Rights of Nature

[bw68]

I live in a small rural town that is in the potential path of a large international corridor. It would undoubtedly leave our town scarred forever and is leaving us in a state of panic. There is a group taking advantage of our crisis to push their Rights of Nature agenda called Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF). They have been organizing "Democracy Schools" and have been quite successful at rallying people to vote in unconstitutional town ordinances that attempt to grant rights to nature enforceable by any resident in town, and which even call for Federal and State constitutional amendments that would grant rights to nature. A few surrounding towns have already voted in some of these crazy ordinances.
http://celdf.org
http://celdf.org/rights-of-nature-background

Many of us are part of the liberty movement, but we seem to be outnumbered by the radical environmentalists. I am just reaching out for ideas to confront this movement without the name calling (i.e. communist, maxists, ...) We've already been down that road and it just results in hard feelings.

What would our country be like if such a constitutional amendment were enacted that recognized Rights of Nature?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Wow.

 

[Kelly.]

nature doesnt need rights, the courts need to enforce private property rights.

 

[bw68]

nature doesnt need rights, the courts need to enforce private property rights.

Exactly, because Nature is Property, but there are so many that just cannot seem to accept that.

My real fear though is that economic development will be used as a reason to use eminent domain, which I believe is a blatant violation of property rights. I don't believe this corridor could happen without it.

 

[eduardo89]

nature doesnt need rights, the courts need to enforce private property rights.

This. Only man has rights, inanimate objects and abstract ideas do not have rights.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I got like 5 friends together and we voted to grant ourselves the right to do whatever we want whenever we wanted.

It was pretty awesome.

 

[eduardo89]

I got like 5 friends together and we voted to grant ourselves the right to do whatever we want whenever we wanted.

It was pretty awesome.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Uh, you need at least one other person to grant rights, what do you think every single individual has the authority of a voting mob????

 

[bw68]

Is the libertarian ideology weak on protecting the environment? That is the only area I have a hard time with. It seems to me protecting property rights will only be effective for localized issues. There doesn't seem to be any practical way for dealing with air quality, or preserving natural resources for future generations. Of course granting rights to nature would be ridiculous, but is there any libertarian argument for protecting the environment I could use to debate these environmentalists that wouldn't be scoffed at.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Is the libertarian ideology weak on protecting the environment? That is the only area I have a hard time with. It seems to me protecting property rights will only be effective for localized issues. There doesn't seem to be any practical way for dealing with air quality, or preserving natural resources for future generations. Of course granting rights to nature would be ridiculous, but is there any libertarian argument for protecting the environment I could use to debate these environmentalists that wouldn't be scoffed at.

Yes, there is a libertarian answer to protecting the environment. I'm at work now but will respond in more detail if no one has when I get off.

 

[Origanalist]

Moving from a Property, to a Rights Framework to Protect Nature

The Legal Defense Fund has assisted communities in the United States to craft first-in-the-nation laws that change the status of natural communities and ecosystems from being regarded as property under the law to being recognized as rights-bearing entities.

Those local laws recognize that natural communities and ecosystems possess an inalienable and fundamental right to exist and flourish, and that residents of those communities possess the legal authority to enforce those rights on behalf of those ecosystems. In addition, these laws require the governmental apparatus to remedy violations of those ecosystem rights.

In essence, these laws represent changes to the status of property law in the U.S., eliminating the authority of a property owner to interfere with the functioning of ecosystems and natural communities that exist and depend upon that property for their existence and flourishing. They do not stop development; rather they stop development and use of property that interferes with the existence and vitality of those ecosystems.

What could go wrong?