RE: Do We Own?
July 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm
(This post was last modified: July 20, 2013 at 3:35 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(July 20, 2013 at 11:02 am)genkaus Wrote: That's kind of my point. Under the ownership model you get to choose whether to opt for deferment or current productivity. You get to be the judge of when the deferment becomes a disadvantage and you get to bear the responsibility (profit or loss). Others get to make their own choices with regards to their property. The same freedom won't be available under the priority use model.That's true. But again we say "under a model which excludes deferment you can't defer".
(July 20, 2013 at 10:36 am)Rhythm Wrote: The question assumed that the priority use model applied universally - and not just to real estate. If I don't own the bushel of tomatoes but simply have the right to use for a certain period, then I can't ensure that I would be able to make the delivery in 95 days.Personally, I couldn't even mount an argument for an absolute and all encompassing position even if I tried real hard.
Quote:Your idea here seems to be that the priority use model should only apply to specific resources and commodities, while others would remain under the ownership model. If so, then how would you decide which resources to place under the priority use model and which under the ownership model?What I might set and what others might set as appropriate uses of such a tool (and what process we might use) is a wide open field I'd say.
Quote:Actually, the fundamental difference remains the same. The government can choose to reject all proposals, thus making deferment the default option.Can they? Why?
Quote: It can choose not to invest or spend the funds in any of the proposed ways and they would simply lie in the government coffers.We already leverage a way to deal with this sort of situation. Spend it or lose it.
Quote:A good example would be how the government chooses not to develop all the resources at its disposal simultaneously. It requires - as a rule - to reserve 33% of its land area under forest cover - an area without any tangible productivity - to protect the environment.Then we're all paying for that loss in productivity. That has to be understood and accepted. For whatever reason we've decided that were willing to absorb that loss. This may not always be an option, of course.
Quote: Under priority use model, someone else would get the dibs on using this land since no one is making any use of it.Yep. If they had a good proposal I can't see why not.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
