Is the Amazon ours?

In order for us to answer this question it is necessary to define three points: who would "we" be, what the Amazon is and what the meaning of owning something is. To establish the "we", let us begin by determining what we understand by the Amazon. The Amazon rainforest is the second largest biome in the world, which extends along the area of nine different countries. But to confine the "we" to Brazilians only, let us delimit the "Amazon" to the portion of the forest within Brazil's borders. Having said that, can we say that each one of the persons being born within the Brazilian state owns (or is a shareholder of) a gigantic area of this forest? Let us now tackle the third point; how do we become the owners of something? There are three ways of acquiring proprietorship over something: (1) to buy it, (2) to receive it as a gift or (3) to appropriate a previously unowned resource (homestead). In order for one to appropriate something unowned it is necessary to establish an objective bond with the resource in question, or, in the words of John Locke:

Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to. . . .[1]

Thus, what objective bond have a waiter from Chui, a fisherman from Santos, a politician from Brasilia, or even a Manaus dweller established with all of the Amazon rainforest on Brazilian soil? None. Furthermore, not only has no single Brazilian citizen but also no other person on the planet "mixed his labour" with the majority of such resources, since, in reality, a large part of the forest has never been touched by human beings. The forest is a vast and empty demographic area, a green desert.

Privatization

So the Amazon belongs to the Brazilian State? In fact, the Brazilian government possesses the territory where the Amazon rainforest is located at; but does it have a legitimate ownership over this area? The difference between possession and ownership can be illustrated by the example of a person who stole a watch and walked away unpunished. The thief does posses the watch, but the property remains of the victim, who has the right of reclaiming it if the thief is caught. The possession of the territory under the Brazilian government domain started to be delineated even before the "discovery" of Brazil, in 1494, two years subsequent to the discovery of America by Columbus, through the Treaty of Tordesillas, which stipulated that lands that, by any chance, were located at the unexplored region of the planet where Brazil was, belonged to the kingdom of Portugal. Logically, such stipulation did not take into consideration which portions of this land were already occupied at that period of time — before 1500, there were urban complexes in the Amazon housing up to 50 thousand inhabitants — and, even if it dealt with an empty continent, no person — not even a king — can claim legitimate ownership over a resource he has not even yet found. This is also known as the "Columbus Complex":

Some theorists have maintained — in what we might call the "Columbus complex" — that the first discoverer of a new, unowned island or continent can rightfully own the entire area by simply asserting his claim. (In that case, Columbus, if in fact he had actually landed on the American continent — and if there had been no Indians living there — could have rightfully asserted his private "ownership" of the entire continent.) In natural fact, however, since Columbus would only have been able actually to use, to "mix his labor with," a small part of the continent, the rest then properly continues to be unowned until the next homesteaders arrive and carve out their rightful property in parts of the continent.[2].

The current Brazilian borders were defined through a series of similar treaties, signed between governments. It is then clear that the Brazilian government is not the legitimate owner of the forest area it declares to be under its domain. Therefore, when one speaks about the "Amazon privatization", one is defending an as illegitimate arrangement as aforementioned, since no one can sell that which has never been owned — and is not occupied by any person. The privatization scenario, where the current state possession moves to private hands can appear attractive to libertarians, but it would enable the government to sell private individuals vast unoccupied areas — fatally to relatives or allies of politicians — who would not, and could never, come to establish an objective bond with the land.[3]  During the American colonization, there was an analogous situation to the Amazon privatization. The kingdom of England declared itself the owner of the North American territory and the settlers

had to buy the land at prices far higher than the zero price that would have obtained without the engrossment by the government and its pet grantees. Of course, the settlers still had to spend money immigrating, clearing the land, etc., but at least no arbitrary cost would have been imposed on top of these expenses.[4]

Consequently, neither the government nor private individuals can sell unoccupied lands. All the state could do in this question is get out of the way and recognize the property rights of the people who occupy the areas, which are, today, under the possession of the state.

Preservation

The motto "The Amazon is ours" seems to have always been around, but in distinct ways. During the 60s and the 70s, the military in power had an idea which contained many of the aforementioned elements. With the notion that an unoccupied land is an ownerless land, and adopting the slogan "Occupy not to hand in", they took measures to stimulate the settling in the Amazon region, among them opening roads and granting tax exemptions — that is, the government declared that whoever moved to the middle of the forest, far away from large consuming centers and exporting channels, and founded enterprises, would be stolen to a lesser extent than would be in other localities in Brazil. Manaus, which was decadent and ever more disoccoupied since the end of the rubber golden period, became once again a focus of migration, thanks to the Manaus Free Zone, where today 1.8 million people inhabit. The roads built by the government provided access to previously inhospitable areas. This arrangement facilitated the extraction and appropriation of the natural resources in that region. Curiously, it is exactly what the same state currently fights against.[5]

Formerly, the jungle was considered what it really is: an enemy to be tamed; that nature in its brute state is only valuable after man occupies it and works the land, transforming or extracting resources from it, what then becomes wealth, used to improve people's standard of living. But, today, an ecological wrath seems to have taken over the whole world, and the people — obviously in their comforting homes in urban areas — have a fixed idea in their minds that that which has not yet been touched by man, in such a condition must remain. The reason behind it? We'd better not even ask.

A very popular belief in the past, and still held sacred, is that the Amazon must be preserved because it is the "world's lung" — implying the forest is responsible for the oxygen production in the atmosphere, or be it, responsible for life on earth. Anyone who recalls the science lectures in school knows that plants carry out the photosynthesis process during the day (exchanging CO2 for O2) and breathe 24 hours a day (exchanging O2 for CO2), or be it, forests do not produce O2; what is great, since an increase in the concentration of O2 in the atmosphere could mean the end of life on earth. It is a fact, that for over a million years, the concentration of atmospheric gases has remained stable, with 76.5% nitrogen, 20.5% oxygen and 1% other gases, besides 2% water steam.

However, nowadays it seems the predominant ghost is global warming — the Amazon forest would prevent the earth temperature from rising, because it would reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. But we are provided with no explanation, since as we have just reminded the reader, plants, too, produce CO2. There is also no explanation as to how a gas which comprises only 0.03% of the atmosphere can drastically increase the earth's temperature.[6]  A while ago, scholars maintained that in case the Amazon disappeared, the world would face a new Ice Age[7]. Furthermore, if forests exert such an influence on the earth's temperature,why didn't it experience a dramatic variation (upward or downward) in the last 8,000 years, a period in which there was a more than 75 percent reduction in primary forests' areas, and the total area covered by forest diminished 40%? It is hard to believe the remaining 60 percent has this vital importance resting in it, as if life on the planet depended on the forestland left.  Notwithstanding, there are studies about an anthropogenic origin of the Amazon Forest, and recent deforestations enabled the discovery of geoglyphs which date back to the XIII century, indicating that, few centuries ago, that very region could have been a grassland similar to the tropical savanna.

4.jpg
Bear Grylls, protagonist of the series Man vs. Wild, also from the Discovery Channel, struggles to survive in the middle of the Amazon

Another quixotic argument which usually emerges is that the Amazon fauna and flora posses properties yet unknown to man, and, therefore, must be preserved — "the cure of cancer can lie in the Amazon!".  To begin with, this could be an argument in favor of the maximal forest's resource exploitation, and not for its "immaculate maintenance". He who holds such a belief can head right now to the middle of the forestland and collect "these riches". In order for us to prove such an argument does exist, let us provide an example. The recent television series by the Discovery Channel, entitled Battle for the Amazon, justified this view by citing that a "possible cure to the Chagas disease had been found in the poison of the Bothrops Jararaca". There is only one problem with this argument, this reptile can be found from the North of Mexico to Argentine!  Even if it were an exclusive Amazon reptile, we would have a reason to capture and research every specie in the region at a place like the Butantan Institute (preferably not linked to the government), and not to leave an area of oceanic dimensions untouched.

And it is with these kinds of justifications that the government works hard to reduce everyone's standard of living, with IBAMA forbidding the deforestation in an area granted to the government by the "Columbus Complex", with the Federal Police attacking and kidnapping human beings for having extracted the so-called "illegal wood", or arresting miserable men for capturing animals in the forestland — what has been termed "wild animals trafficking" — or several other aggressions that occur under the urbanoid's acquiescence — people who would not last a single day if left to their own devices in the middle of the tropical forestland. Lew Rockwell makes a succinct analysis of this environmentalist wrath: "It's as if the socialists discovered that their plan creates poverty, so they decided to change their name to environmentalists and make poverty their goal.". Along the same line of reasoning, Jeffrey Tucker observes that:

Are you seeing the pattern here? Government planning was never a good means to do anything, but at least there was a time when it set out to bring progress to humanity. It was the wrong means to achieve the right goal. Today, government planning is working as a maliciously effective means to achieve the wrong goal: I mean by this that if there is anything that government is actually good at doing, it is destroying things.

The famous philosophical question that says "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?" could be adapted to our matter of discussion as "If a tree remains in the forest and no one is around, is it really there?

Conclusion

No, the Amazon isn't ours. Whoever catches it, gets to keep it. And he'd better enjoy it well, transforming unused resources in goods demanded by people, varying from ecological parks to sandal ornaments.


_______________________________________________

 Notes

[1] John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (Portuguese edition), V. pp. 409-10, (Martins Fontes, 1998)

[2] Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, chap. 8, Ludwig von Mises Institute.

[3] This occurred with Fernando de Noronha, who received in the captaincies system a few islands that today take its name, but never really settled there. Even though, the possession of the island passed onto the subsequent generations of the de Noronha's. After being occupied by Frenchmen and Dutchmen, the Portuguese retook the island in 1737, transforming it in a prison-island which worked up to 1942. Today, the Brazilian state controls the whole archipelago, allows a few people to operate hotels and shops there, controls the number of people permitted to visit the island and charges each and every visitor R$ 40 per day for just being there.

[4] Murray N. Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty, Vol. I, p. 150

[5] According to the environmentalist entity WWF, roads have been great promoters of deforestation, and, in the Amazon, 75% of deforestation occurred in large stretches along the asphalted roads.

[6] Wikipedia informs us that the contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is about 72 times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20 year time frame but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important is water vapor, H2O, with 36 — 72 % contribution. The carbon dioxide came only in second with 9 — 26 % contribution.

[7] The environmentalist and Brazilian Secretary of the Environment from 1990 to 1992, José A. Lutzenberger, used to say:

Today there are fantastic instruments which allow us to see the globe in its entirety. If we go to INPE (National Institute for Spatial Research), in São José dos Campos, or even NASA, we can see on the computer screens the image of the Planet as a whole, with the Amazon in the center, and all the movement of this mass of clouds.

 [.]

If we look at these satellite images again, showing the air currents which leave the Amazon heading South and North, we realize that, if they disappear, we will face a new Ice Age in Europe and maybe here in the extreme South. Therefore, it is futile to say, as our governors and mainly our military wish, that which we do to the Amazon is nobody's business but ours. Quite the contrary, it is everybody's business indeed. It is the Planet's business, a vital organ of the living being called Gaia, namely the Earth. We can no longer keep destroying the Amazon. It must be stopped. We need to rethink our concepts. Also because, under a purely economical standpoint, that is plunder.


Translated by Fernando Ulrich

0 votos

SOBRE O AUTOR



As causas da Grande Depressão? Intervencionismo na veia.

Herbert Hoover
aumentou os gastos do governo federal em 43% em um único ano: o orçamento do governo, que havia sido de US$ 3 bilhões em 1930, saltou para US$ 4,3 bilhões em 1931. Já em junho de 1932, Hoover aumentou todas as alíquotas do imposto de renda, com a maior alíquota saltando de 25% para 63% (e Roosevelt, posteriormente, a elevaria para 82%).

A Grande Depressão, na verdade, não precisaria durar mais de um ano caso o governo americano permitisse ampla liberdade de preços e salários (exatamente como havia feito na depressão de 1921, que foi ainda mais intensa, mas que durou menos de um ano justamente porque o governo permitiu que o mercado se ajustasse).

Porém, o governo fez exatamente o contrário: além de aumentar impostos e gastos, ele também implantou políticas de controle de preços, controle de salários, aumento de tarifas de importação (que chegou ao maior nível da história), aumento do déficit e estimulou uma arregimentação sindical de modo a impedir que as empresas baixassem seus preços.

Com todo esse cenário de incertezas criadas pelo governo, não havia nenhum clima para investimentos. E o fato é que um simples crash da bolsa de valores -- algo que chegou a ocorrer com uma intensidade ainda maior em 1987 -- foi amplificado pelas políticas intervencionistas e totalitárias do governo, gerando uma depressão que durou 15 anos e que só foi resolvida quando o governo encolheu, exatamente o contrário do que Keynes manda.

As políticas keynesianas simplesmente amplificaram a recessão, transformando uma queda de bolsa em uma prolongada Depressão.



Crise financeira de 2008? Keynesianismo na veia. Todos os detalhes neste artigo específico:

Como ocorreu a crise financeira de 2008


Seu amigo é apenas um típico keynesiano: repete os mesmos chavões que eu ouvia da minha professora da oitava série.


Sobre o governo estimular a economia, tenho apenas duas palavras: governo Dilma.

O legado humanitário de Dilma - seu governo foi um destruidor de mitos que atormentam a humanidade
Prezados,
Boa noite.
Por gentileza, ajudem-me a argumentar com um amigo estatista. Desejos novos pontos de vista, pois estou cansado de ser repetitivo com ele. Por favor, sejam educados para que eu possa enviar os comentários. Sem que às vezes é difícil. Desde já agradeço. Segue o comentário:
------------------------------------
" Quanto ao texto, o importante é perceber que sem as medidas formuladas por keynes a alternativa seria o mercado livre, o capitalismo sem a intervenção estatal. Nesse caso, o que os defensores desse modelo não mencionam é que o capitalismo dessa forma tende à concentração esmagadora de capital, o que se levado às ultimas consequências irá destruir a própria sociedade. "O capitalismo tem o germe da própria destruição ", já disse Marx. Os capitalistas do livre mercado focam no discurso que eles geram a riqueza, mas a riqueza é sempre gerada socialmente. Como ja falei uma vez, um grande empresário não coloca sozinho suas empresas para funcionar, precisa de outras pessoas, que também, portanto, geram riqueza. Para evitar que a concentração da riqueza gerada fique nas mãos apenas dos proprietários, o Estado deve existir assegurando direitos que tentem minimizar essa distorção e distribua as riquezas socialmente geradas para todos. Isso não é comunismo, apenas capitalismo regulado, que tenha vies social. Estado Social de Direito que surgiu na segunda metade do século passado como resultado do fracasso do Estado Liberal em gerar bem estar para todos. Para que o Estado consiga isso tem que tributar. O Estado não gera riqueza, concordo. Mas o capitalismo liberal, por outro lado, gera a distorção de concentrar a riqueza gerada socialmente nas mãos de poucos. Essa concentração do capitalismo liberal gera as crises (a recessão é uma delas). O capitalismo ao longo do século 20 produziu muitas crises, a grande depressão da decada de 30 foi a principal delas. A ultima grande foi a de 2007/2008. O Estado, portanto, intervém para corrigir a distorção, injetando dinheiro. Esse dinheiro, obviamente, ele nao produziu, retirou dos tributos e do seu endividamento sim. Quando a economia melhorar o Estado pode ser mais austero com suas contas para a divida nao decolar em excesso e poder se endividir novamente numa nova crise, injetando dinheiro na economia pra superar a recessao e assim o ciclo segue. A divida do estado é hoje um instrumento de gestão da macroeconomia. Um instrumento sem o qual nao se conseque corrigir as distorções geradas da economia liberal. Basta perceber que todos os países mais ricos hoje tem as maiores dividas. Respondendo a pergunta do texto: o dinheiro vem mesmo dos agentes econômicos que produzem a riqueza, da qual o Estado tira uma parcela pelos tributos, com toda a legitimidade. E utiliza tal riqueza para assegurar direitos sociais e reverter crises. E o faz tambem para salvar a propria economia, que entraria em colapso sem a injeção de dinheiro do Estado (que o Estado tributou). Veja o que os EUA fizeram na crise de 2008. Procure ler sobre o "relaxamento quantitativo", que foi a injeção de 80bilhoes de dolares mensalmente pelo governo americano para salvar a economia mundial do colapso, numa crise gerada pelo mercado sem regulação financeira.

Veja esse texto do FMI, onde o proprio FMI reconhece que medidas d austeridade nao geram desenvolvimento e, portanto, reconhece a necessidade do gasto publico. (
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm )

Esse artigo do Paul krugman sobre a austeridade, defendendo também o gasto publico:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion .
"
---------------------------------------------


E aí pessoal, já viram isso? (off-topic, mas ainda assim interessante):


Ancine lança edital de R$ 10 milhões para games


Agora vai... por quê os "jênios" do Bananão não tiveram esta ideia antes? E o BNDES vai participar também! Era tudo o que faltava para o braziul se tornar uma "potênfia" mundial no desenvolvimento de games.

Em breve estaremos competindo par-a-par com os grandes players deste mercado. Aliás, seremos muito MAIORES do que eles próprios ousaram imaginar para si mesmos. Que "horgulio" enorme de ser brazilêro...
"Se um empreendedor construir uma ponte... Ele também consome itens escassos... A única diferença, é a eficiência com que ele gasta esse recurso."

1) Se a obra é estatal -- isto é, se ela é feita de acordo com critérios políticos --, então não há como saber que ela está sendo genuinamente demandada pelos consumidores. Não há como saber se ela realmente é sensata ou não, se ela é racional ou não. (Vide os estádios da Copa na região Norte do país). O que vai predominar serão os interesses dos políticos e de seus amigos empreiteiros, ambos utilizando dinheiro de impostos. Não haverá nenhuma preocupação com os custos.

2) Se a obra é estatal, haverá superfaturamento. (Creio que, para quem vive no Brasil das últimas décadas, isso não necessariamente é uma conclusão espantosa). Havendo superfaturamento, os preços desses insumos serão artificialmente inflacionados, prejudicando todos os outros consumidores. Os preços, portanto, subirão muito mais ao redor do país.

3) Por outro lado, se é o setor privado -- e não o estado -- quem voluntariamente está fazendo a obra, então é porque ele notou que há uma demanda pelo projeto. Ele notou que há expectativa de retorno. (Se não houvesse, não haveria obras). Consequentemente, os preços dos insumos serão negociados aos menores valores possíveis. Caso contrário -- ou seja, caso houvesse superfaturamento --, a obra se tornaria deficitária, e seria muito mais difícil a empresa auferir algum lucro.

Isso, e apenas isso, já mostra por que os efeitos sobre os preços dos insumos são muito piores quando a obra é estatal. Tudo é bancado pelos impostos; não há necessidade de retorno financeiro para quem faz a obra (o governo e suas empreiteiras aliadas); não há accountability; os retornos são garantidos pelos impostos do populacho.

Já em uma obra feita voluntariamente pela iniciativa privada, nada é bancado pelos impostos; a necessidade de retorno financeira pressiona para baixo os custos; há accountability; os impostos da população não são usados para nada.

Qual desses dois arranjos você acha que pressiona para cima os preços dos insumos, prejudicando todos os outros empreendedores do país?

ARTIGOS - ÚLTIMOS 7 DIAS



Envie-nos seu comentário inteligente e educado:
Nome
Email
Comentário
Comentários serão exibidos após aprovação do moderador.