The Economic Way of Thinking

Polar Bears For Global Warming?

A controversy is, once again, heating up in Alaska over the federal government's effort to expand polar bear protection.  Like Sarah Palin before him, Alaska's new governor, Sean Parnell, intends to sue.  According to the Associated Press, his legal team will protest the science behind polar bears being listed as an Endangered Species:

Alaska's lawyers will argue that the research was flawed, that federal officials looked too far into the future and that modeling is uncertain. Especially troublesome, Alaska Attorney General Dan Sullivan says, is that for the first time, the federal government listed a species with high population numbers — 20,000 to 25,000 worldwide, up from 8,000 to 10,000 in the 1960s.

"Never before has a species been listed when the population of that species is at its highest, most robust," Sullivan said. "It's at all-time historical highs."

As the world has supposedly gotten warmer, here'e what appears to be happening to the polar bear population (the link with the relevant citations can be found here):

 

Of course, all of the disagreement surrounds the future direction of these lines. 

Question Of The Day

What is the distinction between de jure property rights and de facto property rights?

Piracy And Privatization

Take a look at Pete Leeson's post.

The Facebook Controversy

Who owns and controls what?  It's a dispute over property rights.  Here.

By your own logic

While eating my bowl of cereal this morning, CNN’s John Roberts was covering a story about Michael Phelps’s dope smoking incident.  The story was supposed to be focusing on pro-marijuana protesters and their disappointment with Kellogg’s dropping Phelps as a sponsor, but Roberts found an opportunity to do some editorializing that went something like the following (I’m paraphrasing): 

What about Alex Rodriguez?  Major League Baseball and the New York Yankees aren’t going to punish him at all for admitting to breaking the law.  Steroids are a Schedule 3 controlled substance, and I think the same standard should be applied to A-rod.  Why are we punishing Phelps but giving A-rod a free pass? 

If you want to adopt the Roberts standard, the same logic would imply that George W. Bush and Barack Obama should both be punished because they too abused illegal substances in their past.  Obama admitted it outright; Bush effectively admitted it with his remark about being able to pass the “no drugs in the last 15 years” threshold his father introduced to the White House in 1989.   

I’d rather not go down the crazy path Roberts hints at, and I doubt he wants to either.  Instead, I wish Roberts would focus on the more fundamental issue: terms of a contract and ownership rights.  Kellogg’s has a right to dump Phelps; Major League Baseball has a right not to discipline A-rod.  And, I suppose “we the people” also have a right to punish or not punish our politicians for their past mistakes. 

Property Rights And Externality Case At The Supreme Court Today

Here's a good'un:

A case before the Supreme Court on Monday could set a precedent for how mining waste is disposed of in streams, rivers, lakes and even wetlands.

The justices are hearing arguments on whether an Alaska gold mine can dump metal waste into a nearby lake.

A ruling in favor of the mining company could allow the Clean Water Act to be interpreted to allow mining waste to be dumped into waterways throughout the United States, said Tom Waldo, a lawyer with the environmental group Earthjustice.

"The whole reason Congress passed the Clean Water Act was to stop turning our lakes and rivers into industrial waste dumps," Waldo said. "The Bush administration selected the Kensington mine to test the limits of the Clean Water Act."

More.

The Brighter Side of Bankruptcy

Our friend Steve Horwitz offers a nice discussion over at The Austrian Economists blog.

Shouting "Fire!"

The local stage in our town sets off a bomb during its rendition of Scrooge.  It generally scares the hell out of much of the audience. Little kids want to leave the place, crying as my daughter did.

Why are they allowed to do that, but an audience member cannot shout "fire"?  Yes, legislation doesn't allow it.  But do we need legislation to reduce this?

Can you shout fire in my own home?  What if children are present?  What does the law say about that? 

Consider these questions from a private property rights perspective:  In short, is it necessary to have an additional legislative rule if private property rights are clearly established in any venue?