i can understand making things with stuff that doesnt cause allergies to form or worsen if that has been shown to be the case in some buildings. but i dont understand a sustainable building .

if the materials out there are cheaper that arent considered sustainable why not use those until the need arises to reuse old bricks from torn down buildings, using spare carpet remnants, etc?

“I assure you that for from being David vs. Goliath rehtoric, my reference to collusion between legislators, large firms and organised labour is most certainly a reality. Dispensation to unions and NGO’s does ensure that mines get permitted in many parts of the world and limits mining in general to only those firms in a position to make such dispensations.

I very much agree with you that a system of pure private property is what I would advocate. Since medieval times the State in its various forms has almost always “separated” surface rights from mining rights in order to maximize royalty revenue. We now see separate logging rights as well in Canada. This leaves a situation of potential multiple land use and eternal conflict requiring the State to resolve.

Many of your points are quite accurate, but my experience is that the “restraints” people have in mind actually benefit the people implementing them. Things are not what they seem, but I can tell you that big mining companies pay for being labelled green and sustainable and the cheques go to NGOs. Our firm is not involved in mining, but exploration. We do not have the capital to develop a mine, but should we find one we would be a buyout target for a mining company. It would be interesting to find out about what constitutes the billions in damages in Montana. Mining activity, even open pit, takes up a very small area. The charges that I am familiar with concerning cyanide in Montana don’t hold up to much scrutiny. Cyanide is the most expensive item in the process to liberate gold from rock and as such it is economically not feasible to waste it.

For a bit more information on mining and risk have a look at a paper I wrote recently (attached).

I hope I addressed some of your queries.

All the best

Morgan

Morgan Poliquin, P.Eng
Director
Almaden Minerals Ltd.”

In reply, I noted that, “as to Montana, cleanup alone of several Superfund sites is expected to cost billions, with much of this publicly funded, as original owners are defunct. Just look into Clark Fork and Butte and you’ll see what I mean. As to leach heap mining, you may be aware that Montana has passed laws prohibiting it, given the fact that past miners have declared bankruptcy to avoid liability for damages imposed on others.

It is this fear of others being left holding the bag – an historic legacy of mining – that has led to burgeoning government regulation and citizen action. Even if mining co.s are more responsible today, they still use a limited liability form, so investors have no liaiblity for environmental losses that mining may cause. Without addressing this liaiblity issue head on, I’m afraid that I view appeals against government regulation as asking for a kind of handout, even though the regulation may end up serving the interests of the largest firms.”

Mr. Poliquin unfortunately did not provide a detailed reply, except to note that he had strong views about Superfund, remediation and Montana.

I appreciate his willingness to correspond, and am sympathetic to the problems he faces in his exploration work.

Tom

Thanks for the note, but I think your rhetoric is overblown. Whom are the environmentalists murdering? They owe their existence to the fact that there are continuing property rights abuses by corporations AND government, and are simply trying to check those abuses. If you stop the corporate rent-seeking and solve property rights problems, enviros simply go away.

They’d probably have every reason to turn away from their rent-seeking ways (which were both necessary and successful in th 70s) if Miseans would point out their errors and direct them towards more fruitful solutions.

Those who paint enviros or corporations as sons of the devil rather than people who are predictibly trying to sway a corporate-statist government might get some short-term emotional release, but are simply begging for long-term frustration.

Why not put Misean knowledge to good use by analyzing what are reasonable and achievable solutions to the problems that bother enviros? They often have a point.

Regards,

Tom

I don’t know why the environmental movement arose. Nor do I care. You appear to be mounting the “abused as a child” defense, where some mass murderer was supposedly abused as a child, and when he’s accused of murder, crazy people pop up complaining that “there is no acknowledgement that the murder movement arose and continues today due to distortions caused by child-abusers …”. Who cares? I mean, yes, it’s terrible that he was abused as a child, of course, but that doesn’t excuse his murders in the least. So with environmentalists. Who cares if their destructive evil is “a result of distortions caused by “? Destructive evil is to be condemned regardless.

As to attacks on rent-seeking, yes, I acknowledge the attacks on rent-seeking by corporations, but the attacks on environmentalists are fundamentally imbalanced – an frequently nearly unhinged – in the way that I have indicated. Namely, there is no acknowledgment that the environmental movement arose and continues today due distortions caused by governments acting on behalf of corporations. Accordingly, the way to solve the resource problems for which environmentalists seek solutions is not to denounce enviros as Nazis or akin to Communists, but to recognize their legitimate complaints, see their role as a counter-balance to corporations, and to seek to solve the problem by ending the rent-seeking and devolving the resolution to where it properly belongs – in clarifying and protecting property rights.

It is perfectly legitimate to deride the mistaken rhetoric of enviros, but to the extent such bashing is a one-sided promotion of the “fear of enviros” it is fair to view those who do it as having been co-opted by the worst set of rent-seekers, the corporations, and their political lackeys.

Regards,

Tom

Your point about lifeforms is well-taken, but the original comment was referring to the minerals and material taken from the earth. Even the lifeforms extinct need not truly be forever gone should our need and ingenuity continue to grow.

You asked why Miseseans attack the rent-seeking enviromentalist but not the rent-seeking corporations. Indeed, I don’t think you are paying enough attention to the contributors to this site. I see much consistency in the attacks on all rent-seeking entities.

Funny how “conservation of matter” principals( a great leap forward ) are used to excuse Man’s wanton destruction of Nature( a grand stumbling down the staircase )– improperly, of course, as TT well points out.

The S&P 500-ization( thank you clueless “Index fund” de-vestors & MutFund “buy&die”-ers ) of our economy is promulgating monoculture around the world that is inimicable to the very strength of Nature, and ourselves– diversity.

That our hubris, or willful blindness, allows us to delude ourselves into believing that our simple reliance on the phony financial-price signals emanating from the State-crafted schema masquerading as a “Free Market”-to Peter’s point-is truly a Dark Age2.0–calling for further Enlightenment.

The “writedowns” we face will surely not fill great Tomes with Knowledge, but, yea, of Mis-Adventure.

We, literally, have a choice: We can–synapse-driven–”Snap out of it.”, or, barring that, We snap, and we’ll surely be: “Out of it.”

Actually, free markets have created non-state solutions that mimic quotas in commons. “Governing the Commons” (the author escapes me right now), while not totally in line with Austrian theory, provides some framework on how local communities have historically dealt with commons problems.

Furthermore, the U.S. had de facto fishing quotas before FDR’s programs began bearing fruit. IIRC, there’s an article on this site about it, noting that local canneries only dealt with local fishermen because of a background recognition of the problem of overfishing. The Feds came in and smashed this system through anti-trust actions.

It’s important to remember that a free-market is not synonymous with a forced-open market.

By the way, I note Cordato here:

“If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist. This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998; Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective on pollution from one of “market failure” where the free market is seen as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced property rights, is not in place.

A pollution problem then can take one of two forms, either titles to the relevant resources are clear but the rights to use that property by the title holders are not being enforced, or titles to a resource are not clear and two or more parties wish to use the resource for conflicting purposes. Obviously, each of these would require a different approach to solving the problem. But in each case the solution should focus on resolving the conflict and therefore allowing for the efficient formulation of plans by all parities involved.”

Cordato does not insist that there is no role for government in reaching a Misean solution.

http://mises.org/daily/1760

Regards,

Tom

There is actually ample middle ground for moving towards Misean solutions to environmental problems – namely, “free market” environmentalist measures that create private property rights and get the government out of straight regulation, such as ITQs (individual transferable quotas) in fisheries and tradable permits in SO2.

It honestly puzzles me why Miseans do not spend more time proposing obvious solutions to obvious problems, but largely prefer to bash one group of rent-seekers while ignore the fat hogs who are largely responsible for the rent-seeking orgy.

Regards,

TT

Regards,

TT

Claiming we are running out of resources is therefore inaccurate. It is accurate to state there will be challenges, and it is not accurate to assume that the market will automatically meet those challenges in a way that is better than our current standard of life, but it is equally inaccurate to assume that unless the state forces people to comply with a set of directives, there will be no resources remaining for our present and future generations.

Sustainable development also assumes that production should largely occur in an area/country of it’s use — that nations are only sustainable if they are able to produce their needs independently of other nations — and this assumption is false. Production should occur where it is most efficient, regardless of consumption. A diverse trading economy, with private property protection, therefore offers the most sustainable development, because it is more robust and able to cope with a shift in available resources.

You note that “Regulation, far from being established by altruistic intellectuals and far-sighted politicians, creates government-enforced cartels for (and was conceived by) the established businesses,” and conclude that “The implementation of sustainable practices is condoned, supported, lauded, and financed by the big businesses of today. Like their 19th-century counterparts, they have the accounting staff and present infrastructure to handle the extra costs of becoming “sustainable.” It is the little guy — the new entrepreneur — who is paralyzed by the burden of the new legislation.”

This kind of David vs. Goliath rhetoric tugs at the heart-strings of Miseans, who are sensitive to how government tend to misrule for the benefit of large corporations, and to regulate inefficiently as well, raising barriers to entry and thus hobbling private markets and entrepreneuership. I personally root for you and your own firm, which has gone public and now has investors in Canada and the US, and a host of environmental regulations in Canada and Mexico, to worry about.

However, I wonder if ou can clarify more precisely what it is you are concerned about in the laws and regulations you face in the countries in which you operate – are you suggesting that large mining companies operating in Canada and Mexico are lobbying for MORE laws, mrely to squeeze out smaller competitors like yourself? Are you saying that smaller firms should not be subject to the same environmental laws? Can you tell us more concretely what is meant in a regulatory sense by “sustainable” as it applies to hard rock miners like yourself?

From a pure Misean point of view, I would note that unfortunately modern corporations have a greed to a rather Faustian bargain, by which they traded free markets and personal responsibility for the grant of limited liability to the owners of corporations and a closer relationship to politicians and bureaucrats. The result, as citizens realized that environmental damages were being pushed off on them without adequate compensation by corporations that could pay dividends to owners and then decalre bankruptcy, has been the continuing clamor for government regulation of hard rock mining and other heavy industries. Just look at the billions in damages that citizens in Montana are facing, for example. And on the other hand, we still have politicians selling off the mineral resources of our public lands for a pittance, and farmers, ranchers and hunters throughout the west are up in arms over the rampant ground and water pollution and disruption to big game habitat as a result.

Mr. Poliquin, I think the solutions that Miseans would offer to the problems you raise would be to suggest that, if you want to get the government off of your backs, we need to abolish the form of limited liability corporations and put all “public lands” into private hands – either by auctioning it all off or by privatizing through transfer to corporations whose shares are distributed to the general public. If we can accomplish those things and move environmental regulation back to the tort system by strengthening private property laws (so that miners and polluters don’t leave others holding the bag for the costs they impose), then I’m with you on abolishing all environmental laws.

If you’re not in favor of these things, then excuse me for thinking that you represent just another special interest with its hand out for a favor from the government.

As an aside, let me note that I think you’ve misapplied the term “sustainable development”, at least if you’re talking about the US and Canada. This term is typically used in the case of third world countries which suffer from kleptocracies and fail to establish and protect clear property rights regimes. As a result, the mineral wealth of these countries is frequently expropriated (pocketed) by governing elites for their own benefit, and foreign firms are often both the tools of the elite and exploited as well, but in any case have little direct stake in the welfare of local people. It is this situation that concerns developed countries and leads to calls to multinationals to act “sustainably”. I agree that rather than jawboning multinationals, it would be better to acknowledge and fix these broken regimes, so that resource development does not continue as a relative unregulated “tragedy of the commons” or exploitative practice. Until such day, however, it does not seem unfair to ask multinationals to exercise some degree of restraint, even if as a practical matter than may simply be a waste of time.

Regards,

TT

Rothbard did talk about the government simply repudiating the national debt, so maybe that’s how they’ll “cancel” their debts.

I prefer the Sparticus method: Warm their backsides and the politicians will donate everything they own to the cause of the debt they ran up.

Cheers,
Juan.

This is exactly the same as enforcing gun prohibition using armed police. Government sees itself as the exception to every rule.

Governments themselves will discover the inefficiencies that the regulations impose and then ignore them, just like they ignore pollution laws and finance laws. “Laws are for the little people.”

As pointed out above, the “equality” or “equity” means that social justice is imposed from On High by the standards of those On High. It’s just more government regulation justified by the mess created by the earlier endless streams of government regulation.