Environmentalists Defeated: SCOTUS OKs Dumping Waste In Lake

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When everyone owns something, it is ironically owned by no one. Land owned by no one (or everyone) fails to provide individuals with incentive. When there exists no incentive, property is utilized less efficiently as there is no economical reason to do anything but exploit it. By exploit I mean a situation where the costs are distributed among everyone, and the benefit is concentrated on the individual.

Take the simple example of a bathroom. I'm sure that you'd much rather use your own facilities than the public facilities at an Exxon Mobil truck stop along Interstate 5. You maintain your facilities, because you bear the costs associated with it's usage. If you splatter butt-vomit along the porcelain walls, your family and yourself will bear the cost (or price) of your decision not to maintain it, whereas there exists no incentive (other than subjective "courtesy") to maintain the stall at the truck stop.

This example, albeit simple, illustrates the vital importance of ownership. If you can show me the holes in this logic, Steven then by all means, I'd love to know of it.

Like Swiss Cheese. j/k

Matt, families typically don't stake out areas of the home by marking things with a Sharpee, "mine." Collective ownership or more appropriately, stewardship, exists within families. In my family we all had to share the same toilet, the same shower, even the same TV. Have you ever been asked to look after somebody's home while they went on vacation? I think your argument is based on the assumption that we humans are naturally self serving....that altruism doesn't exist. There are plenty of examples of protected wilderness where people do care about it and take their role as stewards seriously. I don't know about you, but if I was walking by my neighbor's house and I dropped a glass bottle shattering it to pieces, I would feel it my responsibility to clean up...not for fear of my neighbor, but because I feel it is the right thing to do. We are not creatures that simply act on incentives that are self serving. Altruism does exist.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Peikko 1,575]

You're conditioned into doing things because you feel that is proper etiquette

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You're conditioned into doing things because you feel that is proper etiquette

Whatever the incentive...my point is that what motivates us humans to act positively doesn't necessary have to involve our own self interests. I know that Ayn Rand didn't think that....she believed that ultimately, we always act out of our own self interests, even if one of the self interests is maintaining a belief system that doing something for others is a good thing.

[mRx 16]

When everyone owns something, it is ironically owned by no one. Land owned by no one (or everyone) fails to provide individuals with incentive. When there exists no incentive, property is utilized less efficiently as there is no economical reason to do anything but exploit it. By exploit I mean a situation where the costs are distributed among everyone, and the benefit is concentrated on the individual.

Take the simple example of a bathroom. I'm sure that you'd much rather use your own facilities than the public facilities at an Exxon Mobil truck stop along Interstate 5. You maintain your facilities, because you bear the costs associated with it's usage. If you splatter butt-vomit along the porcelain walls, your family and yourself will bear the cost (or price) of your decision not to maintain it, whereas there exists no incentive (other than subjective "courtesy") to maintain the stall at the truck stop.

This example, albeit simple, illustrates the vital importance of ownership. If you can show me the holes in this logic, Steven then by all means, I'd love to know of it.

Like Swiss Cheese. j/k

Matt, families typically don't stake out areas of the home by marking things with a Sharpee, "mine." Collective ownership or more appropriately, stewardship, exists within families. In my family we all had to share the same toilet, the same shower, even the same TV. Have you ever been asked to look after somebody's home while they went on vacation? I think your argument is based on the assumption that we humans are naturally self serving....that altruism doesn't exist. There are plenty of examples of protected wilderness where people do care about it and take their role as stewards seriously. I don't know about you, but if I was walking by my neighbor's house and I dropped a glass bottle shattering it to pieces, I would feel it my responsibility to clean up...not for fear of my neighbor, but because I feel it is the right thing to do. We are not creatures that simply act on incentives that are self serving. Altruism does exist.

In your family scenario, (which I share as well), what were the costs associated with not cleaning up after your excrement?

In my house, the cost of not putting the seat down, or not cleaning up the piss off the rim, were real costs that I would incur, as I'm sure yours were as well. I don't incur these costs at the public Exxon Mobil, Steven, and neither do you.

Regarding altruism, I find it misleading. It's a confusion of means and ends. By seeking to please (or benefit) others, there is a direct, albeit invisible, benefit to oneself. That benefit is the psychic pleasure associated with the benefit of others. So your desire, or self obligation to clean up after you shatter a bottle on your neighbors property, doesn't mean that you fear your neighbor, or that you face a physical loss from not doing so. It means that you value cleaning it up more than you value leaving it for someone else. This can be due to your own upbringing or values thus which would lead our conversation down the subjective road. The point is, you value cleaning up that bottle (and benefit) more than you do leaving it for your neighbor. This is your own subjective value scale.

My older brother on the other hand, would more than likely leave the shattered bottle for someone, as he would gain a psychic pleasure by watching and laughing as someone else cleaned it up.

So while altruism doesn't exist, I believe that individuals place value on certain actions, whatever they may be. So your desire to benefit others is really your self-interest.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When everyone owns something, it is ironically owned by no one. Land owned by no one (or everyone) fails to provide individuals with incentive. When there exists no incentive, property is utilized less efficiently as there is no economical reason to do anything but exploit it. By exploit I mean a situation where the costs are distributed among everyone, and the benefit is concentrated on the individual.

Take the simple example of a bathroom. I'm sure that you'd much rather use your own facilities than the public facilities at an Exxon Mobil truck stop along Interstate 5. You maintain your facilities, because you bear the costs associated with it's usage. If you splatter butt-vomit along the porcelain walls, your family and yourself will bear the cost (or price) of your decision not to maintain it, whereas there exists no incentive (other than subjective "courtesy") to maintain the stall at the truck stop.

This example, albeit simple, illustrates the vital importance of ownership. If you can show me the holes in this logic, Steven then by all means, I'd love to know of it.

Like Swiss Cheese. j/k

Matt, families typically don't stake out areas of the home by marking things with a Sharpee, "mine." Collective ownership or more appropriately, stewardship, exists within families. In my family we all had to share the same toilet, the same shower, even the same TV. Have you ever been asked to look after somebody's home while they went on vacation? I think your argument is based on the assumption that we humans are naturally self serving....that altruism doesn't exist. There are plenty of examples of protected wilderness where people do care about it and take their role as stewards seriously. I don't know about you, but if I was walking by my neighbor's house and I dropped a glass bottle shattering it to pieces, I would feel it my responsibility to clean up...not for fear of my neighbor, but because I feel it is the right thing to do. We are not creatures that simply act on incentives that are self serving. Altruism does exist.

In your family scenario, (which I share as well), what were the costs associated with not cleaning up after your excrement?

In my house, the cost of not putting the seat down, or not cleaning up the piss off the rim, were real costs that I would incur, as I'm sure yours were as well. I don't incur these costs at the public Exxon Mobil, Steven, and neither do you.

Regarding altruism, I find it misleading. It's a confusion of means and ends. By seeking to please (or benefit) others, there is a direct, albeit invisible, benefit to oneself. That benefit is the psychic pleasure associated with the benefit of others. So your desire, or self obligation to clean up after you shatter a bottle on your neighbors property, doesn't mean that you fear your neighbor, or that you face a physical loss from not doing so. It means that you value cleaning it up more than you value leaving it for someone else. This can be due to your own upbringing or values thus which would lead our conversation down the subjective road. The point is, you value cleaning up that bottle (and benefit) more than you do leaving it for your neighbor. This is your own subjective value scale.

My older brother on the other hand, would more than likely leave the shattered bottle for someone, as he would gain a psychic pleasure by watching and laughing as someone else cleaned it up.

So while altruism doesn't exist, I believe that individuals place value on certain actions, whatever they may be. So your desire to benefit others is really your self-interest.

Well, I'll have to give you a worthy response later, but this is definitely a worthwhile discussion.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[mRx 16]

When everyone owns something, it is ironically owned by no one. Land owned by no one (or everyone) fails to provide individuals with incentive. When there exists no incentive, property is utilized less efficiently as there is no economical reason to do anything but exploit it. By exploit I mean a situation where the costs are distributed among everyone, and the benefit is concentrated on the individual.

Take the simple example of a bathroom. I'm sure that you'd much rather use your own facilities than the public facilities at an Exxon Mobil truck stop along Interstate 5. You maintain your facilities, because you bear the costs associated with it's usage. If you splatter butt-vomit along the porcelain walls, your family and yourself will bear the cost (or price) of your decision not to maintain it, whereas there exists no incentive (other than subjective "courtesy") to maintain the stall at the truck stop.

This example, albeit simple, illustrates the vital importance of ownership. If you can show me the holes in this logic, Steven then by all means, I'd love to know of it.

Like Swiss Cheese. j/k

Matt, families typically don't stake out areas of the home by marking things with a Sharpee, "mine." Collective ownership or more appropriately, stewardship, exists within families. In my family we all had to share the same toilet, the same shower, even the same TV. Have you ever been asked to look after somebody's home while they went on vacation? I think your argument is based on the assumption that we humans are naturally self serving....that altruism doesn't exist. There are plenty of examples of protected wilderness where people do care about it and take their role as stewards seriously. I don't know about you, but if I was walking by my neighbor's house and I dropped a glass bottle shattering it to pieces, I would feel it my responsibility to clean up...not for fear of my neighbor, but because I feel it is the right thing to do. We are not creatures that simply act on incentives that are self serving. Altruism does exist.

In your family scenario, (which I share as well), what were the costs associated with not cleaning up after your excrement?

In my house, the cost of not putting the seat down, or not cleaning up the piss off the rim, were real costs that I would incur, as I'm sure yours were as well. I don't incur these costs at the public Exxon Mobil, Steven, and neither do you.

Regarding altruism, I find it misleading. It's a confusion of means and ends. By seeking to please (or benefit) others, there is a direct, albeit invisible, benefit to oneself. That benefit is the psychic pleasure associated with the benefit of others. So your desire, or self obligation to clean up after you shatter a bottle on your neighbors property, doesn't mean that you fear your neighbor, or that you face a physical loss from not doing so. It means that you value cleaning it up more than you value leaving it for someone else. This can be due to your own upbringing or values thus which would lead our conversation down the subjective road. The point is, you value cleaning up that bottle (and benefit) more than you do leaving it for your neighbor. This is your own subjective value scale.

My older brother on the other hand, would more than likely leave the shattered bottle for someone, as he would gain a psychic pleasure by watching and laughing as someone else cleaned it up.

So while altruism doesn't exist, I believe that individuals place value on certain actions, whatever they may be. So your desire to benefit others is really your self-interest.

Well, I'll have to give you a worthy response later, but this is definitely a worthwhile discussion.

Good call, I'm enjoying a few too many beers and pretty soon I won't be able to hold a logical discussion anyways.

I may eventually regress to Marc-speak and tell you to clean up that fuckin' shattered bottle and change your shitty-pampers while your at it!

Edited June 25, 2009 by -Matt-

[Peikko 1,575]

Thus explaining the 'offensive' post.

What is ultruism if it isn't a self interest that benefits others more than oneself?

[mRx 16]

Yeah, I may have crossed the line with that one. Good thing Kathryn cleaned up after me; surely she appreciated my unique vernacular.

Regarding altruism, you cannot mesh individual value scales. Someone cannot benefit more than someone else, as such a measurement would require individual values to be placed on a single value scale to satisfy the "more than", which is impossible. Each individual has a unique value scale, as values are subjective--and individuals pursue said values according to their unique scale.

Bearing that in mind, a benefit is merely a progression from ones existing state to a state of more enjoyment. Such a state can be described by a recent experience I had-- I recently returned to the United States from my deployment to Central Asia-- A group of elderly people greeted us at our USA POE, and handed us bags containing cookies, water, and toothpaste. It was nearly mid-night, and the bags were given freely and voluntary to us.

One may incorrectly assume that these individuals were losing by staying up far past their natural bedtime, and by giving us their belongings without requiring physical compensation. But, if you saw the faces of these individuals---these strangers up past their bed time, offering products they purchased for gratis---you would know that they benefited far more than they lost.

[HAL 9000 96]

Having a few Newcastle at the moment. Enjoy!

[Peikko 1,575]

Whatever word you choose to use, what you just defined is what most would understand as altruism.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Morning Matt.

Ok, getting back to your argument - that publicly owned land means that people have no incentive (self interest) to be responsible for that land. I mentioned the collective ownership of a family home and how each individual within the family does care for the upkeep and you replied that it is because there is a cost (some kind of punishment, I assume). If you see that rules within a family home, like don't leave a mess in the bathroom or you get punished, then it's not that far of a leap to see that laws that restrict the use and misuse of public land are also incentives for people to treat it with care. Maybe my incentive to care for protected wilderness is not altruism, but some kind of value system, but nevertheless, it is a motivating factor in why I care and would not want to trash or pollute protected wilderness, irrespective of whether or not there is some kind of punishment involved.

So hopefully you can see the Swiss Cheese in your argument.

On a side note about altruism....it does exist in the animal kingdom and has been documented. During WWII, seamen adrift at sea would find dolphins circling them to protect them from sharks is one example. The dolphins had no self interest in protecting the men.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Presumably, if noone cared about the condition of publicly owned land - we wouldn't have a Parks Department.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Presumably, if noone cared about the condition of publicly owned land - we wouldn't have a Parks Department.

Obviously some government conspiracy to subjugate the masses. The bears in Yellowstone are really agents watching your every move...even while on vacation.

[mRx 16]

Morning Matt.

Ok, getting back to your argument - that publicly owned land means that people have no incentive (self interest) to be responsible for that land. I mentioned the collective ownership of a family home and how each individual within the family does care for the upkeep and you replied that it is because there is a cost (some kind of punishment, I assume). If you see that rules within a family home, like don't leave a mess in the bathroom or you get punished, then it's not that far of a leap to see that laws that restrict the use and misuse of public land are also incentives for people to treat it with care. Maybe my incentive to care for protected wilderness is not altruism, but some kind of value system, but nevertheless, it is a motivating factor in why I care and would not want to trash or pollute protected wilderness, irrespective of whether or not there is some kind of punishment involved.

So hopefully you can see the Swiss Cheese in your argument.

On a side note about altruism....it does exist in the animal kingdom and has been documented. During WWII, seamen adrift at sea would find dolphins circling them to protect them from sharks is one example. The dolphins had no self interest in protecting the men.

Morning Steven.

The costs associated with your collective household setting aren't limited to punishment. I didn't go into detail on specific costs as such values would be entirely subjective. But for the sake of fun, say, that I have a habit of leaving my clothes all over the house. (Of course, this is entirely hypothetical because as a male adult, having such a habit would be unimaginable.) There are many costs that I personally would incur. For one, there is a real danger associated with leaving socks on linoleum floors. Ever gone to the fridge for a mid-night snack with the lights off and almost break your neck slipping on an article of clothing? Second, my wife's well-being is highly valued to me, so leaving cluttered clothes on the floor is a cost that spreads over to her, which I'm acutely aware of, and try to minimize. So even in a joint-ownership scenario, individuals are cognizant of the costs and benefits and the principle of incentive is very much in action.

I have a hard time drawing a logical parellel to public land laws. The incentives, if any, are artificially erected through legislature. It's a stark contrast to the natural and logical incentives and values that individual minds possess with regard to their own property (as I've stated with the truck stop example). I'd like to draw on a quote from you to clarify this:

Maybe my incentive to care for protected wilderness is not altruism, but some kind of value system, but nevertheless, it is a motivating factor in why I care and would not want to trash or pollute protected wilderness, irrespective of whether or not there is some kind of punishment involved.

This sentence proves that values cannot be imposed through legislature. You value the environment, and such a value can be logically deduced by your action.

Back to altruism. I find that under close examination, the whole concept of "experiencing a loss for the purpose of another to benefit" proves to be a paradox.

An example of something one would mistakenly identify as altruistic would be the act of taking a bullet for another individual. While clearly on the surface, there exists no logical way to argue that one would experience any type of benefit from being shot. However, one can realize that due to the action of the individual based on his individual value scale, he would lose less with a bullet in himself, than he would with a bullet in the other individual.

This is what separates humans from animals--we are purposeful, and by studying our actions, we can make logical deductions of our values.

Oh, and this cheese is Provolone.

[Peikko 1,575]

An individual can't really be expected to bear the burden of conservation. Public park land is designated as such so that collectively everyone can enjoy the benefit of keeping some land free from most forms of man made intervention.