Ron Paul + Free Market Society = Endangered Species?

[zumajoe]

So I just read that great article about Ron Paul and the environment, so it got me to do a little more research. In this Wiki article, there are some objections to the Free Market- and the one I pasted was referring to endangered species. What do you guys think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism


The conservation of endangered species is not necessarily achievable using the free market, especially where there is little economic value in the species in question. For example: there might be only limited profit to be made from a piece of land by maintaining it as the habitat of a rare beetle, whereas alternative economic uses for that land (which might be deleterious to the welfare of the beetle) - such as building a parking lot on it - might yield a greater profit. Regardless of the broader ecological importance of the beetle, it is much more likely that the landowner will prioritize short-term profits to be gained from development, rather than a long-term benefit which may be of comparably little (perhaps even imperceptible on the surface) benefit to himself. Thus, threatened or endangered species could be lost by relying on the willingness of individual landowners to take a loss in order to protect them.

 

[alicegardener]

I'm afraid protection of the environment is a weak spot in our candidate's platform. I also would like to hear from anyone with good ideas that would fit in with RP's.

 

[Shatterhand]

I think this is a very interesting thread and it gets one thinking about things. It makes me want to do more research. I'm curious how Dr. Paul's ideas apply to the burning of the Amazon rain forest, the use of land there, and the indigenous tribes belonging to the forest.

Also, the Chinese river dolphin in the Yangtze was determined to have gone extinct from pollution and human activity. Could such an extinction have been prevented using Dr. Paul's free-market/property rights philosophy?

 

[uncloned21]

What's so bad about extinction again?

 

[zumajoe]

What's so bad about extinction again?

I would hate to see our national symbol (the bald eagle) become no more.

 

[rdenner]

That is such a Bullshit estimation.

Last time I checked, societies like the Audibon Society and Greenpeace make MILLION and MILLIONS of dollars a year in donations.

But they use this money to lobby Washington DC and spend it on mass mailings for more donations.

PUT THIER FUCKING MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS. If they know how best to protect endangered spicies, then buy the damn land and then take care of it however you see fit.

They could have a revenue stream from such places, by allowing eco-tourist to go into these sensitive areas.


Why does the government have to do it. Have the government sell off the land and give first shot at the purchase of ecologically sensitive areas to the outfits like Greenpeace or Duck Unlimited.

Robert

 

[uncloned21]

I would hate to see our national symbol (the bald eagle) become no more.

Pop quiz: What's the difference between bald eagles, white rhinos, and giant pandas on one hand, versus talking parrots, dairy cows, and thoroughbred horses on the other? Answer #1: All of the former are endangered species, while the latter are in plentiful supply. Answer #2: It is illegal to trade the former, while the latter are bought and sold in the open market.
This is no coincidence. When someone has well-defined and secure property rights in a reproducible resource, he has every incentive to ensure its continued existence. The government doesn't need to assess fines on ranchers who foolishly slaughter every last cow the moment beef prices rise; this would be unheard of as a farmer who ate all the seed corn.
In contrast, when the government--or "the public"--owns a resource, it's as if no one owns it.

..

 

[runderwo]

The conservation of endangered species is not necessarily achievable using the free market, especially where there is little economic value in the species in question. For example: there might be only limited profit to be made from a piece of land by maintaining it as the habitat of a rare beetle, whereas alternative economic uses for that land (which might be deleterious to the welfare of the beetle) - such as building a parking lot on it - might yield a greater profit.

And that would be why you have trust foundations with a mandate penned by whomever enacted the trust. The trust foundation that owns the land would never build a parking lot on it even if it were more profitable to do so, because it cannot legally contradict its mandate (since it's other people's money).

You have to watch out for natural monopolies though. If that rare beetle only lives in one place, and the current owner knows it, a purely market based approach breaks down because the owner can simply refuse to sell to the eager trust, for no particular rational reason. Activities external to the market placing pressure on the individual that refuses to sell can aid in this situation. But if the land must end up in the hands of a trust, I'm not sure what you can do apart from eminent domain and having a public auction

 

[murrayrothbard]

So I just read that great article about Ron Paul and the environment, so it got me to do a little more research. In this Wiki article, there are some objections to the Free Market- and the one I pasted was referring to endangered species. What do you guys think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism


The conservation of endangered species is not necessarily achievable using the free market, especially where there is little economic value in the species in question. For example: there might be only limited profit to be made from a piece of land by maintaining it as the habitat of a rare beetle, whereas alternative economic uses for that land (which might be deleterious to the welfare of the beetle) - such as building a parking lot on it - might yield a greater profit. Regardless of the broader ecological importance of the beetle, it is much more likely that the landowner will prioritize short-term profits to be gained from development, rather than a long-term benefit which may be of comparably little (perhaps even imperceptible on the surface) benefit to himself. Thus, threatened or endangered species could be lost by relying on the willingness of individual landowners to take a loss in order to protect them.

This quote illustrates a common and fundamental misconception about the nature of profit and of economic value. Value in economics is entirely subjective, and does not necessarily imply a money price on the market. Profit, properly understood, does not necessarily mean a monetary gain. In its more general sense, profit is understood to be a psychic profit, i.e. if an actor ranks the situation at the conclusion of an action as more valuable then the situation at the start of an action, he has earned a psyhic profit. ALL action is undertaken in the expectation of earning a psyhic profit, i.e. an expecation to maximize psychic revenue.

The fact that so many people seem to place value on certain animals is proof that a free market will allow then the greatest possible opportunity to pursue these values. A landowner may very well value maintaining a habitat for 'endangered' animals, versus building a parking lot. Remember, value is subjective. Just because he may be able to earn more money by developing his land further, it does NOT follow that he must take a loss if he chooses not to. It simply demonstrates that for this individual, in this situation, providing a habitat for his animals (which must be HIS, as in his property) has a higher value than any other alternative.

If someone's desire is to see all kinds of various exotic and/or endangered species flourish and be protected, they should realize that an inviolatable right to private property is the best possible means to achieve it.

 

[zumajoe]

..

so basically what your saying, is that if the government isn't controlling these things, i could technically do this:

encourage Bald Eagle reproduction, (since it won't be illegal for me to posess them) i could then create a Bald Eagle hatchery on my property and then release them into the wild?

 

[uncloned21]

so basically what your saying, is that if the government isn't controlling these things, i could technically do this:

encourage Bald Eagle reproduction, (since it won't be illegal for me to posess them) i could then create a Bald Eagle hatchery on my property and then release them into the wild?

I don't see why not. Your rights should only end where someone else's rights begin. If the government wants to do something, maybe they can get on your case for letting them poop on my car?

 

[partypooper]

The conservation of endangered species is not necessarily achievable using the free market, especially where there is little economic value in the species in question. For example: there might be only limited profit to be made from a piece of land by maintaining it as the habitat of a rare beetle, whereas alternative economic uses for that land (which might be deleterious to the welfare of the beetle) - such as building a parking lot on it - might yield a greater profit. Regardless of the broader ecological importance of the beetle, it is much more likely that the landowner will prioritize short-term profits to be gained from development, rather than a long-term benefit which may be of comparably little (perhaps even imperceptible on the surface) benefit to himself. Thus, threatened or endangered species could be lost by relying on the willingness of individual landowners to take a loss in order to protect them.

if those concerned with that particular beetle are really concerned, they will write a check to that farmer so to compensate for his economic losses and keep beetles in place. if nobody is that concerned, they why tax everybody to preserve the beetle that nobody cares about.

 

[zumajoe]

I don't see why not. Your rights should only end where someone else's rights begin. If the government wants to do something, maybe they can get on your case for letting them poop on my car?

Awesome. Thanks for your response! Sometimes its hard to understand what "free" really means and apply it to these types of situations...since i have been raised under the false pretense of "freedom." Makes perfect sense to me now.

 

[Hurricane Bruiser]

When it comes to environmental concerns, I would like to see an amendment to the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to purchase land for the protection of wildlife and natural beauty much like our national forests and parks are. The national park service is something I support.

On pollution and things of that nature, I think slowing the flow of immigration both legal and illegal will help keep our country green. property right's can deal with destructive property usage fairly well and I would leave it at that.

 

[dircha]

So I just read that great article about Ron Paul and the environment, so it got me to do a little more research. In this Wiki article, there are some objections to the Free Market- and the one I pasted was referring to endangered species. What do you guys think?

We recognize many rights - corporate rights, individual rights, animal rights - all of which set the boundaries of free action within the markets, broadly speaking.

There is not free reign within markets - in the common sense of the word - to decide, for example, my own life or death. There is not free reign within the market to, for example, decide whether to forcibly deprive me of my property, or you of yours. There is not, because free action within markets is constrained, in principle, by right and wrong.

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?

It is no more a limitation of the efficacy of free markets generally that there is not free reign within the markets to determine the bringing about of the extinction of a species, than is it a limitation that there is not free reign within the markets to determine the bringing about of the forcible end of my own life, or or the forcible deprivation of my property.

Now, it may be that we can create markets or expand freedom of action within existing markets in ways that promote right and prevent wrong more effectively than do government regulatory agencies, but it may also be that just as with matters of the protection of my own life and protection of my own property that we can not, and that in matters of protection of endangered species we can not is, again, not a failing of free markets generally.

 

[jimmyjamsslo]

Robert Kennedy Jr. says the solution is in free markets

to quote:

"The global climate crisis is the result not of an orderly free market, but of a distorted market run amok. A truly free market is the planet's best friend."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15051506/global_warming_a_real_solution

Hope that helps...

 

[murrayrothbard]

I don't get it

What's the big deal if I squash the last remaining super-cool-stink-beetle? Does the world now come to an end? If some bird comes along and eats the beetle instead of me squashing it is it any different? Both are the outcomes of a natural process. Why is it always presumed that humans are somehow not part of the ecosystem, or are extra-natural? If humans kill off some random beetle isn't that still a natural outcome?

Nothing in the universe is static. All is changing. The ecosystem is no exception. It's foolish to believe that it should be static and/or that it could ever be made to be.

But, the beauty of a truly free market is that you are perfectly free to disagree, and use your justly acquired property towards the pursuit of beetle raising. You are perfectly free to come to mutually beneficial agreements with other like-minded individuals in the pursuit of your goals. Freedom = harmony. Woot!

 

[RobotJaxxon]

A quick Google search turned these up:

http://www.worldlandtrust-us.org/

http://www.ecologyfund.com

A libertarian society will not be a cold, heartless society as long at the individuals are charitable. I kinda like the first link, I might consider a gift from that for my girlfriend (who thinks libertarians are immoral...yet she still dates me) for Christmas.

 

[zumajoe]

What's the big deal if I squash the last remaining super-cool-stink-beetle? Does the world now come to an end? If some bird comes along and eats the beetle instead of me squashing it is it any different? Both are the outcomes of a natural process. Why is it always presumed that humans are somehow not part of the ecosystem, or are extra-natural? If humans kill off some random beetle isn't that still a natural outcome?

Nothing in the universe is static. All is changing. The ecosystem is no exception. It's foolish to believe that it should be static and/or that it could ever be made to be.

But, the beauty of a truly free market is that you are perfectly free to disagree, and use your justly acquired property towards the pursuit of beetle raising. You are perfectly free to come to mutually beneficial agreements with other like-minded individuals in the pursuit of your goals. Freedom = harmony. Woot!

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.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm afraid protection of the environment is a weak spot in our candidate's platform. I also would like to hear from anyone with good ideas that would fit in with RP's.

weak spot? lol property rights is the BEST SPOT