't need that many people to run a country.

  Published: September 25, 2007 8:45 AM

• Juan

  
  It sounds very unLibertarian to say that women are expected to be baby-makers

  Yes. I think nobody really knows what would happen in a truly free-sociery. But I imagine that people would engange in activities that so called 'social-conservative' would not like at all. For instance, who can say that the family is the best way to rise children ? Perhaps entrepeneurs would come up with bettere 'institutions' ?

  
  

  Published: September 25, 2007 2:45 PM

• Juan

  typos: I meant :

  so called 'social-conservatives'
  better 'institutions'

  Published: September 25, 2007 2:47 PM

• Daniel M. Ryan

  @TLWP Sam:

  You do have a point in that there's a cultural factor behind population growth in relatively less-well-off societies, not just an economic factor.

  "Ye shall be fruitful and multiply." Any Bible Believer, or Jewish analog to that kind of Christian, would consider this quote to be a direct order from the Supreme Being, without qualification. There was no codicil saying, "until the day of thine fruit multiplying beyond the needs of ye and yours." Other cultures have similar injunctions.

  I venture that the economic explanation of large families (the non-extended part of them, specifically) seems more of a take-out than an accurate description. Aristocratic families in Europe, back in the days when aristocratic families were practically the only rich ones around, were glad to fill the ranks of Chuch and armed forces with their progeny. The custom, "the first son inherits; the second son joins the military; the third son joins the clergy" implies having at least three kids, and (given the odds involved) likely going for five to seven. Despite my phrasing of it in modernistic terms, that custom is of old standing.

  Published: September 25, 2007 4:18 PM

• bwp

  "It sounds very unLibertarian to say that women are expected to be baby-makers".

  Dd you mean its Politically Incorrect to state the obvious. In all technically advanced countries women have almost completely stopped having babies. I was in Japan in May when the Governer of Tokyo reported that births are now below 1.0 while 2.15 is needed to just remain steady. That means Tokyo will probably be almost empty within 150 years as will all the other Socialist countries, US, UK ,Europe, Russia, Korea etc etc and even possibly China except for the recent migrants. I remember November 20th 1967 when the US population hit 200 million. When October came around last year and it got to 300 million the Census Bureau also reported it in Spanish, something which I don't remember it doing before. Possibly only the collapse of Socialism world wide can stop the decline of the world wide european gene pool, Japanese gene pool, Chinese gene pool etc.
  The over education of women has to be curtailed but done naturally otherwise it will be done anyway when Sharia Law is the dominant force.

  Published: September 25, 2007 11:11 PM

• TLWP Sam

  Yep, bwp, I'll stand by what I posted before, even your website says 'my body, my business'. To say that a women should stay uneducated and be made to have heaps of babies for the greater good of a race or nation sounds very Utilitarian and Socialist. But I did post a observation on this website a while back about how a fellow once pointed that 'if you want a population explosion (of Malthusian proportions) all you have to do is ban birth control and abortion'.

  Published: September 26, 2007 12:38 AM

• Anthony

  For once I'll agree with Sam. I see no logic in treating women as nothing more than baby factories. If it is a woman's desire to have children, then so be it. Perhaps women will have more choice in deciding to stay home or work in a freer society.

  By Sharia law being the dominant force I suppose you're referring to the many Muslims in Europe bwp?

  Published: September 26, 2007 7:31 AM

• TLWP Sam

  :P

  Published: September 26, 2007 8:28 AM

• bwp

  I can't see anwhere on my post where I said that women "ahould stay uneducated" but what I did say is the "over education of women has to be curtailed but done naturally". This over education has possibly been brought about by a bias in the education of school children towards girls simply because possibly most high school teachers are now female. Boys don't learn as well from women teachers as they do from men. We scared off the men teachers about 25years ago and now this advancing female phalanx is hitting the universities and producing even more teachers of their liking. It's not a fair race and this is why there are now 2 girls to every boy at university. Soon it could be 3. This is possibly all tied up with Socialism and the affirmative action fiasco. There is no natural selection for the best person. Probably not until the US economy crashes and Socialism is sent to the rubbish tip can the natural selection system begin to work again.
  http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=8844

  Published: September 27, 2007 8:31 AM

• bwp

  Another point, look at this web site. The Mises Institute could possibly be the best cutting edge thinking on the planet. Where else have you ever seen so much interesting thought with out too much intellectual babble.
  Except for Karen and Serena how many other women every join in? What's the ratio? Women 2:1 same as in the universities? Of couse not, here you have a form of natural selection. The politically incorrect are allowed to contribute most of the time.
  Socialism Democracy suits women, it gives them power over men. Never before as a group have they been so strong which in itself is not bad but it distorts what ever natural order there is in any given society. Women never needed equality with men, they were always superior. Everything in society is built by men FOR women. Men chase the women and the women agree to marry the man not the other way around. A man needs a woman more than a woman needs a man. Men are hopeless without them unless they are limp wristed caricatures. The system at the moment is not working properly.

  Because of this huge credit society we have built women have to work to help pay the mortgage. They can't have babies because they don't have the time or the money. This all comes down to fiat money. Whoever prints fiat money will eventually produce a credit bubble that always needs the labor of women to keep it inflated. This also helps cause it to self destruct because not enough babies are being born to keep it going so what do you do, you import more labor until that labor becomes the dominant force.
  "By Sharia law being the dominant force I suppose you're referring to the many Muslims in Europe bwp?"
  No I wasn't talking about EuroAsia but I can see the connection. The purest natural selection system out there is probably Islam. Unless Islam is de-radicalized then it should eventually take over the world, possibly within 200 years. Islam is the religion of the poor and oppressed and the American coalition probably perpetuates that view amongst them. Fiat currencies allows governments to go to war and fiat currencies are the backbone of Socialism. Get rid of Socialism and you'll get rid of war.

  
  

  Published: September 27, 2007 9:25 AM

• RdC

  1) Actually the per-capita food supply is already falling, not rising. With rising oil-prices causing equally rising prices for fertilizers, pestizides and transport not only per-capita food supply, but also per-area food yield is likely going to fall.

  2) "It sounds very unLibertarian to say that women are expected to be baby-makers"
  Maybe it's politically incorrect to state the truth but it's pretty obvious that there is no alternative to women being "baby-makers". Actually it's just basic evolution and humanity will react to birth-control and abortions just like any species reacts to a changed environment: It will change because some groups will outbreed others withing the species which changes the genetical makeup of the species as a whole.

  Actually in the West this has already begun: There are today many more women who cannot take the pill because of medical reasons than a generation ago, also the lenghtening of the fertile years is not only a cause of better nutrition.

  Published: September 27, 2007 9:30 AM

• Anthony

  Thanks for clarifying bwp. I am strongly against Islam and the stranglehold it is achieving in Europe via the aid of social-democratic governments.

  Published: September 27, 2007 9:48 AM

• TokyoTom

  Too many or too few? Good question, Dan. I agree with you that the population question is like any other aspect of the social order: best addressed by the market.

  There's just a few small problem - even within the developed world (and very clearly outside of it), there are many important resources that are unowned and thus not fully priced in the "market" economy. Primary productivity (the amount of vegeatation produced from photosynthesis) has changed little, but we have diverted more and more of it to feed us, at an inevitable cost to other species.

  In this way, we are of course no different from other life forms that competing to propagate, but with our technical and organizational abilities, we have clearly triumphed over the rest of nature (except perhaps microbes, to whom we represent an inviting food source). But at what cost? Through the centuries we have wiped out many wild systems of food and other resources - because they were never owned, and because our improving technology enabled us to race each other to take the resources before others (or from others, in the case of many native peoples). Where ownership systems have been implemented, we have replaced complex natural systems with simpler systems designed soley to feed us.

  Meanwhile, virtually all of the natural world - the world's oceans, atmosphere, tropical reefs, tropical forests and other great commons are unowned and thus unmanaged and unregulated (or indigenous occupants have been forced aside). The great cod fishery off of the Grand Banks that fed Europe for centuries is now gone, and other fishery stocks worldwide are crashing.

  While our own populations are now under control, demand from our markets continues to strip out unowned (or "public") resources from the oceans or undeveloped countries (aided by kleptocratic elites), and the property rights failures in poorer nations also contributes to population growth there.

  The market is clearly NOT sending accurate pricing signals with respect to goods that are essentially unowned; these goods are underpriced, so the effect is overconsumption until the point that the resource is greatly degraded, at which point attention is turned to the next unowned resource. Thus, markets are only imperfectly affecting human populations.

  This of course is only "natural" and present no moral or philosophical issues. We hardly owe any responsibilities to "nature" or even "future generations". Let's just all keep on partying, and patting ourselves on the back at how marvelous and perfect our market systems are.

  TT

  Published: September 27, 2007 10:10 AM

• bwp

  Don't get me wrong Anthony. I'm not against Islam or the spreading of it. The Islamic system is possibly successful because it is a more natural system and obviously works well for those who use it. There is no Socialism and only one God in Islam. The harmony within the familes is apparently very strong. Cohesive families have much going for them. Unlike western societies the only restrictions as far as I know are the eating of pork and the drinking of alcohol. Having studied the effects of too much alcohol on families first hand I'm would be inclined to agree if I didn't think that any prohibition just gives too much power to the elites in society.
  Pork was probably banned because of hygiene concerns as pigs were probably used as toilets.

  Published: September 27, 2007 10:26 AM

• Robert M.

  Islam good for the family? Definately, they usually send their sons to blow up the infidels so the fathers can work at the mosque to raise war funds. As much as we'd like to think it, sound economic and foreign policy will not stop Islam's global conquest. They are interested in only 1 thing: destruction of anyone non-Islam. That means you too atheists.

  bwp, you must be joking! Islam is a fascist system where the people have no freedoms. Interesting how you advocate the Islamic system but I guarantee you would oppose a Christian or Jewish system. Is it natural for women to have to keep covered 100%?

  Islam-love these days is like New Deal-love in the 30's. See where that madness got us?

  Published: September 27, 2007 12:00 PM

• Person

  The graph is correct. Stephan_Kinsella always tells me that he *feels* like there are "millions of Persons".

  Published: September 27, 2007 12:04 PM

• Anthony

  I am afraid I must agree with Robert - I have very little sympathy towards Islam. I'm not a fan of Christianity either, but it at least has smatterings of individualism in it which it borrowed from the ancient Greeks.

  Published: September 27, 2007 12:38 PM

• Fundamentalist

  TT: "The market is clearly NOT sending accurate pricing signals with respect to goods that are essentially unowned;"

  That's a very good point, and another example of the tragedy of the commons. So what's the answer? Attempt to privatize the oceans and other unowned property? Or greater government control over them? Of course you're aware that when governments own things they're still a commons. Take forests, for example. Lumber companies have as much right to trees in national forests as do environmentalists. The government can tray to balance competing claims, but some part of gov-owned property still gets abused because it is a commons. Organizations like the Nature Conservancy have proven that private ownership of land does a much better job of preserving it because it's no longer a commons and so there are no competing claims on it.

  When the gov controls something, it usually gives direct control to some agency, like the EPA. But history has shown that coporations usually control those agencies because the gov agency recruits employees and members from the industry because of their expertise.

  Published: September 27, 2007 1:00 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  The market is clearly NOT sending accurate pricing signals with respect to goods that are essentially unowned
  
  Um, unowned goods are not part of the market precisely because they are unowned.
  
  
  Let's just all keep on partying, and patting ourselves on the back at how marvelous and perfect our market systems are.
  
  Um, markets in general are far from perfect. A 'free market', on the other hand, is an ideal where coercive interference is at a minimum our doesn't exist. The extent of market failure in current markets is, generally speaking, the extent of coercive interference in the market, not an actual failure of the market itself.
  
  The only 'solution' is to do our best to minimize the coercive elements in our society, especially governments, who tend to be the largest groups that initiate force against people. No congratulations are in order--this is difficult, thankless work.

  Published: September 27, 2007 2:21 PM

• TokyoTom

  Fundamentalist:

  "So what's the answer? Attempt to privatize the oceans and other unowned property? Or greater government control over them?"

  There is no single simple answer - but surely we should try to attmept to privatize where that is practical and try to minimize rent-seeking at all times. Individual transferable fishing quotas (ITQs) are showing promise for fisheries within particular nations; they should be implemented internationally as well, for tuna and whales, for example.

  Domestically, we would surely be better off if we simply handed most of our public lands over to either The Nature Conservancy or Exxon (or auctioned them off), and then let all of the interested parties start to enter into deals to protect or use what matters to them.

  Michael: I'm sympathetic, but the fact is that governments exist and are misused, and those who find them most useful are hardly likely to surrender them without a struggle. And without governments, we would essentially create new, "voluntary" ones from scratch. I don't agree that governments are responsible for all problems, though they certainly are in the middle of some and tend to muck things up. But governments can still provide a valuable role by trying to focus light on problems and to broker solutions to them - Bush's voluntary approach to climate change is one example.

  Dan: I understand that I have a chance of getting a Mises Gmail account by posting something on a Mises blog, so I have turned my initial response here (edited and reworked) into a blog post:

  http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/09/28/too-many-or-too-few-people-does-the-market-provide-an-answer.aspx

  Thanks for getting me started.

  TT

  Published: September 28, 2007 2:46 AM