The midwife and his apprentice: An inquiry into the political philosophy of natural resources management

Abstract

Two implicit theories fuel debate over natural resources policy. One theory may be called collectivism, the other individualism. Collectivism is the theory that resources should be controlled by government for the good of all. This theory would have government oversee land use, allocate water, and regulate hazardous activities. Individualism, by contrast, is the theory that resources should be controlled by private citizens, not government. This theory would have land use left to land owners, water allocated through markets, and individuals made liable for the consequences of their actions. Collectivism and individualism produce contrary conclusions whenever policy for particular resources is discussed, and deadlock usually results. This paper is an attempt to shed light on the implicit theories dividing those with an interest and responsibility in natural resources policy, and to provide thereby a basis for reasoned debate on policy directions. The paper begins by considering the special wisdom of Socrates, and a little of the philosophy that his young friend Plato went on to develop. This first part supports the conjecture that Plato in his later life departed radically from his mentor Socrates over the nature of knowledge and the proper locus of moral deliberation and responsibility. The second part of the paper conjectures that comparable differences distinguish collectivism and individualism, and that these differences lead to different conclusions both about property rights and natural resources law and legislation. The third and final part of the paper considers the policy directions collectivism and individualism provide for a number of natural resources. The focus is upon recent Government proposals to reform resource management legislation in New Zealand. Although the main aim of the paper is to explore collectivism and individualism, the argument does favour one theory. The paper also serves, therefore, as something of a critique of present policy directions.