Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: Mexico City  (Read 20287 times)


  • Guest
Re:Mexico City
« Reply #75 on: February 09, 2004, 08:15:07 pm »

Tony and Mike - once again you are completely conflating the differences between private - collective - common ownership...

common ownership rights are individual and inalienable, equal access rights to natural resources

collective ownership rights are delegated to the state and their elected officials who can dispose of the property as they see fit.

For example, a public right of way is literally a *right* of way. Under principles of common law, nobody, not even the king, could close a travelled road and make it private property. A state maintenance truck, on the other hand, is state property, which can be sold if it no longer suits state purposes.


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:Mexico City
« Reply #76 on: February 09, 2004, 08:48:33 pm »


you're telling me that 'the king', could not impose a road toll, or close the road as he saw fit? even with force of arms?  I doubt it
nothing to say...


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Mexico City
« Reply #77 on: February 09, 2004, 11:11:59 pm »

None of which disputes what I said. You did not, I'll note, specify what the size of the european sink is...

You said

Even today, where we have the UN trying to come up with a fair accounting system for CO2 sources and sinks, the US and Canada are an immense CO2 sink because there is so much private land where forests are growing and being properly managed. Europes socialistic systems do not provide as much stimulus, and as a result Europe is still a CO2 source.

My reading of this was that you were implying that somehow, the US and Canada were "an immense CO2 sink", whereas Europe was "still a CO2 source".  In fact, both continents are net CO2 producers by a vast margin.

Furthermore, your politically-motivated ramblings wrt to the carbon sinks in Europe vs North America are simply that -- the data that I have found indicates that your claims of US forests being more efficient carbon sinks than European ones is pure conjecture and demonstrably false:

The American and European forests contained more carbon than the Canadian and Russian forests (56 versus 41 tons per hectare). Among the European countries, Austria, France and Germany had notably large stocks. The rate of storage, in tons carbon per hectare per year, varied from country to country during the 1980s and 1990s. It was highest in Europe (0.84) and America (0.66), and least in Canada and China (0.29), with values for Russia in between (0.44). Thus, the sink distribution between North America and Eurasia was roughly in proportion with the forest area.

So, the managed forestry of the US is not any better at carbon sink performance than the forests of Europe.  And in fact, Russia has the most carbon sink forest of any nation, while Canadas boreal forests are actually losing carbon.

FWIW, this study is a bit dated... new information has become available for Europe.  The EU now claims that almost 30% of their industrial emissions are already being sequestered by their forests:

After much argument about whether countries should be allowed to use carbon sinks to offset carbon emissions - with Europe adamantly against their use until recently - EU research commissioner Philippe Busquin has announced evidence that nearly 30% of annual industrial carbon emissions in Europe are absorbed by the European biosphere.

So, politics aside, it looks like EU is doing pretty good on the carbon issue and is poised to do better.   Rather than pat ourselves on the back for 'right-thinking', we should be thinking of non-socialist ways to do better than them at balancing our own carbon cycle.


Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:Mexico City
« Reply #78 on: February 09, 2004, 11:28:02 pm »

I never said that the US forests were more efficient carbon sinks. You are putting words in my mouth. I said that the US has more forest land than europe (it does).
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6]   Go Up