(July 20, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ........only if you value deferment, and only if it's applied in an area where you feel that deferment is advantageous...and only if you judge the system on the metrics of "does it include deferment".
Having the option of deferment is the same as having more choices and more freedom. So you can bet your ass that people value it - even if it may not be advantageous. The metric being used is not "deferment" but how much freedom it allows. We know that priority model curtails atleast one freedom available to us under ownership model. As for determining how much people value it - try applying the concept of "use it or lose it" at a small scale - maybe just with your children - and see how they react.
(July 20, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Sounds like inefficient (and potentially corrupt) administration.
Sounds like every government in existence.
(July 20, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Sure, but we don't have to grant that option - as it's not necessary to a priority system
You seem to be forgetting your own position at the beginning of this part of discussion. You said that the current system was essentially similar to priority use system. But here you seem to accept that certain basic changes would need to be made to make it into one.
(July 20, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Oh I know..and wouldn't it just be hilarious if those same lobbyists could not participate as there was nothing to leverage/no room in the system. Lobbysists are no more a problem for priority use than they are for ownership. If we don;t want them, we boot them.
No, actually, they'd be a bigger problem. Right now, the government does have legal justification for booting them - if and when it wants to. Under priority use system, they'd be going directly to courts to exercise their use rights.
(July 20, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Reserving land is not the only way (and I would argue not even close to the "best" way) to accomplish such. Quick and easy, think like a proponent of priority use. What do you do when you want to preserve resources or protect environments? You include it in the proposal requirements.
Not even close to enough. Firstly, it goes against the principle that environment and other natural resources must be preserved regardless of gain to be had. Secondly, it'd be impossible to use the resource and preserve it at the same capacity. What are you going to do? Put a clause in mining rights contract that "you may mine as much ore as you like from the land, just make sure that the ore content remains the same"?
