http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/03/endangered.species.act/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Quote :

" President Obama on Tuesday overturned a last-minute Bush administration regulation that many environmentalists claim weakened the Endangered Species Act. The regulation, issued a few weeks before George W. Bush left office, made it easier for federal agencies to skip consultations with government scientists before launching projects that could affect endangered wildlife Under the Bush administration rule, there was no need for a federal agency to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Services if that agency determined that no harm would come to an endangered species as a result of its project. "

Obama is already giving into the whiny liberal hippy environmental groups. Surely some Jarheads (marines being in the department of defense) wanting to set up a new practice artillery range are fully educated enough to evaluate if the new range would cause harm to endagered species.

The free market is clearly able to take care of serious issues like endagered species as Bush intended. As a responsible citizen I could choose to visit the DMV that did not build its building on a ecological refuge' for a rare frog species.

3/4/2009 8:58:22 AM

Don't forget that "natural selection" is the ultimate implementation of free market ideals, and that subsidizing ("saving" as liberals call it) endangered species just causes market inefficiency.

Get out of the way LIBERALS and let things work -- if the species are worth keeping around they'll find a niche in a human world. Deal with it.

3/4/2009 9:11:14 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

sarcasm fail

[Edited on March 4, 2009 at 9:17 AM. Reason : .]

3/4/2009 9:12:21 AM

Quote :

"Get out of the way LIBERALS and let things work -- if the species are worth keeping around they'll find a niche in a human world. Deal with it. "

Exactly

3/4/2009 9:21:30 AM

MIGHT MAKES RIGHT

3/4/2009 9:48:54 AM

^^ ..... are you serious?

seriously, are you for real?

[Edited on March 4, 2009 at 9:49 AM. Reason : .]

3/4/2009 9:49:40 AM

^
He's got to be trolling. No one is that ignorant about biology. Are they?

This move is a great one by Obama. Fuck Bush for encouraging reckless construction. The well-being and recovery of all endangered species and damaged ecosystems are everyone's, responsibility. We didn't inherit the earth from god or our ancestors, but rather we are borrowing it from future generations. When you damage an ecosystem, you are harming me and everyone else. Like I've said before, until I and every other adult citizen can successfully sue companies and individuals for any pollution and ecosystem destruction they may cause, then ANY AND EVERY socialist-style nanny-state policy that will save and protect the environment is completely welcome by me. I am a libertarian, and will always be a libertarian. But the well-being of the environment, of all natural ecosystems, and of wildlife are infinitely more important than human liberty or safety.

I swear... If anything could threaten the existence of the libertarian party and also threaten any chance america has to return to liberty and justice, it's you polluter-defending, climate-change denying, animal-abuse-tolerating hyper-capitalist libertarian fucktards. Go ahead and start the Corporatist-Anthropocentric-Liberty Party, and leave the sensible, sustainability-minded and ecologically responsible libertarians with the Libertarian Party. We'll do much better with it.

Quote :

"Don't forget that "natural selection" is the ultimate implementation of free market ideals"

No. No, it's not. True libertarians oppose global free trade or uber-trade. Hyper-capitalists want everything to be property. Many likely miss the days of slavery. Also, it isn't "natural selection" if it happens through intentional and often criminal acts of irresponsibiliy and harm.

[Edited on March 4, 2009 at 10:26 AM. Reason : ]

3/4/2009 10:17:30 AM

I would like to point out an important distinction here. Bush did not make it legal for anyone to build what they like on their own property; he made it legal for the government to build whatever it likes on government property. What a dick. Bush again only believes in freedom for those that rule; the ruled must beg and grovel for their rights.

^ Willy Nilly, you are not a libertarian at all, for the simple fact that you cannot fathom anyone having the right to disagree with your outlook on life. If I do not believe that building a shed on my property will wipe out the local endangered bird, who are you to tell me otherwise? If you believe building a shed behind my house will wipe out a species then buy my property from me, since it is so ungodly important to you that I not build a shed then you should bear the costs of your beliefs, not me.

That, plus you are mistaking the stated intentions of a law for its actual effects. The endangered species act does not protect species, it enriches land speculators and big corporations which have the lawyers to use the law's loopholes against other potential land users which do not. I also refer you to the terms "Shoot Shovel and Shutup."

3/4/2009 10:47:52 AM

this whole "tuk errr" schtick that HUR uses is getting old

3/4/2009 11:05:19 AM

Quote :

"Willy Nilly, you are not a libertarian at all, for the simple fact that you cannot fathom anyone having the right to disagree with your outlook on life."

Why don't you go fuck yourself? Everyone has a right to disagree with anything. Anyone can believe whatever they want -- it's their inalienable right. Fuck you for saying I'm not a libertarian.

Quote :

"If I do not believe that building a shed on my property will wipe out the local endangered bird, who are you to tell me otherwise?"

Believe? You need to know. If you don't know, then you need to act on the side of LEAVING IT THE FUCK ALONE. If credible professionals can reasonably show that your construction would wipe out a species of bird, then yes, they, myself, and every other human, alive, dead, or not even conceived yet CAN TELL YOU OTHERWISE YOU FUCKING ASSFUCK!

Quote :

"If you believe building a shed behind my house will wipe out a species then buy my property from me, since it is so ungodly important to you that I not build a shed then you should bear the costs of your beliefs, not me."

Belive? What I believe doesn't matter on the surface. If, however, like I said, reasonable and credible biological and environmental professionals decide that your building the shed poses an unreasonable risk of wiping out the species, then you should be prohibited from doing it, not that much differently than the way you are prohibited from pouring gallons of paint thinner on your property. Just because you own the property doesn't mean you get to do anything you want that affects others and other things outside your property.

Quote :

"then you should bear the costs of your beliefs, not me"

It's not that it's my beliefs, it's that you'd be a criminal for harming a species. Are you trolling, or are you truly this fucking sick? If you were a true libertarian, you'd believe that harming a species is wrong, harmful, and should be illegal.

Quote :

"That, plus you are mistaking the stated intentions of a law for its actual effects."

That's not my fault. If the law isn't working right, fix it.... but like I said, the well-being of the environment, of all natural ecosystems, and of wildlife are infinitely more important than human liberty or safety.

Quote :

"Shoot Shovel and Shutup"

What's your point here? Anyone that "Shoots Shovels and Shuts-up" should face multiple life sentences with no chance of parole.

[Edited on March 4, 2009 at 11:27 AM. Reason : ]

3/4/2009 11:12:45 AM

Quote :

"What's your point here? Anyone that "Shoots Shovels and Shuts-up" should face multiple life sentences with no chance of parole. "

I believe you are missing the point, here. One of the unforseen consequences of the ESA is the incentive of landowners to say, not find an endangered species on their land - should they do so, the result is what amounts to a massive right-of-way upon their land - it essentially becomes worthless (as they can do nothing with it now). Meanwhile, landowners are not compensated in any way for this - so finding an endangered species effectively amounts to a land forfeit should it become public.

So, what is in the interest of the landowner? Make sure nobody every finds out that creature was there.

Is this right? No, of course not. The point, however, is that the effects of finding an endangered species are so adverse to the landowner with no positive to set it off that they have every incentive to cover up its existence.

3/4/2009 12:09:28 PM

^
Well, the incentive would be less if they'd face very severe prison sentences upon being caught and convicted.
And as for the land forfeit -- are you saying the land must become public?
They should still be able to own it, that is, if they want to be responsible for it and responsible with it. Or they should be able to sell to someone else who'll be responsible. Or, they could donate it and make it public land.

But if they go around and kill all of the endangered species on their land and their habitats, then they should be caught, convicted and serve, oh I don't know... how about 50 years and a $1,000 fine for each endangered animal killed, 10 years and a $50,000 fine for each of the endangered species' habitats destroyed, plus 3 life sentences for any species made extinct. That's about fair.

3/4/2009 12:22:07 PM

I agree with the Obama decision, but I do think that there is room for making environmental impact assessments more efficient. The current multi-agency mess can drag out for years and can impede important projects. I'm not just talking about a new superhighway or artillery test range but other environmental projects such as a Department of Energy solar farm experiment which brings it into a collision course with Fish and Wildlife over potential endangered species impact.

That being said, better to err on the side of caution than the side of reckless construction; projects can be resurrected later, but until we get the Jurassic Park thing down, wiping out a species irreversible.

3/4/2009 12:30:44 PM

Willy is talking theory and DrSteveChaos is talking practice.

With the current ESA, you don't lose your land, but you have to go through an obscene amount of government rigmarole to develop *anything* on it, but get no compensation to follow the super restrictive guidelines. While you still own the land, the property value plummets, you can't develop and you are not compensated in any way by Uncle Sam. This causes the disincentive to actually follow the ESA.

Punishing landowners for breaking the act may be effective, but no where near as effective as mitigating the disincentive with some sort of compensation. I think if the gov't were actually serious about protecting endangered species then they would work with landowners instead of burying them in paperwork and penalties.

3/4/2009 12:33:32 PM

Quote :

"there is room for making environmental impact assessments more efficient. The current multi-agency mess can drag out for years and can impede important projects"

I agree. We can do it.

Quote :

"That being said, better to err on the side of caution than the side of reckless construction; projects can be resurrected later, but until we get the Jurassic Park thing down, wiping out a species [is] irreversible"

Exactly.

Quote :

"wiping out a species [is] irreversible"

Wiping out a species is irreversible. irreversible.
QFT, QFT.

Quote :

"but get no compensation to follow the super restrictive guidelines"

Well, when a tornado comes along and tears someone's house apart, how are they compensated? Perhaps the same source of compensation should be used for those who suffer from having a family of endangered birds decide to live in the trees on their land. I agree that in a decent society, one shouldn't have to pay for things that happen by no fault of their own.

[Edited on March 4, 2009 at 12:51 PM. Reason : ]

3/4/2009 12:49:55 PM

Quote :

"this whole "tuk errr" schtick that HUR uses is getting old"

It was getting old a year ago.

3/4/2009 12:52:10 PM

Quote :

"Well, the incentive would be less if they'd face very severe prison sentences upon being caught and convicted."

Which assumes that this person would be found. Already the penalties are pretty stiff, and yet we still see this problem. Namely because if one is careful, it's pretty easy to cover one's tracks.

Quote :

"And as for the land forfeit -- are you saying the land must become public?"

No, I'm saying the land becomes so restricted in use as to effectively become useless. A person is essentially handcuffed in this situation - the land is nearly impossible to develop, worth next to nothing, etc. It is if they had forfeited the land entirely.

Now, say you're a person who just paid a good amount of money for some prime real estate and some endangered animal suddenly shows up on your land. What do you think the typical response is going to be? "Oh gnoes, better call the NWS?" Or, "Uh-oh, better make sure no one ever knows this was here."

Again, is this right? Absolutely not. But one has to think about what the thought process behind the impacted landowner is. Putting such a severe restriction on the land usage effectively amounts to a taking - at the very least the government can provide compensation if protecting endangered species is supposed to be of the public good.

Quote :

"They should still be able to own it, that is, if they want to be responsible for it and responsible with it. Or they should be able to sell to someone else who'll be responsible. Or, they could donate it and make it public land."

Nobody else wants it - that's the point. What was now an asset is effectively a burden.

You're missing the point, here - what we have is an incentives problem. Right now, incentives align against the interests of the endangered species found on private land. What we should want is to mitigate this as much as possible - either by subsidizing the landowner or offering to buy it off them outright.

Quote :

"But if they go around and kill all of the endangered species on their land and their habitats, then they should be caught, convicted and serve, oh I don't know... how about 50 years and a $1,000 fine for each endangered animal killed, 10 years and a $50,000 fine for each of the endangered species' habitats destroyed, plus 3 life sentences for any species made extinct. That's about fair."

Look, punishments aren't really the problem here - they're already severe. The issue with "Shoot, shovel, and shutup" is making sure nobody ever finds out that species was there. If nobody knows the animal was ever there, how in the world would you apply penalties?

The logic behind this behavior is making sure nobody ever discovers the habitat in the first place - not destroying it after it's become public knowledge. And this behavior occurs because the incentive structure is wrong - a social cost is imposed upon the landowner alone with no compensation. Thus, their logic is, prevent all discovery of the habitat to begin with.

But this is not what we want. What we should want is to encourage habitat discovery. Which means you need to change the incentive structure.

3/4/2009 1:08:19 PM

^
I agree, basically.

Quote :

"Already the penalties are pretty stiff, and yet we still see this problem. Namely because if one is careful, it's pretty easy to cover one's tracks."

Same with murder. Just sayin'

Quote :

"the very least the government can provide compensation if protecting endangered species is supposed to be of the public good"

I agree. Like I said, "in a decent society, one shouldn't have to pay for things that happen by no fault of their own."

Quote :

"Nobody else wants it - that's the point. What was now an asset is effectively a burden."

Now that's not entirely true. I get your point, but some people want a burden.

[Edited on March 4, 2009 at 1:18 PM. Reason : ]

3/4/2009 1:13:32 PM

Murder is significantly more difficult to hide. You won't see an endangered bird's family or friends file a missing persons report and launch an investigation.

3/4/2009 2:02:23 PM

Quote :

"That's not my fault. If the law isn't working right, fix it.... but like I said, the well-being of the environment, of all natural ecosystems, and of wildlife are infinitely more important than human liberty or safety."

In your opinion. You are not God, your opinion does not entitle you to imprison your fellow humans. There is no scientifically objective way to prove that saving a species is worth whatever it takes, that is an emotional response based upon your believe system. That it would make you sad does not make it criminal. So, if you want to sacrifice all of societies resources to save wildlife, then sacrifice your own. You are not poor, and there are many that believe the same as you. Get together, pool your money, and buy land. Or offer incentives to landowners that engage in wildlife friendly development. But no, you would rather spend your money lobbying Congress to imprison anyone that is unlucky enough to disagree with you.

Quote :

"Belive? What I believe doesn't matter on the surface. If, however, like I said, reasonable and credible biological and environmental professionals decide that your building the shed poses an unreasonable risk of wiping out the species"

And the land owner doesn't find your environmental professionals credible. He chooses to believe his own environmental professionals over yours. And sure enough, because he doesn't believe what you believe, you want him imprisoned for life.

Quote :

"Now that's not entirely true. I get your point, but some people want a burden."

No they don't. They, and you, clearly want others to bear the burden, but not be burdened yourself. You yourself have already stated emphatically that you want the land saved by arresting and punishing land owners, whatever it takes, but you have completely ignored my call for the burden to be born by you and your fellow followers.

I gave you the option to offer to buy it. I gave you a way out, just put your own money where your mouth is, save the species, and relieve the land owner of a burden that was no fault of their own. But no, instead you choose to call your congressman and make the landowner a criminal. Hell, using the government's money to relieve the landowner of this burden would be more libertarian than slapping the innocent with multiple life sentences.

3/4/2009 2:13:35 PM

Quote :

"In your opinion. You are not God, your opinion does not entitle you to... "

It's not my opinion that murderers should be punished... And if it is, it's a "correct opinion". Polluters and destroyers of nature are just like murderers. Every single one is guilty and should be punished.... If that's an opinion... it's a "correct opinion" in exactly the same way.... You can try to defend the warrantless destruction of nature with your weak and primitive ANTHROPOCENTRIC-libertarianism, but you will fail -- we evolved libertarians will see to it.

Quote :

"There is no scientifically objective way to prove that saving a species is worth whatever it takes"

There is no scientifically objective way to prove that me not murdering you is worth whatever it takes.

Quote :

"that is an emotional response based upon your believe system"

Mine and over half the worlds. You will fail. (Shouldn't you be clubbing baby seals or something? you fucking ape.)

Quote :

"Get together, pool your money"

Thanks for the advice, but I already do these things. (Shut up.)

Quote :

"Or offer incentives to landowners that engage in wildlife friendly development."

Well, yes. duh. Haven't I said that?

Quote :

"No they don't"

Yes, they do. Some people want the added responsibility. Why is that so hard for you to believe? You yourself said that people should buy up the land....

Quote :

"You yourself have already stated emphatically that you want the land saved by arresting and punishing land owners"

If they kill endangered species.

Quote :

"but you have completely ignored my call for the burden to be born by you and your fellow followers"

No. No I haven't.

Quote :

"But no, instead you choose to call your congressman and make the landowner a criminal."

WTF are you talking about? Are you just making stuff up? The landowner becomes a criminal when they kill endangered species or destroy their habitats. No one is "making the landowner a criminal" but themselves, if they kill endangered species or destroy their habitats.

Quote :

"Hell, using the government's money to relieve the landowner of this burden would be more libertarian than slapping the innocent with multiple life sentences"

I'VE ALREDY SAID THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED (FINANCIALLY) BY SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THEIR FAULT. I ALREADY SAID (OR AT LEAST IMPLIED,) THAT TAX-MONEY SHOULD BE USED. I'VE NEVER ONCE SUGGESTED THAT INNOCENT BE SLAPPED WITH LIFE SENTENCES. LEARN TO FUCKING READ.

[Edited on March 4, 2009 at 2:52 PM. Reason : ]

3/4/2009 2:48:21 PM

Quote :

"There is no scientifically objective way to prove that me not murdering you is worth whatever it takes."

There is. I would pay substantial amounts of effort or cash to avoid death. Can the same be said for the animals in question? Can the same be said for you on the animals behalf? If so, then this is a non-issue; there are no land owners killing endangered species, because you and your followers have used your resources to remedy the conflict. Congrats. No need for anyone anywhere to "face multiple life sentences with no chance of parole" as you put it.

Quote :

"I'VE ALREDY SAID THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED (FINANCIALLY) BY SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THEIR FAULT. I ALREADY SAID (OR AT LEAST IMPLIED,) THAT TAX-MONEY SHOULD BE USED. I'VE NEVER ONCE SUGGESTED THAT INNOCENT BE SLAPPED WITH LIFE SENTENCES. LEARN TO FUCKING READ."

Yes, my fault for not reading your mind. Nevertheless, an animal is not a person in my book and therefore does not have a right to life. Therefore, a person that kills an endangered animal is still an innocent. And you want him to "face multiple life sentences with no chance of parole."

Quote :

"WTF are you talking about? Are you just making stuff up? The landowner becomes a criminal when they kill endangered species or destroy their habitats. No one is "making the landowner a criminal" but themselves, if they kill endangered species or destroy their habitats."

And the runaway slave made himself a criminal by running away? You need to identify your position for making assertions. Whatever is law should not be assumed correct. You said you were a libertarian, which means personal liberty and non-aggression among individuals. 'Individuals' does not include animals, only humans, as such killing an animal is not aggression. You seem to accept this, therefore your argument appears to be not that animals are persons with a right to life, which would mean setting the cows free, but that the world is otherwise a better place if the rule of non-agression is given an exception to allow violence against individuals that threaten no one, but certain animals on their property you have labeled endangered.

You wish to allow aggression against non-aggressors. That is not a libertarian ideal. Hence my assertions.

3/4/2009 4:14:39 PM

Quote :

"a person that kills an endangered animal is still an innocent"

Incorrect. Nothing you say will change that. Also, my view is 100% compatible with libertarianism. You seem to be one of those pipe-dreaming libertarians that forgets that we humans live in a closed natural system. I don't really care if I convince you or not, but you and your ilk will fail.

Quote :

"You said you were a libertarian, which means personal liberty and non-aggression among individuals or their property, or their liberty or their right to the same. 'Individuals' does not include animals, only humans, as such killing an animal is not aggression."

Animals aren't individuals, but the libertarian principle includes animals. It includes everything. Everything is connected through nature, so when you indiscriminately kill animals or plants in an unsustainable or unrepairable way or indiscriminately destroy habitats in an unsustainable or unrepairable way, you are harming others. You are harming their person, because we are all living things in a closed natural system. You are harming their property, because all wild areas, all "commons" so to speak, are basically owned by everyone. We all live on Earth and unowned land is still our collective responsibility. If you poison some lake in the middle of nowhere, you are harming everyone's property -- that lake belongs to everyone. You are hurting their liberty. We are animals and we evolved in nature. Our connection to nature is the source of our health, our well-being, and our sanity. When animals go extinct by our actions or habitats permanently destroyed by our actions, you are stealing the liberty of future generations to live in nature as we all evolved to. As is supposed to be. If you want to move to mars and set-up your anthropocentric hyper-capitalist libertarian bullshit, go ahead. But this Earth is all of ours. And all of us will use force if we have to in order to protect what is all of ours. Libertarianism will prevail -- and not the bullshit you're preaching.

Quote :

"You wish to allow aggression against non-aggressors. That is not a libertarian ideal. Hence my assertions"

They aren't non-aggressors. I am more of a libertarian than you. Furthermore, people like me will inherit the world, while people like you will fail.

[Edited on March 4, 2009 at 4:46 PM. Reason : ]

3/4/2009 4:40:41 PM

Quote :

"Furthermore, people like me will inherit the world, while people like you will fail."

I don't know what you think you are saying here. But it sounds like you and your collectivist wican followers are threatening to hunt us down and kill us all for the crime of disagreeing with you.

Quote :

"You seem to be one of those pipe-dreaming libertarians that forgets that we humans live in a closed natural system."

And therefore what? Imagine this is a court of law, and you must show damages. What damage does me killing an endagered animal cause? It deprives you of gazing upon the creature later? It is not your animal, it is on my property. If you insist that you own the animals on my property then that would make animals no longer property, and you would inflict your harsh punishments upon those that kill cows for depriving you of that cow.

Quote :

"You are harming their person, because we are all living things in a closed natural system. You are harming their property, because all wild areas, all "commons" so to speak, are basically owned by everyone."

Libertarian philosophy does not leave room for commons. It is an idiology respecting the rights of individuals, everything else is property, whether our current government recognizes it as such or not. We are not talking about a commons; we are talking about landed property and the right to build a shed which some egg-head somewhere says might endanger an endangered species.

Quote :

" We all live on Earth and unowned land is still our collective responsibility. If you poison some lake in the middle of nowhere, you are harming everyone's property -- that lake belongs to everyone."

There, exactly. The landowners around the lake can show damages in this example. As such, poisoning my property inflicts upon my right to use my property as I see fit, it was an aggression. Me building a shed on my property does no such thing to my neighbors or anyone else. No person can claim to have been harmed by the shed because the animals on my property are not your property nor anyone elses.

Just to figure out more about you, let us accept for a moment that all animals are collectively owned and cannot be harmed in any way by anyone lest they rightly be imprisoned for multiple life sentences. What happens when you try to come onto my property (land) to look upon your property (animals)? Are you not trespassing? Similarly, is not your property (the animals) trespassing too?

3/4/2009 6:01:19 PM

Quote :

"Just to figure out more about you, let us accept for a moment that all animals are collectively owned and cannot be harmed in any way by anyone lest they rightly be imprisoned for multiple life sentences. What happens when you try to come onto my property (land) to look upon your property (animals)? Are you not trespassing? Similarly, is not your property (the animals) trespassing too?"

i don't get it

3/4/2009 6:55:34 PM

WillyNilly, apparently this topic has really got your panties all in a wad.

I agree with DrSteveChaos that if the govt. really wanted to protect the animals then they should compensate land owners when endangered species are found. Until then, "Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up" is going to be standard practice.

I don't think it is such a great loss to human society if a few animals become extinct. Hell most animals that ever lived are now extinct. The only animals that are really worth saving are the animals that taste good, like cows, fishes, pigs, snow crabs etc.

Quote :

"it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.[2][3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct

3/4/2009 9:22:44 PM

I agree with Hoffmaster above about the gov't needing to compensate land owners if they are that adament about some random rare slug species or nearly extinct flower.

The shoot, shovel, shut up shit is retarted though.

3/5/2009 8:33:13 AM

Quote :

"he only animals that are really worth saving are the animals that taste good, like cows, fishes, pigs, snow crabs etc."

And if those did go extinct people would just develop a taste for some other, non-extinct animal.

3/5/2009 8:40:26 AM

^
Are you joking? Are all of you fucking crazy? What the god damn fuck is wrong with you people?

Quote :

"WillyNilly, apparently this topic has really got your panties all in a wad."

Not really. It's more that certain big 'L' Libertarians like LoneSnark don't understand the current evolution that's happening to libertarianism, and I'm not the best person to explain it.

It's moving from being:
-hyper-capitalist: (everything is property -- if it weren't illegal, some hyper-capitalists would still want human property),
-anthropocentric: (humans are above other animals in every way -- we are separated from nature... better than nature... like we somehow can exist outside of nature),
-and corporatist: (corporations are individuals and have the same rights.)

...to being:
-reasonable-capitalist: (not everything should be property.... certainly not people, and perhaps not ideas... perhaps not certain animals.)
-anthropoperipheral: (Humans may be more important, but all life on Earth is connected and must be valued and protected. Non-human animals are not mere objects like stones. Humans aren't the center of the universe.)
-and singular-individual: (People are individuals, not corporations. Corporations, or "juristic persons" should not be entitled to protection under the 14th amendment. As is it now and has been for over 100 years, juristic persons are entitled, but it was never upheld by the supreme court, and many believe that it will eventually be heard and ruled otherwise. Right now it's merely an obiter dictum statement -- which isn't an actually ruling.)

Quote :

"I agree with DrSteveChaos that if the govt. really wanted to protect the animals then they should compensate land owners when endangered species are found"

Yes. I, too, agree with that. (As I've already said.)

Quote :

"I don't think it is such a great loss to human society if a few animals become extinct. Hell most animals that ever lived are now extinct. The only animals that are really worth saving are the animals that taste good, like cows, fishes, pigs, snow crabs etc"

Do yourself a favor, and never ever repeat this blatantly ignorant trash. Such complete cluelessness has no place in human society, except perhaps writing fiction or performing stand-up comedy. And as for "99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct"...
Holy. Fucking. Carlface. You are clearly an idiot.
That statistic, in no way, suggests that the human-caused dramatic increase in species extinction is justified, natural, or harmless. The fact that you interpreted it that way only speaks to your extreme ignorance. Your view is so disgustingly wrong, I'm almost speachless. My jaw literally dropped. I really hope you don't actully think that crap.

Quote :

"I don't know what you think you are saying here. But it sounds like you and your collectivist wican followers are threatening to hunt us down and kill us all for the crime of disagreeing with you."

First, I'm atheist, not polytheist.. but thanks for the stereotype!
Second, no "hunting down and killing" will be needed. The courts should take of it all. I'm on the side of liberty, justice, order, and nature.
Third, it's not about me. It's not simply disagreeing with me. It's an entire movement -- and I'm certainly not its best spokesman.

Quote :

" What damage does me killing an endagered animal cause?"

Wow. Just, wow. You go ahead with your "It's perfectly ok to kill endangered animals" political position. Good luck with that. (If you can't answer your own question here, I truly feel sorry for you.)

Quote :

"It is not your animal, it is on my property. If you insist that you own the animals on my property then that would make animals no longer property, and you would inflict your harsh punishments upon those that kill cows for depriving you of that cow"

What? "you insist that you own the animals on my property..." What? Please re-phrase your question. I think I see what you're asking, but I'm not sure. First of all, a domesticated cow is not equal to all other animals, the exact same say humans are not equal to all other animals. Second, are you confusing "my owning" with "everyone owning"?

Quote :

"Libertarian philosophy does not leave room for commons"

Hold on to your hat.

Quote :

"It is an idiology respecting the rights of individuals, everything else is property, whether our current government recognizes it as such or not"

No. Currently it respects individual rights for actual individuals as well as individual rights for corporations, or "juristic persons" -- and those are not individual rights. And everything else isn't property, it just that you hyper-capitalists seem to think so. Keep in mind that slave-owners are hyper-capitalists. (I'm not saying you condone slavery, I'm just pointing out that we can't just regard everything as private property.)

Quote :

"We are not talking about a commons; we are talking about landed property and the right to build a shed which some egg-head somewhere says might endanger an endangered species."

The endangered species is the commons, as is the air and water that pass through the land. If your land is the endangered species' habitat, it wins. That species has been living there or around there (animals don't recognize property boundaries,) for longer than you've been there. It was there "first". (This is where you attempt to portray me as some PETA nut...)

Quote :

"There, exactly. The landowners around the lake can show damages in this example. As such, poisoning my property inflicts upon my right to use my property as I see fit, it was an aggression."

No. I said the lake was in the middle of nowhere, as in, none of the land around it is owned. No land anywhere near it is owned. BUT IT IS A FUCKING LAKE. WITH BIRDS AND ANIMALS THAT DRINK THE WATER. THE WATER FLOWS AND EVAPORATES AND RAINS DOWN. THE WIND BLOWS. ANIMALS AND BUGS SPREAD THE POISON. PLUS THE ANIMALS AND PLANTS THEMSELVES ARE HARMED. WHEN YOU HARM ANY OF THESE THINGS, YOU ARE HARMING EVERYONE. This should be clear to you. The fact that you still "hide" behind "early" libertarianism is sad.

Quote :

"Me building a shed on my property does no such thing to my neighbors or anyone else. No person can claim to have been harmed by the shed because the animals on my property are not your property nor anyone elses."

Wrong. The wild animals are everyone's property. You would be harming everyone.

Quote :

"Just to figure out more about you, let us accept for a moment that all animals are collectively owned and cannot be harmed in any way by anyone lest they rightly be imprisoned for multiple life sentences. What happens when you try to come onto my property (land) to look upon your property (animals)? Are you not trespassing? Similarly, is not your property (the animals) trespassing too?"

Um... yeah. You're gonna have to re-phrase this one too. Perhaps explaining what you're asking would help...

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 9:07 AM. Reason : ]

3/5/2009 9:02:31 AM

I fail to see what is so difficult to understand about people developing a taste for something if that is what they are accustomed to eating. Grow up eating cows, you probably have a taste for cows as an adult. Never eaten a cow in your life, probably won't like eating cows once you get around to trying one.

I mean someone must like silkworm pupas, otherwise they wouldn't be selling them.

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 9:08 AM. Reason : -]

3/5/2009 9:06:24 AM

^
That's not the point. (For example, I eat bugs. Seriously.)
The point is how you just imagined the extinction of many large animals, and regarded the loss as mainly being one of humans' losing menu choices. That is fucking ignorant. Animals do not exist merely so we can enjoy their taste.

Quote :

"Never eaten a cow in your life, probably won't like eating cows once you get around to trying one"

lol... Don't be so sure message_topic.aspx?topic=551380

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 9:14 AM. Reason : ]

3/5/2009 9:12:37 AM

I wasn't making commentary on the loss of a species or the purpose of the existence animals. I was simply saying if cows went extinct people would simply move on to the next best thing. It's human nature and it isn't going to change any time soon.

3/5/2009 9:44:09 AM

I have learned never to argue out of anger and there is so much stupid coming from the OP and his ilk that their implications are beyond the pale. It boggles the mind to think that people this self-centered and myopic could possibly plague this planet but alas that is likely to be the summation of human endeavor.

3/5/2009 9:55:50 AM

^
"self-centered and myopic" sounds about right:
LoneSnark:

Quote :

"What damage does me killing an endagered animal cause?"

3/5/2009 10:05:05 AM

Which brings us back to where we started. It has been a long road, but it was bound to happen. Based upon what you are saying, you believe in the primacy of collective ownership of property and that animals have an inate right to life. The first makes you part communist the second makes you part animal liberation. These are all fine views to hold.

But my question is, why are you so eager to proclaim these views are part of libertarianism? While I suspect you wish they were, they never have been before, so why not just join another existing movement? The Green party holds very similar views, far more similar than the views held by the last libertarian candidates for President and Governor of NC. So, what is wrong with the green party in your mind? I guess you don't entertain the care for social justice that the green party does, so why not hyphenate yourself like the anarcho-capitalists? You could be a green-libertarian!
http://www.bigissueground.com/politics/blair-greenlibertarian.shtml

As for corporations, I do not like your views here. While it is true that current corporate law is horribly wrong, it is not for the reasons you state. Even in current law, a corporation is not a person, it does not pay personal income taxes, it does not face conscription, it cannot get married. It is an abstraction of the collective rights of its owners over their property, a product of the right to contract. The only anomaly is the government granting a right to corporation owners that no one else has ever had, limited liability. And that was bought and paid for by them agreeing to pay corporate taxes. In effect, it was cheap and unlimited liability insurance being sold by the government. Otherwise you couldn't justify the double taxation being levied upon corporation owners. Just as a corporation is property, it is no different than if the government granted my leaky dam unlimited liability protection, so it could flood the valley and me, the owner, could only be sued for the value of the dam. It does not make my dam special, it damn sure does not make it a person, all it does is prove the government insane.

3/5/2009 10:21:25 AM

Quote :

"you believe in the primacy of collective ownership of property and that [all] animals [always] have an inate right to life."

No. and No. That's jumping to conclusions.

Quote :

"But my question is, why are you so eager to proclaim these views are part of libertarianism"

Eager? It fits perfectly, that why... The "unenlightened" opinions of animals and nature held by traditional libertarians will, in the opinions of many, eventually doom them. I don't really think anyone or anything can stop this evolution of libertarianism from happening. It's like the move from slavery to non-slavery. (Well it's different, but the significance and impact would be similar.)

Quote :

"While I suspect you wish they were, they never have been before, so why not just join another existing movement?"

No. They already are. They have always been, just not fully recognized. It isn't a different movement, but rather the inevitable evolution of the already existing libertarian movement.

Quote :

"The Green party holds very similar views,."

lol... not really. They are about as different as can be. They may agree on opinions of certain values, but their methods and principles are horrible. They're basically socialists. They're authoritarian, they support all kinds of government bullshit like affirmative action, welfare, etc. They don't even come close to respecting individual liberty. Total crap. (Sometimes, however, a green candidate makes more sense than a democratic one...)

Quote :

"anarcho-capitalists? .... green-libertarian"

I'm aware of those guys -- not too bad, not quite right....
I think some of them are mostly ephemeral notions in the evolution of libertarianism. Others are too loyal to one principle or another, if you know what I mean, I'm not opposed to them. If they win offices, that's very likely better than the democratic or republican choice... After all, I'll vote for any libertarian as a step in the right direction (even if it steps too far...)

Quote :

"current corporate law is horribly wrong....the government insane"

I'm glad we can agree here.... It may or may not be Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, but corporations are way too powerful, and the government is the one "allowing" it.

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 10:59 AM. Reason : ]

3/5/2009 10:56:03 AM

Get back to the shed example. You and your brain trust declare that me building a shed on my property would endanger an endangered species.

Now, the fact that no libertarian party lists your criminalization of shed construction in any of their planks or even policy proposals does not phase you? Libertarians, such as myself, argue that such a law would be immoral, but more importantly would be unnecessary as free people will use their resources to take care of whatever they cherish.

So, all I really want out of this is your acceptance that while you hope for the exising libertarian party to change to match your beliefs, you do recognize that most libertarian candidates will disagree with you on the criminalization of shed construction?

3/5/2009 11:43:51 AM

Quote :

"You and your brain trust declare that me building a shed on my property would endanger an endangered species."

Me and my brain trust? First off, that's wrong. I have nothing to do with it -- it's your proposed shed. And "brain trust"? WTF? Who is it that says you can't dump paint thinner in your backyard? How can they prove that will harm anything? (It's called science. And yes, I'm aware of the implications of trusting scientists.) For a mere shed to endanger an endangered species, the land on which you wish to build the shed must literally be one of the species' last habitats. If your shed destroys the habitat, that harms the animal and could result in its death.

Quote :

"Now, the fact that no libertarian party lists your criminalization of shed construction in any of their planks or even policy proposals does not phase you?"

Are you trying to be cute, or do you really not get it? The shed construction isn't criminalized. The endangered species habitat destruction and subsequent harm, death or even extinction of the species is criminalized.

Quote :

"Libertarians, such as myself, argue that ... a law [criminalizing shed construction] would be immoral"

I agree. That's not what I'm saying though.

Quote :

"free people will use their resources to take care of whatever they cherish"

...to the degree that they can. But irresponsible acts by some that harm everyone by harming the environment or ecosystems are crimes, and the prosecution of mass-polluters, over-hunters, etc. will take care of what everyone should cherish, whether or not they do. (and don't get all "that's religion" on me. We are animals on a planet, not infinitely powerful god-creations with a blank check. Respect for nature is completely libertarian, because we are all a part of nature.)

Quote :

"So, all I really want out of this is your acceptance that while you hope for the exising libertarian party to change to match your beliefs, you do recognize that most libertarian candidates will disagree with you on the criminalization of shed construction?"

Well, I agree that shed construction shouldn't be criminalized, so I don't think most libertarian candidates will disagree with me in the first place. So no, I don't accept that.

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 1:12 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2009 1:08:04 PM

semantics much?

Fine, use your own words. Do you recognize that most libertarian candidates from today's libertarian party would disagree with this sentence: "The endangered species habitat destruction and subsequent harm, death or even extinction of the species [should be] criminalized."

I have met several. Would like to call Mike Munger a friend. And I seriously doubt any of them would agree with this sentence.

3/5/2009 1:43:19 PM

^
Yes. I recognize that. "Hold on to your hat" may have been a bit much...
I've met Mike, but never talked in depth with him.... Nice guy. Good taste in beer.

Quote :

"semantics much?"

Not really. There's a clear distinction.

3/5/2009 1:52:33 PM

^, ^^ you guys need to lay off the quote bombing. Your making the thread damned near unreadable for the few people who still give half a shit about this thread. One or two quotes per post is a gods-plenty.

Quote :

"Do yourself a favor, and never ever repeat this blatantly ignorant trash. Such complete cluelessness has no place in human society, except perhaps writing fiction or performing stand-up comedy. And as for "99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct"... Holy. Fucking. Carlface. You are clearly an idiot. That statistic, in no way, suggests that the human-caused dramatic increase in species extinction is justified, natural, or harmless. The fact that you interpreted it that way only speaks to your extreme ignorance. Your view is so disgustingly wrong, I'm almost speachless. My jaw literally dropped. I really hope you don't actully think that crap."

I was not implying that man has killed off 99.9% of all species that ever existed. I was attempting to point out the fact that animals species in general are fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Besides, the most diverse animal and plant life is near the equator parked in a third world country. They probably burn endangered trees to cook endangered species for breakfast.

Also, someone mentioned earlier the fact that we selectively decimate certain species for human gain and to make money! i.e. Smallpox and Polio. Some have even suggested irradicating several species of mosquitoes to prevent the spread of many diseases. What is your opinion on this? Do you agree that a polio virus has just as much rights to survive as a Red Headed Woodpecker. Or do you believe that all animals are not created equal and some are worth more than others?

3/6/2009 1:02:04 AM

Quote :

"I was not implying that man has killed off 99.9% of all species that ever existed. "

I wasn't saying you were. I was saying that you were implying that simply because 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are extinct means that species extinction is always ok. All that statistic really shows is that life on Earth has been evolving for a DAMN long time, and that life is really evolved. It doesn't suggest, "Oh, well, nearly everything goes extinct sometime anyway, so anything we humans do to increase the rate of extinction, say, by multiplying it by many times, won't harm a thing -- it's perfectly natural." ...And that's basically what you're saying, isn't it? Well, the fact is, species should not be going extinct at any higher a rate than had been the case prior to when human actions began to increase it.

Quote :

"I was attempting to point out the fact that animals species in general are fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things."

Well, first, it's not just animals, but yes, all species of life on Earth are insignificant in the grand scheme of things -- just as insignificant as the particular animal species known as Homo sapiens. We may go extinct as well. This "grand scheme" is billions of years, you know... We live in the present, and that's where we can act. What is significant, however, are those extinctions that are caused by humans. These are not acceptable.

Quote :

"Besides, the most diverse animal and plant life is near the equator parked in a third world country. They probably burn endangered trees to cook endangered species for breakfast."

What's your point? If they're doing it sustainably, it's ok. If not, then it's wrong.

Quote :

"Also, someone mentioned earlier the fact that we selectively decimate certain species for human gain and to make money! i.e. Smallpox and Polio. Some have even suggested irradicating several species of mosquitoes to prevent the spread of many diseases. What is your opinion on this?"

I'm opposed to eradicating several species of mosquitoes. That isn't necessary. If people are too busy making babies that they can't manage to screen and board themselves in from disease-carrying bugs, then maybe they should get infected and die. Plus, wasn't it human terraforming that resulted in the boom in mosquito populations in the first place?....

Quote :

"Do you agree that a polio virus has just as much rights to survive as a Red Headed Woodpecker."

Viruses? Are they even alive? I could be wrong, but I'm not sure the eradication of many viruses would be bad. But to answer your question, no.

Quote :

"Or do you believe that all animals are not created equal and some are worth more than others?"

Yes. It is important to remember that life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life. This is necessary. Inevitably of course, decisions will have to be made where one population of living things suffers, and another thrives -- everyday eating, for instance. Fortunately, all life can reasonably be put in a hierarchy. (Humans on top... somewhere down a bit there'd be dogs, horses, chimps, etc.... somewhere in the middle there'd be birds and fish... then ants, roaches, bacteria and so forth. Of course, there'd clearly be some debate, as endangered species get bumped up on the list...) The death and killing that's part of nature is ok, because it's in a balance -- it's sustainable. The problem is that too many humans are acting as though there are no limits... as though they have a "blank check". This is not sustainable and is wrong. It harms everyone.

Quote :

"lay off the quote bombing"

ooops..

[Edited on March 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM. Reason : ]

3/6/2009 10:03:43 AM