> Establishing property rights in a fishery goes like this: > You go and get some fish. > When you have them on board and off the decks (so you can't easily > loose them), they are now your property. No government required here. > > The government auctioning the right to fish presupposes that the > government owns the fish in the first place. How can it own the > fish to begin with? By a simple declaration? Allowing people to fish in the manner you describe could deplete the fish in the local bays and lead to extinctions. The purpose of government is not to claim apriori rights, but to allow homesteaders to claim their rights by protecting these rights from others who might seek to invade their fishing territories once they are established. To do this, the government needs to allow claims for fishing rights in particular areas, for particular fish. Without such an organized recognition of fishing rights, then no such fishing rights could be claimed at all. If we continue to follow this line of reasoning, then what's the point of allowing people to homestead and own land. If owning land was as simple as putting a house on it and claiming it as yours, then how would someone secure 40 acres for farming in the following year? To live one's life requires the ability to plan ahead; to be able to know with some degree of certainty that others will respect one's plans and allow him or her to acquire capital to work the land, sow, and harvest, all of which takes time to establish. Ownership doesn't exist solely because you have a house on some land, or a fish in your boat. It exists because you've made the first claim to an unclaimed resource, with a plan to use and develop the resource. The government isn't claiming an apriori right; rather establishing a respect for the rights that you claim. Craig --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
