The starstruck broadsheet press
It’s election time, the season of celebrities and worthies adding their names to open letters and political advertising. A range of them have put their names on an ad designed to pressure Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull to change his mind on Gunns’ Tasmanian pulp mill. And why wouldn’t they? When it comes to this kind of thing the Fairfax press especially is as starstruck as Who magazine’s celebrity-obsessed readers, with The Age giving their opinions prominent front page coverage this morning. According to The Age,
Among the signatories are film director Phillip Noyce, actors Bryan Brown and Rebecca Gibney, playwright David Williamson, celebrity chef Kylie Kwong, Fairfax Media deputy chairman Mark Burrows, Rowena Danziger, a member of the Publishing and Broadcasting board, and Leo Schofield, a former director of the Sydney Festival.
But why should we care what any of these people think about this issue, or indeed on anything else except on things related to their narrow area of achievement or expertise (and perhaps not even that)? Would-be serious papers like The Age should show far more scepticism than they do.
The only signed advertisement I have liked appeared in the SMH a month ago. It was a full-page memorial for Ken Dyers, leader of the wacky Kenja cult, who killed himself rather than face (yet more) charges of sexually assaulting under-age girls. No need for too many tears in this case, I expect. But the signatories were, I thought, unwittingly but amusingly subversive of the whole signed ad phenomenon. Take these examples: Simon Winn, qualified carpenter; Linda Beachley, receptionist; Stevana Geurreiro, Dip, Make-up Artistry; Shane Grant, baker; Chloe Pape, hair stylist; David Pilkington, refrigeration tech; Eoin McGettrick, locksmith. All good, if unintentional, satire on the idea that occupations confer authority on opinion.
August 28th, 2007 21:42
“But why should we care what any of these people think about this issue, or indeed on anything else except on things related to their narrow area of achievement or expertise”
Why are they celebrities? It’s not because of achievements - Fiona Stanley and Barry Marshall are known high achievers, but not celebrities - it’s because of the personas they’ve created in the electronic media. We’re interested in these people, we want to know about their lives and what they think and do. Their fans may quite likely be influenced by knowing what these celebrities think. Anything a celebrity touches becomes more valuable, anything they say is worth listening to.
I thought Richard Flannagan’s essay on Gunns in The Monthly was an excellent political essay - those rich signatories should pay to have it reprinted in the SMH and Age
August 28th, 2007 21:46
“All good, if unintentional, satire on the idea that occupations confer authority on opinion.”
Hmm… does that also go for economists, PR companies and journalists for example opining on things such as education, climate science of public health?
August 28th, 2007 22:06
It’d be fun to see what kinds of petitions one could get high-profile celebrities to sign on to. For example, Bryan Caplan argues that there are four systematic biases voters hold against good economic policy - antimarket bias, antiforeign bias, make-work bias, and pessimistic bias. One could easily imagine trying to see whether it was possible to get a plurality of celebrity opinion to support a petition on each theme.
August 28th, 2007 22:35
Slim - Yes, when they don’t have any expertise in the relevant field.
Andrew - I think we had all four systematic biases when various celebrities were campaigning against the Australia-US FTA. More fun still would be an entirely hoax cause, like the Sokal nonsense article.
August 29th, 2007 00:23
Speaking of starstruck former broadsheets:
check Guardian this monbiot article blaming all the world’s (and the USA’s) problems on the Mont Perelin society.
it does not mention the Lindsay or GMB or Jason “Bukak” Soon but it does mention Keynes. They should get on there and leave their mark on the comments field, it is almost as bad as catallaxy..
It does not mention Cairncross who was Keynes buddy at the victorious Cambridge team that triumphed over LSE Hayek 3-1 with Cairncross’ brother being sent off but being allowed to stay in the country unlike his mate Philby in his luxe apartment in Moscow.
Ultimately, my analysis is this, Monbiot is leaving the Greens and heading towards the statist left. The wearing out of roadbridges in the USA he mentions as a bad thing and blames on neoliberalism is actually a good thing if it brings carbon emissions and industry to a slow down. Like Garrett he is sick of yoga mats and wants a job. He should just resign from Oxford Brookes and get a mountain bike and go to the Slovak Tatra mountains (it always works for me ex-professorially). One cannot blame Lindsay for anything much beyond Hornsby.
The world has much greater problems than governments or those opposing their expanding Thornleyesque waistlines can imagine
parkos,
Cairncross House,
Glasgow / Wroclaw
August 29th, 2007 00:30
The left are as bad as the right when it comes to lying and double truth..
Recently, the Guardian described half turkish, half nordic, American Boris Johnson as not the best London mayoral candidate to have in the era of multicultural Britain.
It almost as bad as the Age saying that Victoria has a great academic reputation. What they need is GMB endorsement on their advertisements.
August 29th, 2007 04:57
“More fun still would be an entirely hoax cause, like the Sokal nonsense article”
I’m sorry, Andrew, but how could we distinguish between a hoax and virtually any one of these luvvie-a-thons?
August 29th, 2007 07:22
I saw John Brumby talking about the synchrotron a few days ago, so it isn’t just celebreties that are talking about stuff they know nothing about.
August 29th, 2007 07:39
Conrad - That’s not really the case - Brumby was the lead Victorian Minister behind the synchrotron so it was his job (and still is as Premier) to explain to the public why so much of its money has been spent on this project.
August 29th, 2007 11:38
As ye live by celebrity, so shall ye die by celebrity.
-
Turnbull’s claim for preselection rested on his own celebrity, and on a whirl of exclusive parties with well-known people. The incumbent MP at the time could not match this and suffered electorally as a result. What these ads say to me is that Turnbull is, like, so yesterday.
August 29th, 2007 12:39
Andrew Leigh says:
For example, Bryan Caplan argues that there are four systematic biases voters hold against good economic policy - antimarket bias, antiforeign bias, make-work bias, and pessimistic bias.
That’s right. It’s called the green party and it’s supporters.
August 29th, 2007 12:58
JC - those four biases aren’t adequate for we Greens voters, howabout adding: anticoporate, antimonoculture, antiexploitative, antiwasteful ….
August 29th, 2007 13:04
Thanks Russell
I would add anit-corporate to the list. Sure. I had to work with what i was handed though.
August 29th, 2007 13:41
“Fairfax Media deputy chairman Mark Burrows”
Burrows is an investment banker. He is as qualified as anybody to comment
on whether the mill is likely to stack up financially.
August 29th, 2007 14:02
How do you know he has looked at the figures and has the expertise to understand them, spiros.
Investment banking is a catch all phrase. A mining specialist would know SFA about timber mills for instance.
How do you know it is not simply personal perference?
he may know as much as Brain Brown does.
August 29th, 2007 14:09
Here’s a job advertised on the web…. Note the specialization comment.
# Global Investment Bank
# Sydney and Melbourne based
# Industrials focused
This global Investment Bank has been ranked in the Top 5 Mergers and Acquisitions advisory companies in Australia for a number of years. Not only are they highly respected form their M&A capabilities but they are also highly regarded for their expertise in ECM and Equities Research.
They are currently expanding their corporate Finance capabilities and as a result and are recruiting additional Associates and VP’s for the M&A team, positions are based in both Sydney and Melbourne. Although they have vacancies in several specialized teams the immediate focus is on the appointment of Industrials specialists who have a strong track record of executing transactions in these sectors.
You will have qualifications in Business Management, Finance or Accounting and ideally you would have completed the CFA program. You must have excellent communication and presentation skills as these positions will require some origination work.
Appropriate six figure salary packages will be negotiated for the right candidates and will be complemented by attractive performance based incentive arrangements.
To submit your application, in strict confidence, please apply online using the appropriate link below. Alternatively, for a confidential discussion, please contact Mark Robinson on 0419979855
August 29th, 2007 14:52
I don’t know what figures Burrows looked at. But since he is a managing director of Lazard, deputy chair of Brambles , a director of Burns Philp and a director of Carter Holt Harvey, I reckon he’s seen one or two proposals in his time for big investments like this one.
August 29th, 2007 15:10
You can’t make the assumptions that:
1. He has looked at the financial details and
2. he would understand the numbers if it is not his area of expertise.
Investment banking requires specialization.
Fairfax wouldn’t exactly be placed on a list of th 50 best managed firms these days judging the stock performance and the circulation stats. It’s lucky to be alive.
Brambles look like it is takeoever play.
“I reckon he’s seen one or two proposals in his time for big investments like this one.”
And no, you can’t reckon that and be taken seriously.
August 29th, 2007 15:13
He’s not even on the board of brambles, spiros.
August 29th, 2007 15:35
Re Burrows, I presume the issue is not whether the mill stacks up financially, but whether it offends the Commonwealth’s environmental legislation.
August 29th, 2007 15:41
Rajat
Spiros made the astonishing claim that because Mrak Burrows says the mill doesn’t stack it must be true. he ignores the fact that Gunns has probably gone through the numbers with a fine tooth comb and have a long , long history of that business.
I’m just questioning spiros’ understanding of the issue involved.
August 29th, 2007 16:05
He used to be on the board of Brambles and I didn’t make the claim that “because Mrak Burrows says the mill doesn’t stack it must be true.”
I did make the claim that you can’t lump Mark Burrows in with Bryan Brown and Cate Blanchett as a celebrity know nothing, which is what Andrew did in his post. He is a successful investment banker for chrissakes.
August 29th, 2007 16:21
“He used to be on the board of Brambles and I didn’t make the claim that “because Mrak Burrows says the mill doesn’t stack it must be true.” “
Well you did… in a way:
But since he is a managing director of Lazard, deputy chair of Brambles , a director of Burns Philp and a director of Carter Holt Harvey, I reckon he’s seen one or two proposals in his time for big investments like this one.
and here you go again:
He is a successful investment banker for chrissakes.
making the same insinuation in different words.
I did make the claim that you can’t lump Mark Burrows in with Bryan Brown and Cate Blanchett as a celebrity know nothing, which is what Andrew did in his post
Why not? If shows no understanding of the figures he ought to be lumped in with that no-nothing mob.
Let me ask you, Spiros, who do you believe about he likely probability that the mill will be profitable. Brian Brown, his wife, cate and Burrows or the Gunns management team?
Who Spiros? Who is most likely to know?
Burrows wouldn’t have the number int eh first place as I am sure not everything is in the paublic domain.
Who Spiros?
August 29th, 2007 16:49
“I am sure not everything is in the paublic domain.”
Then find out before making assertions about people not knowing anything.
Let me say it again.
Andrew’s post was about “celebrities and worthies adding their names” to fashionable causes about which they know nothing. In this mix he included Mark Burrows, who is not a celebrity and who by way of his profession probably knows a lot about major projects (unlike Cate Blanchett, who knows a lot about acting).
This doesn’t mean that the pulp mill does not stack up. (Personally, by the way, I have no objection to pulp mills.)
But, for the final time, Burrows is clearly not a luvvie celebrity. He is a serious businessman.
August 29th, 2007 16:54
JC, according to the documentation tabled in the Tasmanian Parliament the mill would be unprofitable without subsidies. Cut the subsidies and watch Gunns walk away. Never mind Burrows, it’s not like you to stand up for the taxeaters.
August 29th, 2007 17:02
” Then find out before making assertions about people not knowing anything.”
But I am not the one making all these spurious claims. you are, Spiros. All I am doing is shooting a fish in a barrel
“But, for the final time, Burrows is clearly not a luvvie celebrity. He is a serious businessman.”
And here you go again proving one more time the claim you made
(and I didn’t make the claim that “because Mrak Burrows says the mill doesn’t stack it must be true.”)….
is patently false because you do think his background lends weight to the airheads.
And I will continue to make the claim that he would know as much about the mill etc. as the rest of the other airheads who put their name to a petition they have no expertise.
Moreover Burrows hasn’t seen the internal numbers the Gunns management worked on so he is just as big an airhead as the rest of them.
In fact I would be mightly concerned having this guy on any board other than Fairfax.
August 29th, 2007 17:09
got a link, Andrew L?
I would like to see what these subsidies are and who tabled them. If it was the the Greens I would bet 100:1 it would be just more lies and distortions as they are simple minded trogs when it comes to even the msot basic understanding of economics.
August 29th, 2007 17:11
“Never mind Burrows, it’s not like you to stand up for the taxeaters.”
Very true and I wouldn’t… ever. However it’s the first time I have ever heard of subsidies being thrown around so you really can’t accuse me of standing up for taxeaters.
August 29th, 2007 19:03
Don’t be disingenous, AndrewL, these luvvies aren’t protesting because the mill needs subsidies, they’re protesting because they think those books they read and the toilet paper for wiping their arses appear from a spell cast by merlin the magician and all those lovely trees must be kept standing for people to admire them.
August 29th, 2007 19:25
Perhaps Cate should invest some of her acting profits into buying some old growth forrests and protecting it herself if she loves it so much. Until these greenies start putting their money down and commiting their own resources to their beliefs, then it is a whole lot of hot air.
August 29th, 2007 19:51
Jason - perhaps the luvvies aren’t so stupid as to think paper has to be made from old-growth forests.
Here’s a quote from Flanagan’s must-read essay in The Monthly:
“Between 1988 and the present, the Tasmanian forest industry has received a staggering total of $780 million in taxpayer handouts, $289 million of it since 2005, much of it being used to facilitate further old-growth logging. If an accounting were possible of the taxpayer-subsidised plantation schemes and added to this sum, the real subsidy paid by the Australian taxpayer to an industry that destroys the nation’s heritage would approach a billion dollars”
Brendan - do you know she/they haven’t done that?
August 29th, 2007 20:38
Yes, the forrest that is going to get chopped down for this mill is still available on the market place to get turned into the Sydney Moaning Herald. Buy the damn thing and tell the Tasmanian Labor government, Brendan Nelson and all the evil capitalists to go to hell.
Offsetting your carbon emissions, buying organic produce, donating to the Green Party or Greenpeace is not the same as buying forrest and conserving it. If the state owns the land, then embrace private property and demand that the state divulge itself of its landholdings into the hands of people who value it. Nothing like freehold title to entitle you to tell someone to get off YOUR land.
August 29th, 2007 21:20
Brendan - how do you decide who values it the most?
August 29th, 2007 21:40
Russell
Can you provide a detailed breakdown/ links to the handouts as I would love to see what it is made up of.
thanks
August 29th, 2007 21:46
JC - you wouldn’t trust a novelist? Sorry there are no footnotes or references, but the whole thing reads beautifully. Jennifer Marohasy has a link to the article on her blog.
August 29th, 2007 22:28
[...] Why listen to celebrities on, ahem, anything? Why not carpenters, receptionists and bakers? ~ Andrew Norton [...]
August 29th, 2007 22:31
Russell,
That is easy. Whoever is willing to pay the most. Seriously, do you really need to ask such a question? Price is really efficient at determining who values something the most.
August 29th, 2007 22:45
How would that work with child custody disputes?
You don’t think capacity to pay has something to do with it?
August 29th, 2007 22:55
russell
How do you get from valuing a forrest for wood to child custedy disputes.
I am interesting in seeing how the mental process of jumping from one to the other actually works.
August 29th, 2007 23:13
Via Brendan’s claim that “Price is really efficient at determining who values something the most.”
How will price help us determine whether some aborigines value their land more than a developer who sees a chance to make a lot of money out of it?
August 30th, 2007 00:07
Russell
aboriginal land is in aboriginal hands as far as I know. And what pray tell would a developer want to do with land slap bang in the middle of the country where there is no water or made roads? Put up a high rise?
August 30th, 2007 06:51
Interesting proposal Russell. Last I heard I advocate libertarianism. What aspect of libertarianism do you think justifies selling children? I’d really like to know.
If Aboriginals had freehold title over their land rather than some made up native title, they could decide how much they value their land. If some developer or miner wanted the land, then the Aboriginal people could decide whether they valued their land or the biscuit they were offered.
August 30th, 2007 09:53
Not any more, the state has resumed it. You can’t complain about Aborigines not embracing capitalism when meagre attempts are regularly snuffed out.
August 30th, 2007 10:09
It’s perfectly fair to accuse you of being ill-informed and a useful tool of those who do.
August 30th, 2007 10:10
The other real problem with discussing Aboriginal land like that is that there is no consensus as to what land should be Aboriginal (its mainly a government dictate). It isn’t therefore surprising that most of the land that had been handed over is crappy stuff in the middle of the desert, which JC notes isn’t exactly of great development potential. This of course is not where most Aboriginies lived before European settlement.
August 30th, 2007 10:47
Elder
Do everyone a favor… don’t transfer grudges over from other blogs to here. If you can’t then stop posting.
Now I will have the evidence i asked for. Otherwise Soon is correct, you are disingenous and a lot more.
The evidence please.
August 30th, 2007 11:27
“and a lot more” - if the word you’re looking for is ‘lazy’ then it’s a judgment I no longer pass on myself since I heard a more agreeable description on a Radio National program on the weekend. Apparently I’m a victim of motivational deficit disorder.
Let’s not open up a land rights debate, but citizens of Dullsville will recall the battle over whether the development of the old brewery (practically in the CBD) should go ahead because the local aborigines said it was, to them, sacred ground. Also the “crappy stuff in the middle of the desert” is of some interest to mining companies.
My point remains - Brendan’s assertion that ““Price is really efficient at determining who values something the most.” doesn’t make sense - who would equate price with value?
August 30th, 2007 12:31
Russell
What other land claims do aboriginals have that fall under the High court 90’s decision they still haven’t claimed?
Can you name any?
August 30th, 2007 13:12
JC - I don’t know - perhaps there are claims over all of WA now: it was certainly a surprise last year when the ’single noongar’ claim succeeded in claiming the whole South-West of WA including Perth. My point was how we talk about ‘value’ - it’s a lot more complex than ‘price’.
August 30th, 2007 14:02
So you’re saying Peith now belongs to aboriginals? Never knew that!
August 30th, 2007 14:44
Depends what you mean by ‘belongs’.
“Justice Wilcox ruled the Noongar people continue to have native title of more than 6000 square kilometres, covering Perth and its surrounds.
The ruling means Noongar people can now exercise native title rights over land where native title has not been extinguished by “legislative or executive acts” such as freehold land. “
August 30th, 2007 15:28
Depends what you mean by ‘belongs’.
Ok let’s go tot he dcitionary and find out shall we?
Be owned by; be in the possession of
“This book belongs to me”
Be suitable or acceptable
Be in the right place or situation
Be a part or adjunct
I know Russell that as a green party memeber you have great difficulty understanding this concept. i hope this helps.
August 30th, 2007 15:38
You guys must have lots of free time to argue like this!
Russell, do you work for an MP?
August 30th, 2007 15:45
JC,
you of all people should not be bringing up arguments like the high-court or government says this (which changes every few years anyway, cf. Wik vs. now), so therefore it is, unless you’re position on government ownership of land and attribution of belonging has markedly changed of late. Thats just a poor populist argument hinging on the bad decisions governments make.
I might note here that we could use his position to find some technical reason to solve the pulp mills problem. For example, compare “Its the governments forest, so it belongs to the government. Because it belongs to the government, the government should do what the people want with it. People want to use it for tourism/do nothing with it/turn it into pulp, so thats we should do.
etc.
August 30th, 2007 16:31
Conrad
If I had my way the only bit of land in public ownership would be the parliament and even then I am sure Macquarie could do an effective leaseback, so your preaching to the converted.
1. Russell has value, price and ownserhip confused.
2. if the mill is profitable and doesn’t take subsidies I am all in favour of chopping ever tree down that’s allowed. We use those trees to build things with… see.
So I am not sure what your point is.
August 30th, 2007 16:42
“you have great difficulty understanding this concept” - not at all. The OED has one of the meanings of ‘belong’ as:
“4. a. To be connected with in various relations; to form a part or appendage of; e.g. to be a member of a family, society, or nation, to be an adherent or dependent of, to be a native or inhabitant of a place;”
So in that sense the aborigines belong to the land, and the land belongs to them!
“Russell, do you work for an MP?” Sacha is that an insult?
August 30th, 2007 16:48
No, it was a question.
August 30th, 2007 16:50
Russell, I’m not sure what your point is. If you want to stop someone from logging old growth forest, the most effective (and moral) way is to buy it yourself. Using legislation to prevent people doing what they want with their property is effectively mob rule. If the land is currently state owned, and you don’t trust the state, and then lobby for the conversion of that land into private property. As has been argued on other blogs, one potential solution to Aboriginal dispossession is granting them freehold title over crown land. I would support this, not because I believe in the Dream Time or any other such sky god stuff, nor because I believe in the noble savage, inexorably linked and custodian of the sacred land, giver of life etc. etc. I’d support it because it would draw a line in the sand over the Aboriginal issue and combined with reform of property rights to include mineral rights and welfare reform to eliminate “sit down money”, would lead to more prosperity for all Australians. I really believe that Aboriginals would interact with the evil capitalist tourist operators, land developers and miners, and that they would be compensated fairly for access to their property. Conservationists like yourself who couldn’t stand the idea of Aboriginals (or any other Australian) using their land as they see fit, would have to stump up the reddies to make it worth their while to sell you the land so that you can conserve it. There would be no force, no mob rule, and no majoritarian democratic decision over how I could use my property.
A resource that has alternate uses has different values to different people. Price at the point of exchange is the best indicator of how much it is valuable to any one individual. Old growth forest may be considered priceless to you, and if you never sell, it in effect would be priceless. Price only means something when you agree to buy or sell it. Just ask Sydneysider homeowners who thought they were sitting on goldmines before housing prices started to slide. Something is only as valuable as how much someone else is prepared to pay for it. If it is not on the market, then it’s value in price is unknown, and therefore priceless. Buy the god damn land.
August 30th, 2007 17:20
What shall we buy it with Brendan? Natives no longer trade their land for beads.
August 30th, 2007 17:35
Brendan - as you know I prefer a more communitarian way of life than you: individuals can own things, and individuals together can own things. And if we value certain things we can regulate to preserve them no matter who owns them. Thank goodness Fremantle Council fought the good fight against developers in the 1970’s - not many individuals could have afforded to buy up the beautiful Victorian West End buildings, but as a community we were able to preserve them. As a community we placed more value on preserving the buildings than on the right of individuals to knock ‘em down to make money.
August 30th, 2007 17:37
How about cold hard cash, infrastructure, schools, or medical centres, something the Aboriginals actually want more than they want their land? Try to be a bit more practical Dave, beads have little value except in Fort Lauderdale during spring break.
August 30th, 2007 17:43
Russell, that is crap. As a group of individuals, you could have bought the buildings and conserved them. Instead, like a thief in the night, the council changed the conditions of contract on the land title, with the threat of gaol to back them up. Mob rule is no more attractive if it is used to enforce “community values” like good architecture or to lynch criminals. There are peaceful and non-violent ways of acheiving the things you want, and yet you resort at first pass to mob rule and the threat of violence.
August 30th, 2007 17:56
Brendan — almost all old growth forests are owned by the government, so “their property” in this case is the governments. If the goverment doesn’t want people to log it (for whatever reason), I don’t see what the problem is.
If people want to turn trees into pulp, they should negotiate some contract with the government, buy the land off the government, or when that fails, plant their own trees which the government has no control over.
August 30th, 2007 17:58
Brendan - you think democracy is ‘mob rule’ ?- you should see what living in a fascist country is like.
No I couldn’t have contributed to buying expensive properties - I was paying off two loans on my hovel in North Freo: one was at 17%, the other at 21% (that was the bad end of the 70s, not those early golden Whitlam years)
August 30th, 2007 18:00
Conrad, have you read my post at all? The problem is that if you want to protect the trees when the state owns the forests, then you have to have the state on your side. A change in government, and the forests are up for logging. You are relying on the electorate forever agreeing with you. If crown land was converted into private land, conservationists could buy the land and lock up the trees for ever, and not be subject to mob rule or the inconsistencies of politicians. Property rights can be used to do the things that you want.
August 30th, 2007 18:21
Russell, the Australian electorate agreed with the Governor General’s decision to dismiss Whitlam, they promptly voted in the Liberals. Democracy is great, huh?
You didn’t value Fremantl’e heritage enough to even contribute a bit of coin? Couldn’t give up some small luxury to preserve historic Fremantle? You obviously didn’t care that much. It is easy to be the big man and put other people’s money to your good works, much harder to do it with your own, hey? You paid the high interest rates voluntarily to keep something that was valuable to you, can’t you see that? You could have sold up and rented in the suburbs and helped preserve historic Fremantle with the money you saved. You selfish, selfish man, valuing your own wellbeing over those of future generations.
August 30th, 2007 18:36
(that was the bad end of the 70s, not those early golden Whitlam years)
If only every government was like that. We were so fortunate to have him for those few short years.
August 30th, 2007 19:27
Brendan — I don’t disagree with you about the effect of selling the public land off, but since that is never going to happen, you need to start thinking of alternative ways of allowing looging.
I really don’t see why this is a fuss incidentally — the government can simply sign leases for many years (as is done with property etc. already), in which case anyone setting up businesses doing logging has some idea of the value of investing in infrastucture. If the government then breaks the lease due to whatever reason (e.g., popular pressure) then those people with the leases should be able to sue for compensation. This is just standard business practice, and I don’t see what the big deal is.
August 30th, 2007 19:44
Ah Brendan - this is what civilisation brings us: I can eat, have a roof over my head AND participate in the life of the community by voting. I guess you would like to bring back property votes?
I think your ‘future generations’ are already here and very glad that ‘old Fremantle’ was valued for what it was, and saved from the developers.
August 30th, 2007 19:56
Conrad, I don’t really care about the logging per se. The problem with crown land is the uncertainty in rights that any user of that land has. This whole idea of trusting the state to be a fair player is an anathema to poor, rich, capitalist and conservationists alike. The state is adept at playing off one group against another, politicians will always use the resources of the state to maintain power. Crown land is a significant resource, and as long as the state controls vast swathes of land and the mineral rights beneath our feet, we will never be sure that what is ours is ours and what is yours is yours. Secure private property rights prevents cosy deals like the pulp mill in Tasmania because without power over the land and what grows upon ir or lies beneath it, the state is unable to overide the wishes of its owners. Sure, if the land was owned by the pulp mill proponents, they’d be free to do with it what they will. But they would have had to pay market price for the land and its trees and competed for access to the resource with conservationists, tour operators and others who might have an interest in the land. Under state control, the pulp mill proponents get access to land for a bargain through rent seeking with their friends in Hobart and Canberra. That is the problem and that costs more than some conservationist buying the land and locking it up for ever more.
August 30th, 2007 20:10
I think we a probably in agreement Brendan about the results of governments mismanaging land usage, where one group gets favoured over another, for mainly political reasons.
Alternatively I don’t believe that the State is ever going to give up the land under dispute (some of it is in world heritage zones for instance, so there you are in an even more impossible situation). Thats why my suggestion is to use business leases like everything else. I don’t see why 30 year leases and so on with conditions specified couldn’t be used (these are common all over the world — often 99 year leases are used). If some conservationist wants to pay more than tourist/logging operators to the government in that time to breed koalas (or whatever), its all fine by me.
August 30th, 2007 20:12
Russell, what is to stop a future government from repealing the council’s decision to “preserve” historic Fremantle? If a conservationist charity owned the buildings, earned rent form them to preserve them, it would not matter what the state did. Civilisation began a long time before universal suffrage. No Roman or Greek voted to preserve the ruins in their midst.
August 30th, 2007 20:26
Conrad, I don’t think that land reform is impossible. Put it this way, Estonia was a nation under a socialist system where everything was state owned. They moved to a capitalist system of private ownership and aren’t doing to bad for themselves.
August 30th, 2007 23:49
“what is to stop a future government from repealing the council’s decision to “preserve” historic Fremantle?”
Public opinion. People are free to argue and persuade and convince others to believe as they do - that’s democracy, not always perfect (look how the media crucified Whitlam) but I’d choose it over money power. We’re trying to move away from money power to … people power, ideas power!
Maybe democracy is suited to lazy people - instead of continually gearing up to organise and fund raise, time and time again for every building or piece of bushland, we can just convince people that passing a regulation is the way to go. We can just create a Heritage Council and watch it go about the business we’ve given it to do. Someone like Jamie Packer might inherit hundreds of millions of dollars, but why should that mean the rest of us have to live in a world shaped by his decisions, just because he can outspend us?
August 31st, 2007 01:28
Russell,
You have to live with other people’s decisions so that they will live with your decisions. Once you try to take property rights off of some people because you don’t like their decisions,, the likelihood of you being affected by a swing in public opinion or the fickleness of government increase. I’d really like to live in a world where community minded people like yourself would be free to go live on a self-sustaining commune in the South West, free from state control, so long as you respect my decision to live in a McMansion and drive around in my Landcruiser smoking big fat cigars and enjoying 12 year single malts (although not while or prior to driving mind) and haggis flown in from Cuba and Scotland respectively. Go, do your thing, just let me do my thing. Be free damn it.
August 31st, 2007 11:16
“Go, do your thing, just let me do my thing. Be free damn it.”
Which takes us back to poetry, again:
No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.
– John Donne
August 31st, 2007 16:43
John Donne is one of my favourite poets, but I prefer his cheeky poems, such as The Flea. Our discussion has little to do with the metaphysical poets. Pointing out that man is a social being and mortal only re-inforces the need for us to co-operate voluntarily, which is what Donne is doing in The Flea, trying to convince his fiancee to sleep with him through clever word play rather than forcing her to accept his will. You seem to prefer the idea that we all need pushing around to acheive the ends you think will serve us better. I disagree.