From: Kharin (kharin@kharin.com)
Date: Sun Oct 19 2003 - 15:35:48 MDT
"For this reason, each one of us will probably find his strawmen in there (I already did). Hayek's text can be easily perceived as a polemic opinion piece."
I don't think it can be seen as having predictive capability, for example, state control of industry in Britain and France was properly controlled through established democratic mechanisms. Said industries were not very efficient and were mostly privatised and the matter went no further than that. On the other hand, I don't think one needs to strain too hard to find cases where the Hayekian view had greater applicability; the present administration in Russia appears to view much enterprise as a challenge to state power. Of course, similar problems pertain to Hardin's other solution, privatisation, particularly in cases where there are not sufficient controls and safeguards (e.g. monopolies and mergers).
In this context, I was more concerned with observing that consolidation of control of resources into the hands of governments can have some rather obviously problematic implications. Hardin discussed population control, for example, where the only administration I can think of to enforce policies of that kind was that of the PRC.
"Of course, natural resources are not really practically unlimited (although I am not sure which ones are the "many cases" Lomborg referred to and how significant they are). However, science and technology have been working on that. Just imagine unlimited energy... It could make this a "non zero sum" game so that we leave behind the "Tragedy of the Commons" is an open bet. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldsummit2002/earth/story/0,12342,777666,00.html
"The question of sustainability of the world's energy resources has changed significantly. In the past, we worried about running out of oil. The continued use of fossil fuels was said to be unsustainable. Yet the fear turned out to be unfounded. Not only has the availability of oil, coal and natural gases increased dramatically throughout the past 100 years but we also leave the generations of tomorrow with many more sources (including renewable) of energy extraction.
Why? Because just as we have used more we have also improved our ability to find even more, to use it more efficiently and eventually to substitute it with other more efficient energy sources."
My suspicion with this is that it would certainly be legitimate to observe that usage of natural resoureces (whether oil, minerals or others) is probably much more efficient that is typically thought. I'm not sure I'd put it any more strongly though.
---- This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29549> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 19 2003 - 15:36:21 MDT