trc (03/14/83)
The division of the commons is different from political solutions in that no politics is needed for further control of the commons as a whole. The laws regarding protection of private property will handle any problem arising on the former commons. In the case of pollution, if the pollution harms anyone, the victim has a right to bring suit. In the case of very long time-range damage, the best method would be for a concerned group to gather proof of the trend towards harm. I think this can be prosecuted just as well as one could prosecute a murderer for slowly poisoning his victim. The victim need not die before action can be taken. Something is not against one's self interest just because one's individual effect is insignificant. If one knows that others will probably also add their efforts so that the goal will be achieved, one can justify such an action. But the probability should be good, and the goal truly beneficial to one. And if there are better methods, they should be used first. USENET is scarcely a communal resource - each part of it is privately owned and controlled. If it is to their benefit, any part can withdraw. And it is certainly not free! People do not always act in their rational self interest - but they do always act in their perceived self interest. I have never seen any evidence to contradict this (including religion, etc). I argue that reason is the way to determine what IS in one's self interest. Yes, I think that there are universals - things that any human could come to agree are in their self interest if they applied their reason to determine self interest. The right to life, liberty and property as some examples. It is not that some individual will HAVE to tell everyone else what is good for them, but that certain things simply ARE good for them. On personal matters, the individual should apply reason, and a knowledge of the basics, to choose what is right for them. ( I should note that, while all people can come to recognize what is in their rational self interest, it often takes a philosopher to discover the original truth. This is, quite simply, because creative thinking is difficult, while following a line of reasoning is easy. In this case, Aristotle and Rand have prepared the path.) Tom Craver houti!trc