Ron Paul + Free Market Society = Endangered Species?

[Salamando]

I would say humans are considered extra natural for the simple reason of: we have the power to wipe out the entire earth. Please tell me another animal capable of doing so.

Mitt Romney's jaw

 

[murrayrothbard]

I would say humans are considered extra natural for the simple reason of: we have the power to wipe out the entire earth. Please tell me another animal capable of doing so.

That doesn't make humans not part of nature. If anything it just shows that we are by far the most dominant species.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

That doesn't make humans not part of nature. If anything it just shows that we are by far the most dominant species.

On the one hand, that doesn't mean we should maliciously dominate the earth ( i know you are not suggesting that at all). On the other hand, its fallacious to think that humans are the only animal that causes other species to become extinct through natural growth and development of the species. The history of evolution is littered with millions of species becoming extinct due to the direct actions of other species, whether it be in competition for food, territory, through predation or natural pollution. Humans have recklessly placed many species in danger of extinction probably moreso than any other species, but that is due to a myriad of reasons that have been problems forever and have not been prevented by government (government is often to blame).

Honestly, i think private citizens would run better national parks, though like Ron Paul, privitizing the national park service is about as high up there as getting rid of say, UNICEF, i.e. just about the bottom of the barrel. But does anyone not seriously think that private individuals would do an excellent job at preserving and taking care of national parks? What would be more profitable, developing the land, or leaving a unique landmark in its place, and continuous improvement of the habitat? All in all i dont think this is a big deal. I also dont think there is any correlation between true free market practices (which dont exist) and extinction of species, and if you're going to claim otherwise, you'll need to prove it with a demonstrable model.

Ron Pauls environmental stances are pretty damn good, and i think if his policies were enacted, we would have very cheap, very efficient, renewable alternative energy out in the mainstream in under a decade simply due to the market demand and market incentives for such. Then if global warming is truly anthropogenic, well, that would cut carbon emissions without cutting freedom or liberty. As with everything, while there are always flaws and exceptions, freedom is always the best answer.

 

[klamath]

I think a lot of arguments are coming from a wrong basis and that is that the government is the unquestioned protector of the environment.
Here are some examples of what government does for the environment.
The us govenment gave away free ammo to kill the buffalo because it was part of the strategy to drive the plains indians into submission.
The government paid the railroad companies to lay track where it wasn't profitable to lay it themselves.
The demand for steel for rails is what created the steel giaints.
the demand for timber crossties stripped the forests of the upper midwest and the government gave cheap land to timber companies such a Wyerhouser in Washington. Southern pacific was given great tracks of land in what is called the checkerboard.
The government of Brasil is paying farmers to slash and burn the rainforests so they can grow sugar cane for the alcohol fuel.

Simply put I hate laws enacted and enforced from Washington. There is no giant fix for environmental problems at a national level. Every community has its own little unique situation on how to handle environmental problems. I will give you an example of why it can be a failure when enacted from a federal level. For years the forest service suppressed all forest fires until recently, at the urging of many in the environmental movement they started managing fire as part of the natural cycle. This is great however they never took into account the fact that the fuels had built up for decades because of the past suppression.
I live in one of the last great forests of old growth forests of California in a large wilderness area. Last year a few small fires started by lightning were managed into a 100,000 thousand acres. I watched with horror as they backburned thousands and thousands of acres. I watched as the forests I grew up in, vanished in crown runs. I talked to fire fighters that talked in horror about having to set fire to stands of old growth Sugar pines larger than they had ever seen in their lives. Now there are great stands of dead trees that will, in a few years feed an even more devastating fire. Because the system was unbalanced by federal suppression, in a number of years, if this policy continues many of our national forests will become national chaparral lands.

 

[sylvania]

Bringing in a profit and preserving the environment are not necessarily mutually exclusive events. Some ideas have already been presented in this thread for preserving beetles - such as an environmental group buying the land or paying the owner not to change the environment and compensating him for what he could have earned from the land had he chosen to grow crops on it.

The argument for preserving the environment by implementing private property rights stems from what is called in economics the "tragedy of the commons", where common land is used by all, but no one has the incentive to maintain it. In fact, the incentive is to use up as much of the land as you possibly can before your neighbor has the ability to get more from it than you. Only by privatizing the land, does the owner have the incentive to care for the land, thus increasing his chances of a profit in future years.

This has proven to be successful in at least two cases in Africa, saving the African elephant and planting new trees.

AFRICAN ELEPHANTS

The following is an excerpt from Are African elephants an endangered species? by Maxwell Gomera and Greg Hertzler.

In the late 1970s there were two campaigns to save the African elephants. One banned international trade in ivory. The other established common property rights to elephants for local communities. Has either campaign saved the elephants? In answering the question, the authors constructed and solved two models, a biomass model and age structured model. In countries which successfully establish property rights, local communities will conserve elephants. In countries with poor property rights, or open access, poachers will exterminate the elephants. The world cannot save the African elephants by banning trade. Instead, African countries must save them by establishing property rights.

Here is an excerpt from a study that examined the success of the two strategies implemented to save the elephants: granting property rights versus implementing bans on ivory.

While saving the whales is a more popular slogan, the elephant is just as endangered. Hunted for their ivory, elephants went from 1.3 million in 1979 to 600,000 in 1989. To stop this decline, many nations banned the ivory trade. However, this did not appear to have an effect as the number of elephants fell to 543,000. A new study suggests that by establishing property rights on the animals, a handful of African nations have increased their herds.

For example:

Zimbabwe increased its herds from 52,000 in 1989 to 81,855 in 1994.

Botswana increased its herds from 20,000 in 1981 to 80,174 in 1994.
In contrast, among nations which agreed to the ban and did not establish property rights:

Mozambique's herds fell from 17,000 in 1989 to 1,495 in 1994.

Somalia's herds fell from 2,000 in 1989 to 130 in 1994.
The study concludes that a lack of property rights encourages illegal poaching. It also says that political instability affects the killing of elephants as well.

Source: Michael A. McPherson and Michael L. Nieswiadomy, "African Elephants: The Effect of Property Rights and Political Stability," Contemporary Economic Policy, January 2000.

Here for source.



PLANTING NEW TREES

Not surprisingly, lack of rain has caused widespread suffering in the past. But in recent decades farmers have learned to confront the harsh realities of life in the Sahel through innovation, adaptation, and the application of local knowledge gained from bitter experience. Striking a bargain with nature, they have become better stewards of the land.

Traditionally, farmers and villagers viewed trees as a commonly held resource. By law trees were the property of the government. Since no one really owned them, individuals had no incentive to manage trees in a sustainable way. There was also a lack of understanding about the importance of trees in preserving farmland against encroachment by the desert. Given the agricultural knowledge of the time, the only way farmers knew to increase overall crop yields was to increase acreage of cropland. When drought arrived in 1968, the people of the region did what they had to do to survive: harvest trees.

As they began to understand the importance of trees to the local ecosystem, farmers and villagers who had once viewed trees as a common resource (or even an impediment to farming) began to take ownership. As understanding grew that they had a direct interest in preserving the trees, people began to act in accord with their incentive to be good stewards. "[F]armers now firmly believe that they have exclusive rights to the trees on their fields, which is an important incentive to protect and manage them," says Reij.

Click here for the full story.

They are bringing back the trees because it has been profitable to do so.

 

[AFTFNJ]

Greenhouse

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

The planet was warmer then it is now hundreds of years ago...Global warming is just another way to tax us.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Animal species are like works of art. Government doesnt have to go in and subsidize funds to protect a Van Goe, or a Picasso. Private collectors do that on their own. Allowing individuals to privately own endangered species, would likely yield the same effect.

However, this would only save the animals we find desirable. Siberian Tigers would be hot items. Cant say the same about some beetle nobody cares about.

Just like art. The Mona Lisa is behind bullet proof glass. The doodle I drew last week is in the city dump.

Saying we need to protect every single animal species out there, is like saying we need to take every picture everyone has ever draw from pre-school, up to the doodles they drew on the margins of the physics notes, and hang them all up in museums across the country.

 

[AFTFNJ]

We do need to protect our ecosystem & prevent as many species from extinctions as possible. Especially in cases where the extinction is due to humans and not natural selection. We depend on each other to survive. Even Algae helps up with production of oxygen.


It is estimated that algae produce about 73 to 87 percent of the net global production of oxygen

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

We do need to protect our ecosystem & prevent as many species from extinctions as possible. Especially in cases where the extinction is due to humans and not natural selection. We depend on each other to survive. Even Algae helps up with production of oxygen.


It is estimated that algae produce about 73 to 87 percent of the net global production of oxygen

property rights. you don't fuck with my land, I don't fuck with yours. gotta dispute? go to the judge

 

[uncloned21]

Likewise there is not, in our society, free reign within the market to decide whether or not to, for example, cause the extinction of the bald eagle. And so too here is free action within the market constrained, in principle, by right and wrong. Society certainly believes that it would be impermissible for you to single handedly bring about the extinction of an animal species residing, for the time, entirely on your property, and I am not inclined to disagree. On what basis should I or they think otherwise?

I would agree that it would be wrong for someone to intentionally cause the extinction of a creature on their property. But what action can rightfully be taken? What if I find a unique precious stone on my property - am I obligated to let everyone see it? Should it be illegal for me to destroy it if I want to?

:o Just makin' it hard for you...

 

[kill the banks]

research this :


http://takingliberty.us/

main menu to view : http://takingliberty.us/TLHome.html

per endangered species :

http://takingliberty.us/Narrations/endangered/player.html

kill the banks

 

[beerista]

Paul on the environment

A link to an article in which Dr. Paul explains his environmental stand. Pretty good and relatively fair.
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/