Do We Own?

[The Grand Nudger]

Having the option of deferment is the same as having more choices and more freedom.

No..more like "different choices". There would be choices available to you under priority use that are not available under ownership, of course. "More choices, more freedom" seems a hell of a stretch.

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.

-and we know that the ownership model curtails at least one freedom available to us in the priority model. As far as valuing it, no argument from me there - I value my rights to ownership as well.

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.

Try applying the concept of deferment to a hostile audience (like my children). This is just chewy back and forth - the sword cuts both ways.

Sounds like every government in existence.

Agreed, but since we're chalking this one up to government it's possible in either system- so long as there is government.

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.

It is similar, but similar doesn't mean equivalent, obviously. Many of the tools we use in our current system are equally applicable to a priority system - we use priority based systems in some areas already. Changes would have to be made, yes. Specifically changes made to what can and cannot be "owned" - but beyond that, it;s a bit more difficult to put anything firmly on one side of the line or the other - ne'er the twain to meet.

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.

Good for them, may the best proposal win. They've ceased to be lobbyists, or at least ceased doing that which diferentiates them -as- lobbysists, relative to a guy like myself just trying to get the best proposal in the bundle.

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.

A principle that could be included in either system (though I, personally, wouldn't include it...to me, some gain is worth unfathomable damage and cost to natural resources and environment)

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"?

More like a clause that states that the highest level of environmental controls must be applied and will be rigorously tested at random to check for a breach of contract. This is assuming that the proposal requirement for this parcel could even include mining (and why would we agree to such a thing if the above could not be accomplished - if we wished to both preserve environment and resources while availing ourselves of their use?