Reason.tv: How to save a dying ocean from overfishing...

The Gulf of Mexico continues to gush oil just as a whaling controversy threatens to land Australia and Japan in international court for killing protected species. Meanwhile, another less-publicized but arguably more cataclysmic oceanic disaster continues to worsen.

Overfishing threatens to destroy most of the world's fisheries within a matter of decades. But while it's proven difficult to save the gulf or save the whales, we know how to save the fish: Stop treating the ocean like a public bathroom, says Christopher Costello, a professor of natural resource economics at UC Santa Barbara.

Director Louis Psihoyos and his team of filmmakers embarked on an elaborate sting operation to expose Japan's illegal dolphin hunters. The result is a documentary called The Cove, which took home the Oscar for best documentary. And days after the Academy Awards Psihoyos was back stirring things up.

Using the same cameras that were used to expose illegal dolphin hunters, Psihoyos and his team busted The Hump, a Santa Monica, California restaurant that had secretly been serving sushi made from the endangered sei whale.

"Everything in the ocean from the great whales to dolphins to plankton is being jeopardized," Psihoyos tells Reason.tv. "We're raping and harvesting the ocean unsustainably."

Overfishing "could mean the end of certain species," agrees UC-Santa Barbara's Costello. He points out that about a third of the world's fisheries have already collapsed, and many more are heading toward the same fate. Costello says the world's fisheries are in such bad shape because of the same reason public restrooms are typically foul places: "Nobody owns them. Nobody has the incentive to keep them up."

One proven solution is a system called "catch share," in which fishermen have the right to a certain share of the total catch of a type of fish. This form of ownership gives fishermen an incentive to make sure fish populations grow, and according to Costello's worldwide research, it's the only thing that seems to work.

Environmentalists are often suspicious of the profit motive, but from Alaska to New Zealand, market forces have been harnessed not for plunder but for preservation. Fishermen like the system because they make money, and environmentalists like it because it supports sustainable practices. Expanding the catch share system may well be the best way to save a dying ocean.

"How to Save a Dying Ocean" is written and produced by Ted Balaker, who also hosts. The associate producer is Paul Detrick, the cameramen are Hawk Jensen and Alex Manning; Zach Weissmueller also helped to produce the segment. Animation by Hawk Jensen.

Approximately six minutes.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable iPod, HD, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • PR||

    The Cove was technically illegal until the Depiction of Animal Cruelty Act was overturned by the Supreme Court.

  • ||

    Same as Algore "kissing" Tipper.

  • ||

    The oceans are a real ecological disaster. If we had a real environmental movement focused on the environment instead of a faith based movement focused on atonement and shutting down the capitalist system, the ocean would be the focus of enormous efforts. Instead, we spend time faking climate records.

  • zoltan||

    Instead of finding a solution to such a difficult issue, politicians and their proteges would rather engage in rhetoric, hand-wringing and blame. James Cameron--why did you spend 500 million on a Smurf re-make of Pocahontas instead of actually putting your money where you mouth is?

  • ||

    In Cameron's defense he made a couple of billion off of that five hundred million investment. But point taken. How about spending some of that cash on something that would make a difference rather than movies for 8 year olds?

  • James Cameron||

    Already on it, John! The One has summoned me for my extensive knowledge of undersea cinematography. How that is gonna plug his hole, I have no clue. But, being the good liberal that I am, I think I'll bill the government for my services and you can't beat the free publicity!

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    "plug his hole"

    RC'z law?

  • TP||

    At some point, the environmentalist movement captured the conservationist movement.

  • ||

    Exactly. My great grandfather was a big time conservationist. Was one the higher ups in the Issac Walton league. But he was nothing like the environmentalists of today.

  • ||

    If we had a real libertarian movement focused on applying science, technology, and free-market solutions to solve environmental issues, we wouldn't spend so much time denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

  • Sean Healy||

    Something tells me that if there weren't a privatization angle, Reason wouldn't give a crap about saving the whales.

  • ||

    Something tells me that if most environmentalists were interested in the environment as something besides an outlet for their latent socialism, the environment would be a lot better off.

  • Sean Healy||

    Also true!

  • ||

    Actually when I was at UCSB I took a couple of ES classes on the way to my economics degree (UCSB has the Bren school which is probably one of the best if not the best Enviromental economics place period), they focused on a lot of different ways to perserve nature. Many of them used market methods if possible.

    The main problem so far with setting limits, is the limits have been to high. In the desire to include all stakeholders the process has been compromised in many (but not all ) areas.

    Some places like Alaska have done very well.

  • Chad||

    I agree, KB. The environmental science movement has long since adopted market-oriented policies such as catch shares. So what is stopping these things politically?

    PS: Don't tell anyone, but catch shares are essentially a type of cap-and-trade. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Nuke the whales.

  • DoDoGuRu||

    If you nuke them they're less tender and juicy. Best to grill.

  • mu||

    No, he meant forty-five minutes on medium-low in a giant, floating microwave. But I agree, open flame tastes better.

  • ||

    I'm with John on this one--here's a real, serious issue that needs immediate attention. It's hard not to think that the one thing that has worked--using economic incentives and some privatization--is what keeps many environmental advocates from making this a primary issue.

  • ||

    Considering that privatization has been the only thing that's worked, it's pretty obvious that it not being embraced by the enviros is wholly based on ideology. Which means that ideology is more important to enviros than...the environment.

    Maybe they should change their name.

  • ||

    Are you suggesting purity trumps efficacy, Epi? That sounds eerily like a religion.

  • ||

    O Rly? Must just be a coincidence.

    Another atheist peeve of mine: morons who call themselves "atheist" yet have adopted an essentially religious belief system (environmentalism, worship of the state, etc.) get grouped in with me. Fuck you, assholes.

  • Tony||

    Because the one thing you put absolute faith in, the market, is different somehow?

  • ||

    Tony, could you summarize what's been going on on Glee up to this point for us? I'm sure most of us will find even that (barely) more interesting than your feeble attempts to purposefully (and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt; you might just be really stupid) distort what libertarian positions are.

    And your sockpuppeting has vastly improved, by the way. It's quite good now.

  • Tony||

    Epi what exactly do environmentalists take on faith? The notion that we shouldn't completely despoil the planet?

    However environmentalists resemble religious sheep, your faith in the market is at least as blind.

  • ||

    Tony, are you hoping your perfume, Eu de Médiocrité will get you a date with him?

    “The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity.” -
    James Fenimore Cooper

  • slutmonkey||

    Silly Tony, libertarians don't have "faith" in markets. That would imply belief without evidence. We promote markets because of the overwhelming evidence showing that markets work.

    If it were possible for policy based on giving and self-sacrifice to consistently work...

    but history continues to demonstrate that that's not the case.

  • ||

    It does work, but only in small, isolated communities where everyone is committed to making things work. But then, even many of these communities have two free-market elements: the freedom to decide to participate, and the freedom to leave.

    When this is attempted on a State level, everything collapses (in part because the two options--the freedom to participate and the freedom to leave--are removed.)

  • Tony||

    the overwhelming evidence showing that markets work.

    How's the market doing at cleaning up the oil in the Gulf?

  • Orel Hazard||

    He SAID:

    "How is the market doing cleaning up the oil in the Gulf?"

    What, you didn't hear him?

    I'd love to hear the answer to this perfectly simple question.

    Cmon. You guys usually LOVE simple answers.

    Why so shy this time?

  • Wildmonk||

    Orel and Tony,

    The "market" failed in the Gulf in the sense that a private entity serving the market for oil thought that it understood the range of outcomes possible and, well, failed. They didn't really plan for this eventuality and we are all now paying huge costs for that failure. It sucks - truly.

    This has essentially no bearing on the discussion, though. Markets (people) do fail - they screw up, spew pollution, get captured by greed, and sometimes hurt people. Thing is, the same is true of Primitive, Mercantilist, Socialist and Communist systems. They all suck if your standard is perfection (which is what Capitalism is always compared to by statists of all stripes).

    In the end, Free Markets at least stimulate private initiative, capture creativity and innovation, and grow real wealth. And note that we *all* agree that it is wise to subject them to reasonable regulation. In the vast majority of cases, however, "reasonable" regulation should have as light a touch as possible so as to avoid squashing individual initiative and realistic risk assessment.

    What isn't reasonable or intelligent is to propose alternatives to market solutions that share all of its weaknesses and that also kill initiative, creativity and the ability to generate real wealth.

    For example, you might think that for all of its failures with respect to generating wealth for its people, the old Soviet Union might at least have been a wise steward of the environment. There has to be *some* win, right? But the fact is that the old Soviet Union had horrible environmental practices. Modern China has the same problem. And if you complain, you are subject to the arbitrary power of the state to shut you up.

    So what will it be, Orel and Tony? You want to contribute a sober and realistic analysis of the situation? Or are you pretty much tapped out with snarky comments and air-headed slogans?

  • Chad||

    The mythical "free market" cannot handle disasters of this kind. Imagine the following scenario:

    You invent a scheme that generates $100,000 in pure profit every year. However, it has a 1/1000 chance per year of exploding and releasing toxic fumes, doing $1 billion in damage to society and the environment.

    Now, given no government regulations, would you run this machine?

    Abso-*bleeping*-loot-ly. Odds are, you will never experience a failure in your lifetime. Even if you did, and everyone sued you, you would still be able to protect most of the assets you accumulated in the past, and would be able to start the machine up again right away and continue to generate profits that would likely be untouchable using some shell corporation, or a relative, or some other accounting gimmick.

    So here is a very obvious example of how libertarianism simply fails, and would allow a scheme to endure despite it doing ten times as much harm as it provides in value.

    Btw, can anyone explain to me what the libertarian solution to this problem would be? Or is it your typical "Does not compute...must stick head in sand" that you normally give when someone points out flaws in your grand theory?

  • slutmonkey||

    Don't be obtuse: There's no market that I'm aware of in cleaning up oil spills. A lack of action when a market doesn't exist isn't evidence that markets don't work.

    Market forces are however at play in BP wanting to seal the leak. They're losing their inventory to the ocean! That they haven't been able to close it off yet is sad testament to the engineering difficulty of working on the ocean floor not a market failure.

    For the actual cleanup--after the hole is plugged--I expect we can agree that BP should be the one to do the cleanup. I don't know enough about how this is technically done or what laws exist/apply or what BP wants/is willing to do of it's own volition to say what exactly will/won't need to happen there. Since so much of the spill is in international waters there's going to be jurisdictional issues as well. But the point is that "markets" are NOT the same as "no government required responsibility to clean up after yourself."

  • slutmonkey||

    Well said Wildmonk, you beat me to it and with elegance.

  • Chad||

    Can you cite the overwhelming evidence?

    I must have missed it somewhere. Is it hiding in some boardroom at Massey, BP, Enron, or Goldman?

  • Reminiscer||

    What ever happened to not feeding the trolls?

  • Orel Hazard||

    I swear, you guys are equally as deluded as communists AND conservatives.

    With you guys it's market this, market that, freedom this and freedom that. But when we point to the oil-destroyed Gulf, now suddenly there's quotation marks around the holy word "market" and not a word about the industry's gross freedom to shit all over our environment.

    This pathetic dodge is exactly what critics of the Soviet Union heard from communists: "Oh, that wasn't REAL communism. Communism didn't fail."

    And it's also exactly what victims of supply-side economics heard from Reaganites and economic libertarians: "Oh, this isn't REAL conservatism. Conservatism didn't fail,"

    And now to Planet Libertaria.

    "Oh, the gulf isn't an example of the REAL market. The market didn't fail."

    Pack it the fuck in already. You're as wrong as wrong GETS.

    Because it won't be isolated to Alaska, the Gulf will remind the world how totally full of shit markets are. Full of gooey, black, and sticky shit, coating sea birds with the advertisement: Markets are not social frameworks and do not serve the public.

  • benji||

    What would the non-libertarian "solution" be? Oh wait, you said before. Nationalize the oil industry and throw everyone who worked for them in jail. Which will do what to clean up the spill?

    I think the libertarian solution would be to assist BP where the government can but otherwise allow for BP to make the best efforts to stop it losing its money into the ocean and repairing the damage. Kinda what we're currently doing anyway. Only thanks to regulation BP has a damage compensation cap.

    Either way, it's not the end of the world. Look up the spill the Iraqi's caused on purpose during the Gulf War. It's the largest in history by far. It was mostly left alone and nature led the charge in taking care of it. Doesn't mean if there are ways to help nature speed up the clean-up we should not do it but instead that you know, we're humans, not gods. We have our limits.

    But having the government take over doesn't mean much, the government doesn't have the best track record at doing anything efficiently or properly. It can't even kill foreigners efficiently. I'm not sure why you would think a government take over would stop the leak and clean up the Gulf faster. BP has a financial stake in doing so, the government only has a PR stake.

  • TP||

    You noticed that too, huh?

  • ||

    Like I said, it's hard not to think. Really hard.

  • ||

    How does one explain Al Gore's deity status? How come none of his Green adherents don't seem to call out his profiteering off of Carbon Credits(tm) if privatizing enviromental concerns is anathema to the religion?

  • ||

    Image versus reality.

  • Green adherent||

    He gets a pass because of all the good he does! You don't expect our good Reverend Al to live in a shack, do you? He deserves to live in a mansion (and have a huge houseboat, and another oceanside mansion quaintly called a cottage, and jet around the country as much as he likes).

  • skr||

    Hence why they also hate sport hunters and fisherman. Who conserves more of the environment, Greenpeace or Ducks Unlimited?

  • ||

    Worked for us regulating spice. Damn, those sandworms are really, really fickle and intemperate creatures. Ever try to give one a bath?

  • robc||

    Giving a worm a bath makes for some interesting drinking.

    Note: Legal only in CA with a prescription

  • ||

    Spice essence would never pass FDA approval.

  • slutmonkey||

    Let's see,

    The Spice extends life.
    The Spice expands consciousness.
    The Spice is vital to space travel;
    travel without moving.

    Yeah the FDA would never approve something that awesome.

  • ||

    Spice essence can kill you. Regular spice might get passed, after years within years within years of research.

  • ||

    Count me on John's boat.

    Environmentalists are often suspicious of the profit motive

    Fuckin Idiots. I think its been proven by now that greed is one of the strongest motivators. Who gives a shit about profit if it keeps the waters full of tasty fish? I mean beautiful fish. We wont eat them *wink* *nudge*

  • Mike in PA||

    How about surveying off sections of the oceans for private ownership?

    This would make the owners of their section more careful about how many fish were taken, make sure that their section was cleaner to invite more fish, and there'd be someone who was personally responsible for the impacts caused by the actions on their (land) water.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Decent idea in theory, but what happens when Fisher Joe files a lawsuit against Fisher Bill because the tuna population migrated from Joe's section to Bill's for whatever reason? Etc.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    There's no claim. Why didn't lousy Joe make an effort to contain the fish on his property?

  • ||

    I don't know why we are not working on growing fish meat in labs. That would go a long way towards feeding the world and saving the ocean. Also, commercial fish farms and aquaculture can help to. And we need to understand that sometimes there are no good options. Dolphin free tuna has been a disaster. Yeah, it sucks for the dolphins. And dolphins are cute. But dolphins are not in any danger of being extinct. The big yellow fin tuna are getting there. And the reason is that is that the Dolphins are associated with the big mature tuna. To avoid catching dolphins, the fisherman catch the smaller juvenile tuna. Since the juveniles haven't bred yet, you are basically fishing out your breeding stock. But, everyone wants dolphin free tuna right?

  • zoltan||

    Environmentalist Rule #1: Ugly animals are expendable; save the cute ones, though.

  • ||

    Not fair. Tuna are some sleek, attractive, fish.

    (Yeah, i like fishsticks, what's your point?)

  • PETA Masher||

    Are you worth saving, babe?

  • ||

    Actually it's FAR better to catch the younger fish than the older fish. The reason is that older fish make FAR more babies.

  • ||

    But what happens when the older fish die out?

  • slutmonkey||

    haha It's not like you catch EVERY SINGLE YOUNG FISH IN THE OCEAN. Some of them go on to be older fish.

    As for growing fish meat in the lab, we already can! But it's MUCH more expensive than regular fish farms or fishing. I don't think anyone's seriously tried to scale it up to an industrial level yet, and when they do I expect it will happen for beef first.

  • TP||

    There are some farm raised varieties of fish. Stripers are now farm raised, but they are not nearly as tasty as wild caught. The best fish I ever ate was wild caught striper.

  • robc||

    Farm raised Fugu arent poisonous.

  • Yonemoto||

    yep, the best part of the fugu is the poison... It's in the flesh in small doses. Inhibits nerve activity by mimicking potassium surrounded by a cluster of water molecules - makes you drunk. I probably shouldn't have been driving after eating it, but I didn't know. Luckily, I didn't get caught, but I would have passed a breathalyzer if I were.

  • ||

    Wild caught black drum trumps all.

  • ||

    Frankenfish!!!!!

  • Flipper||

    And dolphins are cute.

    Oh, really John? Mike Tyson and Kobe Bryant have nothing on our dating practices!

    Here’s something you probably don’t know about Flipper: he has retractable penis. And if that’s not cool enough, here’s something else: his penis is prehensile. And it swivels. In fact, a male dolphin can use his penis to explore objects just like a hand.

    Male dolphins also have a very strong sex drive. It can mate many, many times in a day. Now here’s the bad news: male dolphins aren’t that much of a stud. The average time to ejaculation? 12 seconds.

    Another hushed-up fact is that male dolphins have a ravenous sexual appetite: they often try to hump inanimate objects and even other animals like sea turtles. When a pack of male dolphins happen upon a female, often times they will attempt to force her to mate.


    And other weird and flat out mind (and ball) blowing means of animal whoopie!

  • Atanarjuat||

    That's got to be weird for the sea turtle.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    That sound you hear is Barney Frank signing up for a Scuba class.

  • Robin Givens||

    Tell me about it. It was no picnic for me either.

  • ||

    "And it swivels. In fact, a male dolphin can use his penis to explore objects just like a hand."

    I'm the opposite; I use my hand to explore my penis.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    I once read a story on the internet about a guy who fucked a dolphin. And I think maybe a male dolphin fucked the guy too, I can't remember. It was pretty horrible.

  • ||

    Now here’s the bad news: male dolphins aren’t that much of a stud. The average time to ejaculation? 12 seconds.

    That's like three times my average stay. Yep, the ladies flock to me for my stamina.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Calling a country to "international court" sounds a lot like a declaration of war to me.

  • ||

    "Environmentalists are often suspicious of the profit motive, but from Alaska to New Zealand, market forces have been harnessed not for plunder but for preservation."

    "Market forces" are simply people making choices. In this case, that means fishermen, and the sooner environmentalists get that through their thick little skulls, the better off our environment will be.

  • Kolohe||

    John, the oceans *are* a focus of the environmental movement, to the point of exagerating things that are *not* real problems (e.g. 'the great pacific garbage patch')

  • Chinny Chin Chin||

    Agreed. And therein lies a major problem. Environmentalists are motivated to act when they become emotionally invested. Graphic imagery is the best way to give someone an emotional gut-punch.

    So we get photos of the garbage patch, dead turtles in nets, polar bears on melting ice, oil soaked otters, etc.

    Overfishing isn't an issue that is so easily encompassed in one image. Population studies of marine species are difficult to accurately accomplish, let alone translate into an effective press release or campaign.

    Couple this with what is generally a large geographical separation between consumer and fishing grounds, and you get an issue that's hard to rally public support around.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I don't watch the movie awards because its retarded, but by coincidence I happened to catch the documentary part. It turns out that hollywood hippies care more about stupid gay dolphins than famine, hardship, and bloodshed.

  • Yonemoto||

    It's pretty clear to me that it's high time to really think hard about what constitutes a "property right". I don't think any of us would completely agree with a "first possesion" theory of property - nor of a "labor" theory of property (this would not say allow a conservationist to let a land lay fallow if someone could build a shitty strip mall on it).

    Benjamin Tucker had a really interesting take on the "theft theory of property"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker

    And any libertarian theory of property would obviously have to include the tragedy of the commons.

    So why not make the tragedy of the commons the center point of the theory of property? Unlike, say, the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms, and more like "the right to a trial jury", the right to property is a pragmatic one. Domains that should be propertized are those which exhibit scarcity and for which a chain of possession disambiguates social transactions, and the rules of propertization are fundamentally a state domain (although it should strive to be fair and preserve agency in property dealings, etc).

    Of course this theory would lead to things that might be uncomfortable to some people - like, Intellectual Property would be out the door (but not trademarks). Environmental emissions should be auctioned (whether or not they are known to be harmful, but rather because there is *some* capacity at some point, even if we haven't gotten there yet). As should fish stocks. Land is easier to delimit and parcel out, but nonetheless proper accounting of land possession is a state affair.

    Forgive me if everything that I have just said is totally "duh" to everyone here.

  • d||

    Unlike, say, the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms, and more like "the right to a trial jury", the right to property is a pragmatic one.

    Whaaaaa? Free speech, fair trials, etc. are not pragmatic? And how is not allowing a person to keep the fruit of his or her labor any worse than not letting him or her speak? (I'm assuming that property is acquired in the usual, free market way, not the savior economy-based way that we're moving to under The Great Leader's administration.)

  • cynical||

    IP (well, if you consider a temporary license "property") are also explicitly based in pragmatism, as a solution to the free riding issues associated with costs of building the prototypical work or art or invention. The replication of such works is not particularly subject to scarcity in the digital age, but the labor, resources, and talent required to create the original are quite scarce.

    Environmental emissions are a purely artificial form of scarcity -- without a government definition of the appropriate total number of emissions or at least a demand curve, the whole thing falls apart.

  • ||

    Well when you have companies like BP killing all the ocean wildlife, it doesnt help any

    www.anon-posting.at.tc

  • Warty||

  • ||

    The preview audience didn't give the movie much of a chance. Murderface's performance was understated and pitch perfect.

  • ||

    I don't see how this:

    Domains that should be propertized are those which exhibit scarcity and for which a chain of possession disambiguates social transactions

    leads to this:

    Environmental emissions should be auctioned (whether or not they are known to be harmful, but rather because there is *some* capacity at some point, even if we haven't gotten there yet)

    but not this:

    Intellectual Property would be out the door (but not trademarks).

    What transactions involving environmental emissions need to be "disambiguated"? Indeed, without cap and trade, what transactions even exist?

    Whereas IP has a lot of transactions that need disambiguation right now.

  • ||

    What transactions involving environmental emissions need to be "disambiguated"? Indeed, without cap and trade, what transactions even exist?

    See my Carbon Credit(tm) post upthread, Counselor.

  • ||

    Point taken, Groovus.

    OK, there is some kind of market in carbon offsets now, and that market is manifestly flawed (mostly because its infested with frauds and mountebanks). Would propertizing CO2 "fix" this market?

  • ||

    Would propertizing CO2 "fix" this market?

    Only if trees are recognized as legal entities. Otherwise, it would be as fraudulent as carbon credits. Only a Cap and Scam regulatory scheme would quantify this, based on....wait for it....thin air.

  • Yonemoto||

    There's no scarcity of ideas.

  • ||

    Although there is a scarcity of good ones. Especially when those good ideas take billions to develop and test (see R&D on pharmacuticals etc)

  • Yonemoto||

    First mover advantage and name recognition go a really long way. But seriously. The solution is to be so kick-ass at your manufacturing by trimming the margins that it doesn't make sense for a copycat to invest in the infrastructure to produce the same drug you make.

    A 20,000 liter bioreactor and the expertise to use it isn't cheap, you know.

  • Yonemoto||

    anyways, I'm setting out to prove this. I'm convinced it's possible to make a pharma company that doesn't protect its product with IP.

  • jtuf||

    "Everything in the ocean from the great whales to dolphins to plankton is being jeopardized," Psihoyos tells Reason.tv. "We're raping and harvesting the ocean unsustainably."

    OK. This begs the question.

    1) Who has sex with an ocean?

    2) How do you get consent from the ocean before starting the sex?

    3) How do you rape sustainably?

  • ||

    I see a high-level EPA position in Steve Smith's future.

  • Tony||

    Looks like the libertarian fascist are at it again. Why don't we privatize everything? The courts of law, the police, them military. After all the solution to everything seems to be to privatize it.

  • jtuf||

    You must be confused. Fascists nationalized things. Privatizing is the opposite of fascism.

  • Tony||

    Shut up.

  • Tony the history teacher||

    Here go the Socialists again, always trying to prevent labor unions.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue has a good section on this topic. Anyone read that?

  • Tony||

    Ignore the fake response from above. Libertarianism is simply corporate fascism.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    How so Tony?

    Fascism is state control of the means of production which is privately owned.

    Are you defining Corporate fascism as "The private owners of the means of production can also control their property"

    If so then Yes.

  • jtuf||

    Ignore the fake response from above.

    While you're at it, pay no mind to the man behind the curtain. Tony is the Wizard of Oz.

  • ||

    I'm skeptical about the good professor's plan to fish a percentage of the available resources. What's the agency that controls your percentage?

    I just see cronyism ruling in that scenario, but I admittedly don't have a better answer right now (except to start eating marine mammals).

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave now! Being duped by those evil liberal scientists who want to subjugate all businessmen. Well, I never.

    Despite all those hippie liberal lies, here's the truth: Spilled oil is harmless and tastes like chocolate milk to fish; We can fish as much as we want and the fish will last forever - it's anti-business to think otherwise because short term profit is the only thing that's important; And exterminating a species to make money selling luxury seafood is the highest good and finally; any bad consequences are someone else's job to clean up - cleaning up after yourself is fascist/communist/slavery/evil.

  • Jen||

    Try reading the article next time. Fail.

  • ||

    But who gets to get part of the catch share? What if I go out and buy a fishing boat and want in on the action? Am I excluded? Am I give a pathetic share? Who and how is this all decided?

  • ||

    You would have to buy a share of the catch as well as a boat.

    Share of the catch could be auctioned off, or traded in markets.

  • ||

    It seems to me proponents of the share system favor government regulation of the shares.

  • ||

    Did the people that got the original shares have to pay for them? If not, that's unfair to then force me to pay for my share.

  • Rethuglican Jesus||

    Dolphins are just gay sharks

  • ||

    The sooner the fucking Japs and Trident get done catching every form of profitable salt-water protein, the sooner I can stop hearing about it. Kill them all. Now.

  • ||

    If you follow the logic of the video, legalization of whale meat should incentivize the preservation of whales. Because if there's an explosion of demand for whale meat in the United States, then the extinction of the product would be very bad for the whaling buiness.

    I've heard some good things about whale meat. And I've already tasted dogs, the other forbidden meat. It doesn't taste "rough" at all (insert other jokes here)

  • slutmonkey||

    @lee As in the video, if you put a sustainable cap on the total number of whales allowed to be hunted, and then auction off shares of that catch, then yes, whalers would have a huge incentive to make sure whales flourished.

  • ||

    I like the "Environmentalists are often suspicious of the profit motive..." line. These people are not suspicious of profit, they are suspicious when THEY are not realizing the profit. The environmentalists suffers from debilitating dishonesty. The cap-and-trade gimmick is a perfect example where this wealthy lobby will coopt a problem for their benefit.

  • ||

    Slime is Green.
    The regulation of everything should apply to slime.
    Business that is failing is what these pseudo eco do gooders are trying to stop. If they really were interested in saving the whale, the failure of these big fisher men would solve that problem fast.
    Man will never outlive our planet which has been taking care of itself for eons before we existed.
    Ego ecos, however, are the bullies who will always be with us along with the Mother-in-laws from Hell that know what is best for us. Their obsessive desire to coerce and control the lives of others qualifies them as nothing but busybodies.
    Their grasp of reality is clouded by their Megalomania.

  • Me Libertarian||

    Me find your views compelling and me want to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • Cristos||

    The problem will take care of itself in true market capitalism fashion. The big fishing boats will overfish and overfish until all the world's fisheries collapse. Then there won't be any money in fishing anymore. Misguided governments or investors might keep them floating a little while past that, but eventually they'll all be scrapped.

  • Pauls||

    I thought oceans suffer because of high demand for fish (and free waste disposal). Will private ownership decrease demand? NO. Will it increase supply, NO (otherwise, what's the point?). In other words, what's the point? Or, private ownership immediately delivers solutions in the most miraculous ways just because it's pure magic because it's private?
    Sorry, jacked up price (as a result) of private restrictions would immediately jack up temptations to increase the catch (no speaking of attracting hordes of fishermen who's are not convinced by private ownership claims out of blue).

    There is way too much of private ownership as it is in this world, to the sickening point, yet, world is on the steady course towards a dumpster. How come? Where is a magic of private?

  • Dave||

    The free market's doing a heck of a job cleaning up its own mess in the Gulf; why not apply the same faultless logic to fishing as well?

  • Nate||

    Is there any way to reconcile private ownership of fishing stocks that extend beyond national waters? What kind of solution might be suggested for the tuna population?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06.....una-t.html
    http://www.colby.edu/personal/.....h-ice.html

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • ||

    Too bad that not a lot of people care about our world's oceans considering that 50% of the air we breathe comes from it. Check this video out. http://youtu.be/57_KdKrJKeM

  • mbt imara||

    good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement